If you look at (some) religious/spiritual people, you'll see that the essence of their spiritual convictions is not in the words or the particular rituals they perform.
What do you "see" in these people which leads you to conclude that the "essence of their spiritual convictions" is not external? Do you know?
----
water said:
§outh§tar,
One-way induction (the usual scientific approach) is based on working with reductionisms. Reductionisms as such are never acceptable; arguing for or against reductionisms is ultimately nothing but arguing strawmen. Hence I reject this method of reasoning.
As you remembered a while back, I argued that every axiom (and hence all logic) is self serving.
So I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by maintaining that reductionistms are never acceptable.
Daabi.
And this is probably the hardest point for me to bring across.
To address preconceptions, another set of preconceptions has to be used. But if this other set is such that it effectively annulls the first set, then we can get to being rid of preconceptions!
We are still stuck with the new set of preconceptions. But for your case, what would these be? That there must be no preconceptions?
Who is to say? Who is to judge?
Are you ,or anyone else on this planet, aware of a person raised outside of human company who became religious of their own accord?
I think aside from arguments from ignorance (which I cannot stand), the silence is enough to compel the jury.
No, and that is the thing. There is no linear logic, no derivation necessary to find God exists and acts. No "If A, then B".
All that is needed is insight. Insight has the form "If A then B, and simultaneously if B, then A".
The drawback is that insight cannot be planned, of course. But it is no less reasonable.
Again, are you aware of any creature raised outside of human society who, with insight, discovered that "God exists and acts"?
You seem to be insisting that man discovers God for himself over my society discovers God for man. All I need to do is point to the absence of God outside of human society and the variableness of God within different cultures, environments. It is interesting that you should find your own descriptions of what is and is not reasonable. The question is, how has insight (as you have described it) helped anyone find out about God?
You could never relate to Mowgli anyway.
He was happy without God and man. That's something to strive for.
So, what does this say about scientists who claim that there is no evidence for God?
They have reviewed all the major arguments for the existence of God (the verifiable ones) and found them to be without merit. Such as Biblical tales of miracles and also miracles which happen in the hospital and in nature. (I use 'miracles' loosely). Scientists find no ties between these happenings and the claims made in connection to them, such as 'my Christian God made this happen'. Claimants are also unable to justify their claims.
Maybe they can say 'my God was responsible' and leave it at that cop-out. But they say, 'my Jesus was responsible'. And I see this and I know in my heart that they only say this because of circumstance, because they happen to be Christians, and not because they know Jesus was responsible. And I see too that the feral child does not bleet in unison with them.
Yes, it tends to turn into banality. "Suspending thoughts" does not mean "to force yourself to stop thinking", even though many times, this is exacty how it is practiced.
Buddha smiles.
More like "pause" thinking individually. In this context, we may more accurately describe it to mean "stop thinking for yourself and partake rather in groupthink". Not like 'you' were thinking for yourself beforehand anyway.
I'm dreadfully depressing.
------
If it can be shown that feral children do not react to all other beings the same way, ie. that they shun ones but are attracted to others, then this is, for me, enough proof that they can distinguish between good and evil.
How can it be shown? Any examples? This ought to be good.
The only problem I see here is that our "modern" society has mystified esp. evil, and thus laden the concept with all sorts of connotations, which are nothing but hot air.
A rabid dog is evil for you, it is dangerous for you, it can harm you. In the same sense, the person pointing a gun at your head is evil. One should shun evil is the basic lesson.
But since the word "evil" has been so mystified, it is almost useless.
I am not sure of any point in time during which society has not mystified evil or murkied it to be the sum of all fears. Fears are useless to the one who fears.
