Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Personal experience as a basis for god belief
- Thread starter Myles
- Start date
You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out.
You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out
.
Not true. I'm making a value judgement about a person who wishes , for purposes best knownto himself, to manoeuvre me into what will becom an infinite regress. Want a little help ?
Who set the syllabus ? X
What were his qualifications to do so ? H was a qualified Y
How do you know a qualified Y is suitable to perform such a task ?
He was an accepted authority
But what about those who might not accept his authority ?
They would be regarded as ignoramt
By whom ?
By those who have an expert knowledge of such things.
So, an expert cannot make a mistake ?
Of course he can. But his work is subject to peer review
But can his peers not be in error ?
And so on ad nauseaum.
Wht cannot he tell me whether he thinks it imopossible to teach children to think for themselves, as his line of argument suggests. and save us both a lot of time. From that point on I shall need to make no assumptions/value judgements about that person because I will know where he stands on the issue. So far he has said nothing constructive.
Last edited:
You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out.
If someone refuses to declare his position one can only make value judgments, assumptions if you will , based on views previously expressed or the questions he poses. Doubtless you know a better way. But we are not all blessed with your insight.
"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?
Hi,
It appears I have been making unwarranted assumptions about you, so can we make a fresh start ?
I believe it is possible to bring children up to think critically according to their ability at any given age.There are courses in critical thinking for 16-year olds, so I do not see why wecannot teach younger children according to a syllabus, as in any other subject. In my experience, youngsters are full of curiosity, so w would not have to try very hard to arouse their interest. A typical child'ds question could be thrown open for discussion in class, with a teacher acting as moderator. No definite conclusions need be reached but that is a reflection of what happens in the adult world. The children would develop the habit of questioning and thinking about things.
Now, can I ask you to give me your considered opinion on the matter.
You do not believe it possible or appropriate
You agree , broadly or otherwise with my suggestion
You have a counter-proposal to make
You have no interest in discussing the matter
You have a point of view which I have not covered above/
Do please give me your considered response
Not true. I'm making a value judgement about a person who wishes , for purposes best knownto himself, to manoeuvre me into what will becom an infinite regress. Want a little help ?
Who set the syllabus ? X
What were his qualifications to do so ? H was a qualified Y
How do you know a qualified Y is suitable to perform such a task ?
He was an accepted authority
But what about those who might not accept his authority ?
They would be regarded as ignoramt
By whom ?
By those who have an expert knowledge of such things.
So, an expert cannot make a mistake ?
Of course he can. But his work is subject to peer review
But can his peers not be in error ?
And so on ad nauseaum.
No, not ad nauseaum, but only so far that you, too, would see the problems inherent to issues of knowledge and evidence.
Because for the time being, you speak like an idealistic 19th century rationalist scientist, blissfully unaware of the findings of 20th and 21st cognitive science and philosophy.
But differences like these are too much to work out within the limitations of this medium.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
If someone refuses to declare his position one can only make value judgments, assumptions if you will , based on views previously expressed or the questions he poses. Doubtless you know a better way. But we are not all blessed with your insight.
Sarcasm noted.
I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.
Last edited:
i see nothing incorrect with someone believing or speculating in the possibility of a creator/s, ghosts, ad nauseum. But anything beyond that such as finite character assignations or specific powers or rituals assigned which in turn and in essence the one who is believing is actually "creating" or "making" up their god. It goes beyond speculation or honest openness about a possible creator's true nature or purpose etc. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's understood for what it is, they could be off by a bit or by a longshot, they could be limited in understanding, as a concept can become real in the context as it serves it's believers purpose or it's needs.
No different than creating santa claus, putting him in a red suit, assigning him elves, reindeer, sled and a certain mission you believe he should accomplish
No different than creating santa claus, putting him in a red suit, assigning him elves, reindeer, sled and a certain mission you believe he should accomplish
Last edited:
i see nothing incorrect with someone believing or speculating in the possibility of a creator/s, ghosts, ad nauseum. But anything beyond that such as finite character assignations or specific powers or rituals assigned which in turn and in essence the one who is believing is actually "creating" or "making" up their god. It goes beyond speculation or honest openness about a possible creator's true nature or purpose etc.
That is so only if we apriori exclude the possibility that someone could be God's chosen person.
That is so only if we apriori exclude the possibility that someone could be God's chosen person.
irrevelant. everyone could be God's chosen person.
As a matter of fact, everyone who has had a spiritual insight, epiphany, inspiration, idea, invention is also if there is a creator a chosen person.
doctors, mathemeticians, physicists, spiritualists, and every known form of knowledge sprung forth is also a "god's" chosen person. And still, even amongst these the most humblest can have insight and something to add that others overlooked or do not understand.
if a god created them, then god is a part of them or an extension.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I really do understand your positions on and definitions of belief and knowledge.I have said on a previous occasion that KNOWLEDGE is always on a firmer foundation than BELIEF is. Can I put it this way: I have no knowledge of whether I am free or determined.No KNOWLEDGE. It follws that I do not agree with H.
Interesting that you should offer a quotation from Hamlet He was the decision maker par excellence! Did he believe he was both free and determined ? That could explain his dithering
My take on Hamlet was that he felt there were two options: to stand outside, to be transcendant and not be sullied by the physical and emotional world; or to participate and be just like everyone else, which some case could be made had to do with sinking into the hard causal chains of our passions. What ate him up was that not participating allows horrible injustice.
When Generation X was a popular term it was noted how many young people had an ironic relationship with pretty much everything. Which always struck me as a means of feeling free when they did not feel free and also to feel superior to the 60s generation who they felt sympathy for, but also saw as silly and, yes, somehow sullied by their earnestness. I think this was similar to Hamlet's attempt to find freedom in irony. To have a transcendant position that neither agrees nor disagrees. Unfortunately no one can hold such a position - it is in a sense an extreme skepticism that is implied rather than asserted.
For Hamlet there was nothing ironic about his father's death and this sucked him towards participation and taking a stand that was not ironic which horrified him.
None of this was my point in using that quote from Hamlet, but I think it is interesting in this discussion, nonetheless.
We deal with other people not as the official position they have in their heads: 'this is what I believe ____________' 1) that official position may or may not have much effect on the way they live, the implicit beliefs of their choices. I hear some guy with great passion and identifying himself as a feminist and talking about the plight of women and how they must be treated as equals and then see him slap his girlfriend. Of course, I can raise the issue of his beliefs, even if I believe he meant what he said. I do not take people as monads when it comes to belief. I certainly do not assume that their official positions are what they really believe in any way that matters. I also find that people can think they believe one thing and find later in life they actually all along believed something else. Or to put it another way, they wanted to be sure, but other parts of them or in other ways they actually believed something else. They wanted to have that official position but they did not.
Can we now draw a line under this,
If you want to stop communicating with me Myles, you can stop any time. I will not assume you felt out argued. Trust me. I think I have a better sense of you. Up until now the impression I get is you believe you could not possibly learn something from me. Given that, I would have very little basis for thinking anything else but that you got fed up.
.If you choose to believe that I hold two mutually exclusive beliefs, so be it
Yes, I do think that. That is the Myles that I will be in contact with, the one with both beliefs.
I think it is interesting that you prefer to live as if there is free will - which yes I would call evidence of a belief.
You have a degree of belief in determinism.
And you think randomness highly unlikelyand incompatible with both free will and determinism.
Three options, even if logic tell you there can only be two.
You have no knowledge of any of these - though recognize, I assume, evidence of determinism.
The above structure is actually not so different from mine.
I certainly prefer to live my life as if there is free will. I am comfortable going one step further and saying I believe in it.
I recognize that I also believe in determinism but to a much lesser degree.
I do not believe in randomness, but it bothers me that such a strong case can be made for this being the only alternative to determinism.
Nevertheless I do not assume that the universe is either determined or random.
My free will does not feel like either. (And I am not assuming this is in any way a proof or evidence.)
When I read your posts in relation to theists I notice you cycle between expressing your bile at thiests to being simply condescending, I wanted to push to look at your own belief system and perhaps from that position you might have more sympathy with theists. You both have a belief that perhaps cannot and certainly has not been verified which you nevertheless choose to live your life from.
To me it matters, even with say Christian fundamentalists, how they live their lives. I am angry at them if they voted for Bush. But I am no more angry at them than I am at some neo-con fatcat who also voted for Bush. If they hate gays and spread anti-gay propaganda. If they advocate policies where women are secondary to men or treat their wives like shit. And so on.
Actions speak louder than words for me.
Maybe we are all gods creating reality or maybe not. It's a limited term with our own understanding unless i think of it in terms of infinity.
Maybe there are many gods and types of gods and many other universes that could be very different including the lifeforms.
Either way, the concept of a god does not resonate with me. Their is an internal universe within everyone and it's different for everyone. It's the creativity and differences that resonate more regarding the truth to me. Pure energy and simple as that.
I see creativity as being infinite and with that limitless possibilities so therefore god/life/energy/creativity or whatever you want to call it and it's outcome cannot be boxed up in any way.
Maybe there are many gods and types of gods and many other universes that could be very different including the lifeforms.
Either way, the concept of a god does not resonate with me. Their is an internal universe within everyone and it's different for everyone. It's the creativity and differences that resonate more regarding the truth to me. Pure energy and simple as that.
I see creativity as being infinite and with that limitless possibilities so therefore god/life/energy/creativity or whatever you want to call it and it's outcome cannot be boxed up in any way.
*************Maybe we are all gods creating reality or maybe not. It's a limited term within our own makeup and understanding.
Maybe there are many gods and types of gods and many other universes or not.
Either way, the concept of a god does not resonate with me. Their is an internal universe within everyone and it's different for everyone.
I see creativity as being infinite and with that limitless possibilities so therefore god/life/energy/creativity or whatever you want to call it and it's outcome cannot be boxed up in any way.
M*W: I'd much rather believe that we are all god/gods than to designate one sole entity with that title. That's just not possible. Who plants the fields? Who builds the skyscrapers? Who walks on the moon? We did. Not god.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:
"Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods." ~ John Burroughs
i think the mistake with regarding the concept of a god tied with religion is it's limiting. the ones who believe may mistake thier concept as being universal or will apply to everyone when it really is coming from a personal point of view whether they realize it or not.
i think what they think is 'god' is different or can be different for anyone. i think everything is as much a creation, even the concept of gods or actual gods, therefore i do not believe any entity is a god in that sense.
Pure energy may not be created, it just may be and to me a closer realization to what the general concept of god is.
i think what they think is 'god' is different or can be different for anyone. i think everything is as much a creation, even the concept of gods or actual gods, therefore i do not believe any entity is a god in that sense.
Pure energy may not be created, it just may be and to me a closer realization to what the general concept of god is.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
*************
M*W: I'd much rather believe that we are all god/gods than to designate one sole entity with that title. That's just not possible. Who plants the fields? Who builds the skyscrapers? Who walks on the moon? We did. Not god.
*************
I knew you were a closet pantheist.
irrevelant. everyone could be God's chosen person.
That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's.
Have you ever considered that Calvinism might be true?
Heh, i also think there is more than one type of energy so therefore life that we could not or would not be compatible with or even understand, possibly other worlds.
I think we experience part of it here with the dark and the light. They do in my expereince seem quite separate to me no matter how intertwined, like oil and water. Interesting...
i also think this has something to do with the rudimentary longing or concept of heaven and hell and the wish to separate and have final true peace..
but this is my view of course.
I think we experience part of it here with the dark and the light. They do in my expereince seem quite separate to me no matter how intertwined, like oil and water. Interesting...
i also think this has something to do with the rudimentary longing or concept of heaven and hell and the wish to separate and have final true peace..
but this is my view of course.
That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's.
Have you ever considered that Calvinism might be true?
of course, it's all everyone's opinion. It's not true to me. Also, i could even question your concept of god as well and so forth...
No, not ad nauseaum, but only so far that you, too, would see the problems inherent to issues of knowledge and evidence.
Because for the time being, you speak like an idealistic 19th century rationalist scientist, blissfully unaware of the findings of 20th and 21st cognitive science and philosophy.
But differences like these are too much to work out within the limitations of this medium.
I am an idelalist in the sense that I hope and believe things will improve for humanity. It simply means I am not a pessimist.
If you are suggesting I am an idealist in the sense that Descartes was, you are totally wrong. I am an empiricist.
I am "blissfully" aware of the work and writings of Patricia Churchland and Susan Greenfield., among others. I was introduced to Susan when I attended her Reith Lectures some years ago.
I am not up to speed with the latest arguments in philosophy because I came to the conclusion some time ago that neuroscience was more likely to come up with some better answers. I still hold that view.
What were you saying about making assumptions ?
So may I repeat my question: Do you believe it possible to teach children to think for themselves ? I am nor asking for a correspondence course . A simple yes ,no or don't know will suffice. I have expressed an opinion. What is yours ?
i think the mistake with regarding the concept of a god tied with religion is it's limiting. the ones who believe may mistake thier concept as being universal or will apply to everyone when it really is coming from a personal point of view whether they realize it or not.
i think what they think is 'god' is different or can be different for anyone. i think everything is as much a creation, even the concept of gods or actual gods, therefore i do not believe any entity is a god in that sense.
Pure energy may not be created, it just may be and to me a closer realization to what the general concept of god is
.
What a refreshing contrast your views make compared with those who would have us believe they have a hotline to some god or other. Your point about others regarding their personal concepts as being universal is right on target,
How many times have we been told about THE ONE TRUE GOD by people who dismiss the views of others who also certain that their ONE TRUE GOD is better than anyone elses. It's all a bit childish. " My daddy has a bigger car than your daddy " sort of stuff
Sarcasm noted.
I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.
If you wish to know whether Greenberg believes in God, try asking him. But be prepared to tell him what sort of God you are talking about , why you belief your definition is correct and so on.
Something tells me you already know what he believes , from posts I have seen on other threads.
One thing I do know about Greenberg; He ( assumption ) is perfectly capable of speaking up for himself. So let him do so. If you have an opinion on the topic, by all means express it. But don't waste your time or mine asking what I think he thinks, or even what I think you think I think he thinks.