OK; I certainly don't disagree with that, but bringing things back to the OP, I am guessing/hoping that those theists who support "faking it till you make it" were really trying to describe the process I laid out. The specific details you point out to be missing would likely differ based on the specific religion, or more to the point, the specific definition of God, that you are seeking.
Theists suggest: Experiment, fake it till you make it - Really??
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
OK; I certainly don't disagree with that, but bringing things back to the OP, I am guessing/hoping that those theists who support "faking it till you make it" were really trying to describe the process I laid out. The specific details you point out to be missing would likely differ based on the specific religion, or more to the point, the specific definition of God, that you are seeking.
I'll put it this way:
There is no point in talking to someone about God unless one believes that that person is an adequate/good/competent source of knowledge about God.
If one talks to someone about God, then the very fact of talking to them about God implies that that person indeed is (considered by the listener to be) an adequate/good/competent source of knowledge about God.
This can be a very unfortunate situation, as the outsider/beginner might get stuck with the wrong person and unable to get out.
The above reasoning is based on the premise that the beginner/outsider is absolutely ignorant and incompetent about God, and as such, is fully at the mercy of anyone who claims to know the truth about God.
I cannot think of another premise that one could operate from in theistic discussion.
A position like "Everyone already knows something about God and has some competence to know God" is readily dismissed by all theistic traditions that I know of.
Signal
In this context, point out where someone has advised someone else to
fake belief.
Not necessarily.
This was the point of my response to you.
It has nothing to do with religion, or theism.
What Jaylew is suggesting, is not religion, or God, but a materialistic solution
to a problem.
If someone accepts "fake it" as good solid religious advice, then they themselves are in no better a position than the one giving the advice.
Then we're talking about something completely different, where someone uses religion to get what they want. This is already rampant, but again has nothing to do with God and His prescripted Religion.
It's time to forget about theistic traditions, they have no effect, and the leaders are atheist, in that they don't believe in God.
You know if someone believes in God by how they act, speak, eat, sleep, and so on.
jan.
In this context, point out where someone has advised someone else to
fake belief.
Not necessarily.
This was the point of my response to you.
It has nothing to do with religion, or theism.
What Jaylew is suggesting, is not religion, or God, but a materialistic solution
to a problem.
If someone accepts "fake it" as good solid religious advice, then they themselves are in no better a position than the one giving the advice.
Then we're talking about something completely different, where someone uses religion to get what they want. This is already rampant, but again has nothing to do with God and His prescripted Religion.
It's time to forget about theistic traditions, they have no effect, and the leaders are atheist, in that they don't believe in God.
You know if someone believes in God by how they act, speak, eat, sleep, and so on.
jan.
one is external the other internal..
i understand your concept but this also applies..
..including on the helping end of things..volunteers and such.
yet no one listens to the old man..
IOW the young don't always do as they were told..(Nox)
this isn't a given..i suppose it is the majority, but not all, that do not believe what they are teaching..
in the real world this translates to licenses/credentials/certificates/books..
the average believer has none of these..
also this involves a judgment call from the listener to choose whether to listen to him or not..
and..we as individuals should not put our faith in any ONE man..
that doesn't mean we can't listen to him, but understand why we make the choices we do..if its cause one man told us to,its under suspect..if its cause it is the best thing to do..(info from more than one source).
one mans view of what is best for us, does not account for what he does not see..
or an alternative source of info..
um..that second part IS theistic tradition..
you are confusing god with religion. of course, someone that has been schooled in a particular religion can explain what that religion's take on god is better than one that isn't.
as for the qualification to know anything about god is a greater context. heck, a child's honesty or love can be construed as something of god by some. a homeless person could have an insight about god ad infinitum.
I myself was advised to "fake it till you make it" and I have witnessed other people be advised that too.
I do not know of any authoritative sources who would state it directly that way, but some do seem to more or less suggest it between the lines.
For all practical intents and purposes, a person 1. cannot practice religion all on one's own, separate from all theists; 2. has little or no contact with religious authorities, and is instead left to associate with and subject themselves to whoever came earlier or has more power in the community.
What other option is there?
I didn't want to accept it, and pointed out the problems with it, for which I was scorned.
Moreover, I was also not given any advice or insight as to how to arrive at (more) faith either (in fact, some told me I was a hopeless case).
In my experience there are only these options:
1. One already has sufficient faith and other religious abilities, so one doesn't depend on the religious community to develop faith and abilities.
2. One fakes it till one makes it.
3. One leaves and gives up, since there is no hope to develop faith and abilities in the religious community, nor on one's own.
Then how do you propose to resolve the dilemma of the outsider/beginner:
"I, as an outsider/beginner, have no intelligence to discern proper theistic conduct from an improper one. Therefore, anything could be theistic conduct." -?
How do you know what is "God's prescribed religion" and what is not?
When a theist accuses you of being wrong/demonic, do you believe it or not? And if you don't, on the grounds of what?
But this is the core of the problem: How do you know you are making the right judgment call?
Given that we are not omniscient, on the grounds of what may we reject someone's claims?
question everything and everyone..knowledge is in the common denominators.
But that you somehow don't question, despite your motto "question everything and everyone"?
Sounds like contractual obligations given by tobacco manufacturers, chemical companies, oil companies and pharmaceuticals companies to scientists in their employ.
If it's good for science, why not religion?
i'd like to retract this statement, for the record.
i was intelligent enough to know that going in.
no, i meant humility.
imo and experience, humility and sincerity are actually REQUIRED to know god, and that knowledge is the beginning.
You just love truisms, huh?
I am tempted to call you a sophist.
well if it's a truism then why are you trying so hard to argue with me? because you love arbitrary speculation?
you realize that makes no sense right?
it's also a sin.
it just seems strange to envy something you think is dumb.
what certainty are you referring to exactly? is it my belief in god, or an acknowledgement of my own feelings/situation?
in one sense, i do have an aversion to certainty, because i think it shuts a door to further learning and consideration. but on the other hand, if i'm not certain of what i've experienced, then who is, and what's the point of it?
And yet it is envy that pushes people on the path of improvement of one kind or another.
I have to add I envy you only sometimes, not 24/7.
The way you seem to have no epistemological problems, or the way you gloss over them with truisms.
Sometimes, I wish I could talk and be like a politican ...
I mean, it must be great to do as if one is on top of the world and everything is clear to one ...
Well, maybe you have some epistemological problems after all ...
Imagine - if you quit drinkin' and druggin' - you'd be like me!
And yet it is envy that pushes people on the path of improvement of one kind or another.
I have to add I envy you only sometimes, not 24/7.
The way you seem to have no epistemological problems, or the way you gloss over them with truisms.
Sometimes, I wish I could talk and be like a politican ...
I mean, it must be great to do as if one is on top of the world and everything is clear to one ...
Well, maybe you have some epistemological problems after all ...
Imagine - if you quit drinkin' and druggin' - you'd be like me!
we all have different paths signal. once, when i was all strung out going through some tough stuff, one of my managers used to tell me "trust the process". and theoretically, i know that's good advice.
and PS...are you trying to be funny about the politician?