Why isn’t God more obvious?

[HARRY]

Cris,
I thought for a moment I may have borded you with my argument's so thank's for relpying.

Ok you have read all the Bible I assume, and the so called appocriphal books of the Old and New Testament.
By reading the Bible and having understood all the terminology and having read famous commentaries on why and what historical, philosophical, theological, social, value the Bible stories teach then I would say you know where I'm coming from.

If on the other had you have read the Bible like I read the Bible for the first time
without research, yes it sounds just like you said fairtales.
I would strongly suggest to anyone that the Bible is not just a book you read and understand like you would Cinderella. I was told by a theologian that reading the Bible on it's own is not a good idea. Many event's and discription's in the Bible are still not understood and so little detail about Christs childhood and teaching undocumented.
I have no right to speak about any other reglion in detail because I havn't gone to the lengths proffessional historians etc have, judgeing something I don't fully understand.

I understand you fustration with all the choas caused by the different sects and this is one of the reasons I don't expect you to believe without some sort of reassurance. I consider myself very luck that I met some good people that help me see things more clearly.
Basicaly I've been trying to encourage you to a least read with a more open mind work's that have been encouraging and enlightening people for so many century's now.

Pythagorus found a why to indicate at least to himself that math in used in nature. Looking at the ramdomness of nature one would think that math had nothing to do with nature.
I still look for ways to proof God to support the experience of God I have had. I have both perspective's at hand so that I'm not blinded by any religious fanaticism. So the difference between us is that I have had an experience and you havn't. So naturaly I am more optimistic and can you blame me for that? I look at the universe and say to myself how is it possible? I want to know how can so many thing's be built from cluster's of energy.

You don't need Proof to believe in Matter we see it and touch it. What we do need proof in is what mind or proccess provided all this.
Seeking an answer through science is one way, and it seem to be getting more and more closer to the answer. But like Egypt with all it's wonders and acheivements can we be so sure that we are here for one and only reason, that is to prove the existience of God via a microscope. Should we be debating God at all? We should in fact be only debating the validity of all the mean's we use to learn and survive (bad religion is no exception).

Yes the belief in the afterlife may have hindered hopes. But who more than the Egyptian's did more to presserve their bodies to travel more safetly to the other side.
Looking today at their painstaking effort's, consider the possibility that in a thousand year modern man's efforts will also be looked at behind glass and wondered at. History is not just a fairtalye, history is repeating itself and I would suggest to anyone to be sober in the interpritation of history. History is the door to the future. Without the past there isn't a present.

It is fasinating don't you thing that we need state of the art computing and science to understand what you could call just a peice of meat on our shoulder's. Dosn't the thought ever occur in your mind why the hell do we need so advanced technology to understand something that grew out of nothing.
Technology looking staight into the eye of technology, wouldn't you say that is a bit odd.

Yes it is nice to think and more that just nice it's the only way any of us has hope to get out of bed in the morning. Thinking is the mean's by which we uncover mystery's. Thinking about the Pyramid of Eygpt is more inspirinng than thinking about AI because I have inteligence already and the desire to make it myself is not as inspiring as working out a way to build great monument with the least amount of tool's. The pyramid is the fruit of acheiveing something out of nothing. That is inteligence. Creating something with something is not quite the same.

I like to play around with basic geometry, thinking back what Pythagorus may have done to unravel so many mystery's. Paper and pencil are the tool's of an inteligent being's. Creating robot's to think for us is great but who will be more inteligent in the end? I hope it wont be the robot.
Point of argument here is, thought was able to convice Socrates of the existance of an unknown God. This same thought should be in everyone's mind as the point of reference and just simply scientific experimentation.

I understand that you want to be as fruitful as possible by useing the scientific method that's fine. I only suggest that when you scientificaly prove 1+1=2 you ask youself why? There is an answer but where is the reason. Can someone tell me why clusters of energy (matter) decided to collect themselves into multi-sized basket ball's. Does nature play sport? You can give me a million causes and effect's but why basket ball's. The universe is full of these floating perfectly formed shape's not to mention what amazing shape exist in the microscopic world.

Quote" the good scientist" uses imagination and what if he has poor imagination? Isn't his work hampered.
I would suggest to anyone to build up their powers of imagination (within reason) and do what I thrive on that is self initiated serendipity. (anyone interestest in a few pointers please feel free to ask)

Why do you dishoner the inteligence bacteria have aquired to support or destroy life. They are our worst enemy, can you deny how clever they are? If we were so clever we would have eradicated them ages ago. Don't underestimate nature man is just like bacteria killing or supporting life.

Nature is the most inteligent thing anything or anyone could or has ever imagined. I have no idea how you can be so dis-inspired by nature. You are it's fruit, kick the habit it's getting you nowhere.
Even computing is seeking from nature method's for more powerful processing, snap out of what ever it is that is blinding you of the obvious. To this day nature is our teacher and not man it's teacher.

The comment's I havn't commented on I feel will not be of much use at this stage. Maybe when your opinion of history is a bit more optimistic. I not a historian to say anything of value anyway.

Listen I really appretiate your patient endurance and realy hope we can make something more of this coversation. I lived in England, Surrey for 5 year's so if you lived in Guildford or Working I may have bumped into you. Like I said I have a few idea's I would like to develope and it may interest you in some way's.

Have a nice day old chap.

 

[JustARide]

Well yes, to some of us, Derrida is the personification of a dullness that could make the paint peel off the walls. Sorry. Of course he does. But if he only wouldn't be so damn verbose!

Well, not "of course." In some circles, the mention of the name "Derrida" can split a crowd faster than saying "President Bush." And the half that doesn't like him doesn't merely dislike his ideas; they think he's a complete and utter fraud.

Ah, but to each his own!

Actually, in a recent interview, Derrida said his dream is to finally write something "simple"... so there may yet be hope.

Does your understanding of a text depend on knowing the author?

My understanding? No. Belief? Yes.

If I am to believe a text as fantastic as the Bible, yes, it is important to me whether or not it was written by an honest seeker of truth or some jackass in his basement.

Does it matter to you whether or not the Old Testament was written by a band of religious terrorists?

Not necessarily. A simple Chinese farmer, by religious denomination a Buddhist, may be stuck on stage 3 or 4 his whole life.
But on the whole, I agree with you -- ever heard of Buddhist fundamentalists? I haven't.

Of course all religions have their problems. And, as much of the Asian world proves, Buddhism and Taoism have not created vastly superior societies.

But this desire to shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally must comes from within to be effective. One won't shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally just by reading your post, and thinking that it might be a good idea.
Those who feel that they ought to shake the walls of their fortresses are already doing it.

I wouldn't expect someone to read my comment as a simple piece of advice. I was simply reflecting on SouthStar's change of direction and willingness to explore another avenue of thought, no matter how "dangerous" or depressing it might seem.

The problem I have with agnosticism is that it is inconsistent: If one is to be a consequent agnostic, one shouldn't even be sure that things can be. A consequent agnostic cannot really have faith in what is. To a consequent agnostic, everything should be a haze.

Not true. A faith in what is is not dependent on labeling the what is. As they say, even Satan believes in God, but that doesn't make him a Christian.

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean by "consequent." It sounds more like you're referring to the difference between what's called "strong" and "weak" agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes the truth (or God) is permanently unknowable. A weak agnostic believes the truth might be knowable eventually or by other means. An agnostic need not live in a haze; he must simply be open to the possibility that he is wrong. For instance, would it cause you great distress to think that you could be wrong when it comes to your taste in art? Would that make all artdom a giant haze for you?

I see agnosticism as the most humble of faiths, the most realistic (considering the limits of the human brain and intellect), and the most peaceful.

After all, are there any regions in the world right now where militant agnostics are murdering each other over their different interpretations? Any annoying, self-righteous agnostics knock on your door with a pamphlet lately? Have agnostics burned anyone at the stake for their unwillingness to be wishy-washy?

But the fact is, that we are alive, we strive to survive -- and in this strive we act on our values and preferences, whether we are consciously aware of them or not. We have those values and preferences, they exist -- so we cannot agnostically say, "I cannot know whether they are or not."
A new term is needed instead of agnosticism.

But an agnostic need not be an across-the-board agnostic. Saying "I know murder and rape are wrong" is quite different from saying "I know God is a big, angry, patriarchal dictator in the sky who hates it when people masturbate or use his name in vain."

Yes, if a strong agnostic wants to say that truth is unknowable, then he must say he cannot be certain whether his values or preferences are correct or, in fact, make any sense at all. But, even though I do not call myself a strong agnostic, I believe that mode of life is superior (and infinitely more peaceful) than one which is too certain. The most spiritually sure among us have often been the ones who seek to control, to terrorize others into accepting their worldview, to do anything to advance the cause of which they harbor no doubt.

Doubt keeps us honest. Doubt pulls us back from the threshold. It reminds us of our fallibility. It must always be the counterbalance to our ideologies, whatever they may be. And though agnosticism does pose the danger of falling into solipsism on occasion, it is by far preferable to a life of unexamined certainty.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Sure I did and it doesn’t make any more sense after the repeat.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. Perhaps you haven't thought about it enough.

What identity?

My thoughts are obviously different than your thoughts, in one way or another. Therefore, there is identity between your thoughts and my own. This is simply one example of identity within the universe.

For example?

I gave an example later in my last post; that the universe may be infinitely old.

Why not? Please give a basis for your assertion.

The basis for my assertion is that there is identity between existing things in the universe. In fact, that there are even "things" in the universe shows that it cannot be Actually Infinite, since there would be no "things" nor identity among them within an actual infinite.

That is an impossible paradox. Something that is infinitely old means that it has no beginning, i.e. it was not created.

Actually, it isn't an impossible paradox. Even by calling it a paradox you assert that it isn't impossible, since a paradox is something that only seems contradictory. However, even were it not paradoxical it would still be possible. You make the false leap between thinking that because something is created, it has a beginning. If God is eternal, then there would be no "starting" point, no "moment of creation." With the infinite, past, present and future are meaningless, and all is at once. Which is actually another proof against the infinity of the universe, since if it were infinite, then there would be no distinction between the past, present and future.

Baseless assertion.

Baseless only in your eyes.

 

[water]

My understanding? No. Belief? Yes.

If I am to believe a text as fantastic as the Bible, yes, it is important to me whether or not it was written by an honest seeker of truth or some jackass in his basement.

Interesting. I'll exemplify my thoughts with a love letter: If the love letter is written by someone you know and love, you will believe it and be happy about it. If a love letter that was meant for someone else from someone else comes into your hands, you will not take it personally and you won't be happy about it.
Thus, the writer and the reader must know eachother and know eachother's feelings, or the letter won't be appreciated. Whereby the relationship between them has to be established already *before* the first letter is written and read.

This is tricky when it comes to the Bible: one has to know that one already has a relationship with God *before* one reads the Bible. In the Bible, one can *recognize* God as the author who wrote that text (well, not literally) for you, so that you feel addressed. Hm. It seems that it is all up to you and God, and not up to the Bible then.

Does it matter to you whether or not the Old Testament was written by a band of religious terrorists?

And if it were?

Of course all religions have their problems. And, as much of the Asian world proves, Buddhism and Taoism have not created vastly superior societies.

How come; what do you think why they haven't created vastly superior societies?

Not true. A faith in what is is not dependent on labeling the what is. As they say, even Satan believes in God, but that doesn't make him a Christian.

Can we have faith in, say, apples, if we never label them as "apples"?

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean by "consequent." It sounds more like you're referring to the difference between what's called "strong" and "weak" agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes the truth (or God) is permanently unknowable. A weak agnostic believes the truth might be knowable eventually or by other means. An agnostic need not live in a haze; he must simply be open to the possibility that he is wrong.

This wasn't what I had in mind.

For instance, would it cause you great distress to think that you could be wrong when it comes to your taste in art? Would that make all artdom a giant haze for you?

How do you mean, "wrong"? "Wrong" by whose criteria? Like, if I one day should "find out" that Klimt's "Portrait of Gertha Felsövanyi" is not a "great" piece and that I was "wrong" in adoring it?! That is just utterly silly to me.

After all, are there any regions in the world right now where militant agnostics are murdering each other over their different interpretations? Any annoying, self-righteous agnostics knock on your door with a pamphlet lately? Have agnostics burned anyone at the stake for their unwillingness to be wishy-washy?

No, but I know some who make very lame arguments against theism.

But an agnostic need not be an across-the-board agnostic. Saying "I know murder and rape are wrong" is quite different from saying "I know God is a big, angry, patriarchal dictator in the sky who hates it when people masturbate or use his name in vain."

Actually, you don't *know* anything, you only *believe*.

Yes, if a strong agnostic wants to say that truth is unknowable, then he must say he cannot be certain whether his values or preferences are correct or, in fact, make any sense at all.

But if you do that, then you cannot organize a human society with executable laws. You cannot write "we cannot be certain whether our values or preferences are correct or, in fact, make any sense at all" into a constitution and then hope to have a viable and peaceful society.

Doubt keeps us honest.

So if you doubt that your lover loves you, then you are being honest?


Instead of saying that my position is that of doubt, I say that my position is that of trying to not take anything for granted. I think this makes one honest, and not doubt.

 

[JustARide]

Interesting. I'll exemplify my thoughts with a love letter: If the love letter is written by someone you know and love, you will believe it and be happy about it. If a love letter that was meant for someone else from someone else comes into your hands, you will not take it personally and you won't be happy about it.

Well, if I were an exceedingly nice person, I might be happy for the one for whom the letter was intended. All the same, this hypothetical throws one more wrench into the proceedings, namely love. And that emotion -- no matter what medium it uses -- can easily make fools of us all.

Whether or not to believe a document, say, proves that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger is another matter altogether. And religious texts, however nice they may be, are not tantamount to love letters. (Unless of course, we're talking about a lover who writes you strange cryptic messages and then tacks on to the end: "PS - You will suffer eternally in Hell if you don't believe what I tell you. That's just how much I love you.")

Thus, the writer and the reader must know eachother and know eachother's feelings, or the letter won't be appreciated. Whereby the relationship between them has to be established already *before* the first letter is written and read.

Depends on the text. I don't need to know shit about the guy who wrote my car stereo instruction booklet.

This is tricky when it comes to the Bible: one has to know that one already has a relationship with God *before* one reads the Bible. In the Bible, one can *recognize* God as the author who wrote that text (well, not literally) for you, so that you feel addressed. Hm. It seems that it is all up to you and God, and not up to the Bible then.

Ah, but that is, of course, entirely a subjective relationship and therefore no one definitive interpretation of what was meant is possible. Your "relationship" with God is hardly the same as your relationship with a lover or friend (unless, once again, that friend or lover delights in being completely obscure). Why not just go all the way and claim to talk to the dead authors of other great works? "I have a personal relationship with Shakespeare..." etc. Seems just as plausible to me.

And if it were?

You're telling me the identity and motivation of the author mean nothing now? Not a few paragraphs ago you said that it was vital to first realize the relationship between the writer and the audience. Now, unless you're some brand of hardcore Christian, I believe the general consensus holds that the Bible was not written directly by God but through intermediaries, correct? Would it not be prudent to know who the "middle men" were in this instance?

My apologies for returning to the same example, but many of the statements made by Osama bin Laden today are indistinguishable from statements made in the Bible and by other religious scholars. If he wrote these down and made it clear in his writing that his statements really came from God, should that matter to a potential reader? Or should the reader's "relationship with God" be the sole determiner of the documents truthfulness or validity?

*I believe in God and have a relationship with him.
*Source X says God spoke through him.
*Therefore, I believe Source X.

You know it isn't this simple. You don't, after all, believe everything everyone writes about God. But why then do you privilege the Bible? Why give it the benefit of the doubt and not others? Because it says what you want to hear about God? That hardly proves anything, except your tastes.

How come; what do you think why they haven't created vastly superior societies?

Because they are subject to the same flaws as every human on the planet.

Can we have faith in, say, apples, if we never label them as "apples"?

Yes. It is quite possible to have an intuitive faith in something that one cannot quite label or define. Why do religious scholars and poets and musicians continue to strive to define what it is they believe? Language is always imperfect. It is a manmade enterprise, incapable of ever capturing the entire essence of something. It merely points us in directions (sometimes more specific directions, sometimes not).

How do you mean, "wrong"? "Wrong" by whose criteria? Like, if I one day should "find out" that Klimt's "Portrait of Gertha Felsövanyi" is not a "great" piece and that I was "wrong" in adoring it?! That is just utterly silly to me.

Say you discovered that there were some objective criteria for judging art. You placed the Mona Lisa above The Persistance of Memory. But you were wrong. The Mona Lisa is inferior by this new objective standard. Would that matter to you? Probably not.

Religion is just that for me. It is telling people which lifestyles are best, which art to consume, what words to say, where to go, how to worship, what to believe. It takes areas that are ruled by completely subjective rules and submits them to godly inquiry. Go read Plugged In Online or any Christian music/movie review site. They don't rank things by their artistry; they rank by them by how well they conform to a worldview.

Actually, you don't *know* anything, you only *believe*.

Precisely.

But if you do that, then you cannot organize a human society with executable laws. You cannot write "we cannot be certain whether our values or preferences are correct or, in fact, make any sense at all" into a constitution and then hope to have a viable and peaceful society.

Exactly. Which is why I said one must adopt at least a "placeholder" faith, there to allow society to exist. My faith that the sun will rise tomorrow exists only because I have observed it over and over again -- not because it actually has to rise every day. Perhaps one day we'll spin completely out of orbit. Who knows?

So if you doubt that your lover loves you, then you are being honest?

Not necessarily. But if you believe your love is the purest thing on earth, you are probably lying to yourself.

Instead of saying that my position is that of doubt, I say that my position is that of trying to not take anything for granted. I think this makes one honest, and not doubt.

In our current bodies (with their built in limitations), I find it impossible to stake out a position on something as confusing and bewildering as the idea of God and claim certainty. That I find utterly silly.

 

[MarcAC]

Boy, I'm late. But I agree with what the Magic Rose said waaaayy back in the past (of this thread). Something like this: If God were to reveal himself to us our free will would be erased. God revealing himself to us would mean we have no choice but to live according to his will. I liken it to knowing the Sun is there and then living as if the Sun weren't there. In fact you can't, obviously. God revealing himself to us in all certainty (as certain as the Sun is in the sky) will be no less forceful than that.

Thus to preserve our free will so that we can choose to follow his way and become truly good creatures, God does/will/can-not reveal himself.

 

[Cris]

MarAC,

If God were to reveal himself to us our free will would be erased.

Total nonsense. We would simply know for certain – we’d still have free will to do as we please. If we then disobeyed such a god knowing for certain the alleged consequences then we would simply be stupid but free will would still be entirely intact.

God revealing himself to us would mean we have no choice but to live according to his will.

A non sequitur. We’d simply be stupid.

I liken it to knowing the Sun is there and then living as if the Sun weren't there. In fact you can't, obviously. God revealing himself to us in all certainty (as certain as the Sun is in the sky) will be no less forceful than that.

Again more nonsense – people are sun burned every day – they are simply stupid. Knowing something for sure doesn’t stop you ignoring it if you so choose.

Thus to preserve our free will so that we can choose to follow his way and become truly good creatures, God does/will/can-not reveal himself.

Your argument fails miserably just as it did when Rosa presented it. In fact isn’t the reverse entirely more rational – it is only if he fully reveals himself that people have all the appropriate information to truly choose him or not.

The most obvious and reasonable conclusion we can draw from his apparent silence is that God simply does not exist.

Cris

 

[MarcAC]

Total nonsense. We would simply know for certain – we’d still have free will to do as we please.

You missed the point totally, Cris. You, in fact validated my point with the following statement:

"Again more nonsense – people are sun burned every day – they are simply stupid. Knowing something for sure doesn’t stop you ignoring it if you so choose."

It is not the fact that you know you're sunburned and ignore the fact: it is the phenomenon of being/becoming sunburned that you/r body cannot 'ignore'. If God were to reveal himself to us in all certainty, that is how forceful the revelation would be.

Your argument fails miserably just as it did when Rosa presented it. In fact isn’t the reverse entirely more rational – it is only if he fully reveals himself that people have all the appropriate information to truly choose him or not.

"Appropriate info..."? What's that? Scientists don't need to be all knowing about the whole universe to formulate a law of universal gravitation do they? The universe itself seems to function with a certain level of uncertainty. It is my opinion that the situation is now at what you thought (re:above) was the extreme. The situation as it exists now is this: God is 'sunburning' and the 'stupid' people are 'ignoring'. Your words... that should make for efficient communication.

 

[water]

If God were to reveal himself to us our free will would be erased.

Total nonsense. We would simply know for certain – we’d still have free will to do as we please. If we then disobeyed such a god knowing for certain the alleged consequences then we would simply be stupid but free will would still be entirely intact.

The same as it is stupid not going to the dentist if you notice that you have a cavity in your tooth. Sure, you are *free* to not go to the dentist, but bear the consequences of the tooth-ache!

But what I do not understand is why act on one's free will in a manner that will result in harming oneself?

Or is it that some act in this self-harming manner because this is the only way they feel that they have free will?

Actually, psychologically, this makes sense -- as a twisted coping mechanism, a way to overcome a cognitive dissonance.

I simply find it stupid to not avoid harm when you know that it will certainly come.

***

Your argument fails miserably just as it did when Rosa presented it. In fact isn’t the reverse entirely more rational – it is only if he fully reveals himself that people have all the appropriate information to truly choose him or not.

Which would mean that those refusing to accept him, would be consciously going for the "toothache". Now why would one do that?!

The most obvious and reasonable conclusion we can draw from his apparent silence is that God simply does not exist.

1. Judging by the content and manner in which you express your distaste, the God that does not exist -- or better: the God that you wish that wouldn't exist -- is the God of revenge.

The basic pattern of your thinking is "I want to be free to do as I will, and I don't want to bear the consequences of my actions if those consequences be negative". Of course, this, spelled out in words, looks awful, so you propped it up with the proverbial "I am taking responsibility for all my actions", which is actually inconsistent with the previous statement. So we have us a nice cognitive dissonance here, and one way to relieve this dissonance is by having a distaste for God, as otherwise, you would have to accept the position "I want to be free to do as I will, but I hate that I don't have full control over my actions" -- as this would render you helpless and unhappy. And you don't want to feel helpless and unhappy.


2. Why can't you just say that you hate (the idea of) God? Why are you rationalizing and giving us tons of "reasons"? Because you are secretly afraid of God and his judgement?

You little God fearing creature you!



***

And that emotion -- no matter what medium it uses -- can easily make fools of us all.

What?! *Make* fools of us all?! Love can't make you any more of a fool than you already are. If anything, if you "become" a fool "because" of love's influence, this only means that you weren't a wise man to begin with.
By which I am not saying that wise men don't "falll into the trap of love". If one is wise, one is wise at all times, in love too; and if one is a fool, one is a fool in love too.

Depends on the text. I don't need to know shit about the guy who wrote my car stereo instruction booklet.

An interesting choosiness comes to mind. Has to do something with feasibility.

Ah, but that is, of course, entirely a subjective relationship and therefore no one definitive interpretation of what was meant is possible. Your "relationship" with God is hardly the same as your relationship with a lover or friend (unless, once again, that friend or lover delights in being completely obscure). Why not just go all the way and claim to talk to the dead authors of other great works? "I have a personal relationship with Shakespeare..." etc. Seems just as plausible to me.

You are implying that God is dead or very distant.

You're telling me the identity and motivation of the author mean nothing now?

No, I am just exploring the field. I am being skeptical for the sake of the argument.

Not a few paragraphs ago you said that it was vital to first realize the relationship between the writer and the audience. Now, unless you're some brand of hardcore Christian, I believe the general consensus holds that the Bible was not written directly by God but through intermediaries, correct? Would it not be prudent to know who the "middle men" were in this instance?

I am not a Christian. I am just exploring arguments.

A:I believe in God and have a relationship with him.
B: Source X says God spoke through him.
---------------------------------
C: Therefore, I believe Source X.


You know it isn't this simple.

Of course it isn't! In fact, the argument you have presented above (I added the letters and the line) is most faulty, it is a non sequitur. C would follow if we could validly infer that
I1: People are telling the truth when they say that God spoke to them.

We cannot make this inference.

You don't, after all, believe everything everyone writes about God. But why then do you privilege the Bible? Why give it the benefit of the doubt and not others? Because it says what you want to hear about God? That hardly proves anything, except your tastes.

I am not giving the Bible any privileges. We might just as well be talking about the Quran.
The issue here is: Are religious texts plausible witnesses of God's word?

“ How come; what do you think why they haven't created vastly superior societies? ”
Because they are subject to the same flaws as every human on the planet.

I think it is because those Eastern religions understand human rationality different that Judaeo-Christian religions.

“ Can we have faith in, say, apples, if we never label them as "apples"? ”
Yes. It is quite possible to have an intuitive faith in something that one cannot quite label or define. Why do religious scholars and poets and musicians continue to strive to define what it is they believe? Language is always imperfect. It is a manmade enterprise, incapable of ever capturing the entire essence of something. It merely points us in directions (sometimes more specific directions, sometimes not).

But this is placeholder-faith. A faith whose object that will be justified in return, ex post, once this object is found.

Actually, this is the essence of insight: it is two-way inductive thinking. The explanation you get with two-way inductive thinking enables you to see the evidence supporting this very explanation.

For example:
In 1630, it was rational to believe that the velocity of an arrow or of a bullet is greatest some time after the arrow or bullet it shot -- the same as a man or a carriage reach greatest velocity some time after they've started to run. (Yes, we may laugh at this today.) The avalibale evidence they had back then supported this theory.
Descartes, however, intuitively thought the movement of an arrow or a bullet are not the same as the movement of a running man or a carriage. -- Yet there was no evidence then that would reasonably allow him to doubt the existing theory of movement and velocity! But he did, and he reconceptualized movement and understood it as a state, not anymore as a process. He made a new explanation, a new theory that allowed him to see the very evidence that supported his theory. His theory was rational on the basis of evidence that it allowed him to see.


In short: the relationship between belief and observation is a two-way inductive process, not a one-way inductive process.

The same goes for religious faith: If approached as a one-way inductive process, there is no reason to believe in a God. If approached as a two-way inductive process, religious faith makes sense.

The danger with two-way inductive thinking, however, is that it can also produce what is called "theories of conspiracy" and other forms of "delusional" thinking. But, at the same time, without two-way inductive thinking, little technological progress could be made, as we'd be stuck with the immediately observable and already existing!

To close: Considering the nature of human thinking and the ability of two-way inductive thinking, the line between rational and irrational is not clear.

Say you discovered that there were some objective criteria for judging art. You placed the Mona Lisa above The Persistance of Memory. But you were wrong. The Mona Lisa is inferior by this new objective standard. Would that matter to you? Probably not.

Bah! That would be like saying that loving my cat is wrong, because my cat will turn to dust, and to love dust is wrong. :bugeye:

Religion is just that for me. It is telling people which lifestyles are best, which art to consume, what words to say, where to go, how to worship, what to believe. It takes areas that are ruled by completely subjective rules and submits them to godly inquiry.

The same goes for political systems -- exemplify with Nazism:

"Nazism is just that for me. It is telling people which lifestyles are best, which art to consume, what words to say, where to go, how to worship, what to believe. It takes areas that are ruled by completely subjective rules and submits them to Nazi inquiry."

It's always like that, no matter what religious or political belief you take. There isn't one ruler system that wouldn't tell (" ") people what to think, what to wear, etc, etc.

Go read Plugged In Online or any Christian music/movie review site. They don't rank things by their artistry; they rank by them by how well they conform to a worldview.

You are implying that there are objective rules to judge art with.

Exactly. Which is why I said one must adopt at least a "placeholder" faith, there to allow society to exist. My faith that the sun will rise tomorrow exists only because I have observed it over and over again -- not because it actually has to rise every day. Perhaps one day we'll spin completely out of orbit. Who knows?

Scary, huh? Yet people like to make inductive conclusions and treat them as if they were "facts".

“ So if you doubt that your lover loves you, then you are being honest? ”
Not necessarily. But if you believe your love is the purest thing on earth, you are probably lying to yourself.

You added something that my question did not ask for to answer.

In our current bodies (with their built in limitations), I find it impossible to stake out a position on something as confusing and bewildering as the idea of God and claim certainty. That I find utterly silly.

That totally depends on your defintion of God.

 

[Chazman]

Wow !! ,I think I got it now ... thank's to Cris
and
Just a ride !
Yes , uhhh faith .. for some odd,,, say about 14,000 days in a row (That I have wittnessed in the flesh) the sun has been raising in the east and setting in the west. I feel safe to say now. That I Have
FAITH that this will happen again tommorow. ( I know this is a leap), as far as the next day after that, ???
not sure yet I will need to check on the scientific evidence at that time.
Faith is growing here... in fact I'll go out on a limb here, as far as to say I predict
tomorrow I will drop a rock and it will fall to the ground...you have taught me much here. I have learned that, If I put my hand on top of a very hot cook top stove, that it will burn my hand. not because I have faith that it will ,but only cause I did it , now
I can't say the same for my neighbors cook top, or that the same would happen tomorrow. So I did have some faith AFTER I burnt my hand!
Come on here !!!! does anyone even Know what FAITH is ( Biblical ) . not the 2004
webster,s version , or jsut plain HOPE ,or the humanistic, ungodly society worldly veiw?????? or the cross your fingers type???? the word faith here is strongly miss used
and misunderstood. Oh wait , maybe I am getting to confusing and bewilering for some.. ??? ummm not sure if I can break it down to 1st. grade terms.
moving along
cause and affect?? effect ???
goes around comes around ???
reep what you sow ??? oh what scratch that last one sounds to
too biblical. besides it was only some man that came up with this cause affect thing,, with all his built in limitations, he must be utterly silly Mad man.

UHHmmm as far as being told what to do and not do !!!!!!
there are rules and laws and guidlines,, ( yes I know it's true ) right here in this country also right here in your state , and even in your county , yes this is true ,AND
AND you and I are expected to follow them and abide by them regardless if we aggree or not, or think how stupid or unfair they might be. also that the states may conflict ( manmade flaws in laws ) with the county etc.. What about my God given,,,
wait scratch that,,, man made, selfrightous,i want to do what I please, given rights..
If I break these LAWS , guess what I have to pay! ???"huh"???

Now let me ask this --> why is it so EASY to accept manmade laws ( with all there built in limitations and flaws ) that YOU and I have been FORCED, (even if we strongly disaggree) to conform to all our lives to this point. {no real freedom}

But, yet ,, find it to " confusing and utterly silly to believe that there is a God in heaven that has (flawless guidelines) [even if we don't understand in our feeble minds] he would love for us to follow, "not force us" {total freedom}

With all the reasoning I see here. It would be nothing to say " I can rape woman if
I want to, after all it would be "MY" decision infact I could get even a group of men started, that agree with me. Just because you have a different veiw and belief of
rape does't mean your right! after all it's not my fault if they don't like it.
and further more I don't appreciate being threatened of being taken to prison for
something YOU want to call a crime!
as far as vastly superior societies? you won't get there if you can't even get past this one!
Take care !
BTW..
It was the belief, Faith, and trust IN this so called christain God we are
speaking of that not only this counrty was founded on, but also has given US
the right to speak as we please and are even have at liberty to talk about religion, save be it , that something else be forced on us.
ENJOY!

 

[JustARide]

Wow !! ,I think I got it now ... thank's to Cris
and
Just a ride !
Yes , uhhh faith .. for some odd,,, say about 14,000 days in a row (That I have wittnessed in the flesh) the sun has been raising in the east and setting in the west. I feel safe to say now. That I Have
FAITH that this will happen again tommorow. ( I know this is a leap), as far as the next day after that, ???
not sure yet I will need to check on the scientific evidence at that time.
Faith is growing here... in fact I'll go out on a limb here, as far as to say I predict
tomorrow I will drop a rock and it will fall to the ground...you have taught me much here. I have learned that, If I put my hand on top of a very hot cook top stove, that it will burn my hand. not because I have faith that it will ,but only cause I did it , now
I can't say the same for my neighbors cook top, or that the same would happen tomorrow. So I did have some faith AFTER I burnt my hand!
Come on here !!!! does anyone even Know what FAITH is ( Biblical ) . not the 2004
webster,s version , or jsut plain HOPE ,or the humanistic, ungodly society worldly veiw?????? or the cross your fingers type???? the word faith here is strongly miss used
and misunderstood. Oh wait , maybe I am getting to confusing and bewilering for some.. ??? ummm not sure if I can break it down to 1st. grade terms.
moving along
cause and affect?? effect ???
goes around comes around ???
reep what you sow ??? oh what scratch that last one sounds to
too biblical. besides it was only some man that came up with this cause affect thing,, with all his built in limitations, he must be utterly silly Mad man.

UHHmmm as far as being told what to do and not do !!!!!!
there are rules and laws and guidlines,, ( yes I know it's true ) right here in this country also right here in your state , and even in your county , yes this is true ,AND
AND you and I are expected to follow them and abide by them regardless if we aggree or not, or think how stupid or unfair they might be. also that the states may conflict ( manmade flaws in laws ) with the county etc.. What about my God given,,,
wait scratch that,,, man made, selfrightous,i want to do what I please, given rights..
If I break these LAWS , guess what I have to pay! ???"huh"???

Now let me ask this --> why is it so EASY to accept manmade laws ( with all there built in limitations and flaws ) that YOU and I have been FORCED, (even if we strongly disaggree) to conform to all our lives to this point. {no real freedom}

But, yet ,, find it to " confusing and utterly silly to believe that there is a God in heaven that has (flawless guidelines) [even if we don't understand in our feeble minds] he would love for us to follow, "not force us" {total freedom}

With all the reasoning I see here. It would be nothing to say " I can rape woman if
I want to, after all it would be "MY" decision infact I could get even a group of men started, that agree with me. Just because you have a different veiw and belief of
rape does't mean your right! after all it's not my fault if they don't like it.
and further more I don't appreciate being threatened of being taken to prison for
something YOU want to call a crime!
as far as vastly superior societies? you won't get there if you can't even get past this one!

So, are you channeling E.E. Cummings with this punctuation or what?

I would try to make some sort of counter-argument, but I have no clue what you're talking about. Was that a rant directed at evil, humanistic values? A shot at relativistic morality? Translator? Anyone?

BTW..
It was the belief, Faith, and trust IN this so called christain God we are
speaking of that not only this counrty was founded on, but also has given US
the right to speak as we please and are even have at liberty to talk about religion, save be it , that something else be forced on us.
ENJOY!

Yeah, those rich, white, slave-trading elitists were a fine bunch of Christians. Go ask a Native American about those godly do-gooders and their fine, wholesome deeds in the land of the free.

The chief reason we don't live in a theocracy (well, for the time being anyway... the demolition of the wall between church and state may just be Dubya's October surprise) is because our founding fathers (only fathers, not mothers) suppressed their Christian urges in an attempt to avoid the problems they had faced in merry ol' England. It was a triumph for freethinkers, deists, and the like that this country did not collapse into another religious state.

The greater test, I think, would be to examine today's political landscape. Are Christian leaders continuing to call for separation of church and state? Do Pat Robertson and his ilk have any respect for secularism or the need for diversity? Does our born-again President give even a tiny shit what athiests think? I doubt it.

 

[JustARide]

You are implying that God is dead or very distant.

No, I am implying that the mess of so-called divine revelations, muddled up interpretation, pure contradictions, and outright silliness that comes from those say they've spoken to God does not bode well for the prospects of a true, definable "relationship."

If God is having "relationships" with all these people, he's certainly not getting his message across very clearly.

Of course it isn't! In fact, the argument you have presented above (I added the letters and the line) is most faulty, it is a non sequitur. C would follow if we could validly infer that
I1: People are telling the truth when they say that God spoke to them.

We cannot make this inference.

Right. That was the point of my little exercise.

The danger with two-way inductive thinking, however, is that it can also produce what is called "theories of conspiracy" and other forms of "delusional" thinking. But, at the same time, without two-way inductive thinking, little technological progress could be made, as we'd be stuck with the immediately observable and already existing!

To close: Considering the nature of human thinking and the ability of two-way inductive thinking, the line between rational and irrational is not clear.

No argument here.

Bah! That would be like saying that loving my cat is wrong, because my cat will turn to dust, and to love dust is wrong. :bugeye:

Hmmm not really. But OK. I chose a bad example, I think.

The same goes for political systems -- exemplify with Nazism:

"Nazism is just that for me. It is telling people which lifestyles are best, which art to consume, what words to say, where to go, how to worship, what to believe. It takes areas that are ruled by completely subjective rules and submits them to Nazi inquiry."

It's always like that, no matter what religious or political belief you take. There isn't one ruler system that wouldn't tell (" ") people what to think, what to wear, etc, etc.

Exactly. Which is why I see it as my duty to rattle the cage when, in fact, it becomes clear that I am trapped in one. And what causes people to momentarily question the ideological forces that bind them? Doubt. Without doubt, there is no question, and without a question, there is no exploration, no movement, no change.

Of course, I would argue that being human itself constitutes a cage of sorts, a limitation -- one that some forms of religious thought dutifully try their best to undermine, sometimes with success and sometimes not.

But other systems of religion (fundamentalism, dogmatism) seek the opposite -- they glorify the cage. They revel in being trapped. Their wish is to nail down every truth, conquer every threat to their worldview. The reason why I quote Derrida so often is that I appreciate the idea of a method or philosophy (in this case, deconstruction or the notion of differánce) that actively questions its own validity. Prior to Derrida, I had not run across any thinker who so frequently followed up his own ideas with the phrase "if such a thing exists." To rephrase the famous Darth Vader quote, I found his lack of faith exhilirating.

Sure, my day-to-day "faith" is a tightrope of sorts. So is religious belief. The only difference is I prefer to deal humbly with the unknown rather than attempt to conquer or master it.

You are implying that there are objective rules to judge art with.

It was a hypothetical. I do not believe there are objective rules that govern art criticism. I picked an absurd example because I felt much religious thought is equally absurd.

Scary, huh? Yet people like to make inductive conclusions and treat them as if they were "facts".

Truly.

You added something that my question did not ask for to answer.

Well, you added love to the letter-writing example. I thought it was a fair trade-off.

That totally depends on your defintion of God.

Indeed it does. If God were a slice of pizza, then no, it might not be "utterly absurd" to assert some opinions on him/her/it (e.g. "Damn, God is delicious!").

But I do believe the inability of our minds to wrap themselves around ideas such as infinity (coked up George Cantor notwithstanding), existence without time, or even the thought of our own death does make the notion of understanding the creator/source of all this rather unlikely or, at best, a tad wacky. I would never go so far as to say it's impossible -- but I would say that the diversity of thought on the matter coupled with the violence it has caused throughout the ages does not inspire a great deal of confidence when it comes to the prospect of "understanding" of God.

 

[JustARide]

WOW! that was alot. I am so impressed,,, uhhmm Ok that's to strong. How about realy suprised. Realy I mean it. We aggree, and very well implemented I must say. due credit. This is a 1st. that I know of , Kool too!

Uhm! well , better not respond here. tring to keep this post considerate.

You're an enigma wrapped in a conundrum, my friend.

 

[Chazman]

Exactly. Which is why I see it as my duty to rattle the cage when, in fact, it becomes clear that I am trapped in one. And what causes people to momentarily question the ideological forces that bind them? Doubt. Without doubt, there is no question, and without a question, there is no exploration, no movement, no change.

Of course, I would argue that being human itself constitutes a cage of sorts, a limitation -- one that some forms of religious thought dutifully try their best to undermine, sometimes with success and sometimes not.

But other systems of religion (fundamentalism, dogmatism) seek the opposite -- they glorify the cage. They revel in being trapped. Their wish is to nail down every truth, conquer every threat to their worldview. The reason why I quote Derrida so often is that I appreciate the idea of a method or philosophy (in this case, deconstruction or the notion of differánce) that actively questions its own validity. Prior to Derrida, I had not run across any thinker who so frequently followed up his own ideas with the phrase "if such a thing exists." To rephrase the famous Darth Vader quote, I found his lack of faith exhilirating.

Sure, my day-to-day "faith" is a tightrope of sorts. So is religious belief. The only difference is I prefer to deal humbly with the unknown rather than attempt to conquer or master it.


Dude, chill, this is what I was refering to. I needed to be more Direct, and I messed the post !

Originally Posted by Chazman
WOW! that was alot. I am so impressed,,, uhhmm Ok that's to strong. How about realy suprised. Realy I mean it. We aggree, and very well implemented I must say. due credit. This is a 1st. that I know of , Kool too!

 

[JustARide]

Dude, chill, this is what I was refering to. I needed to be more Direct, and I messed the post !

I know what you were referring to. I just have no clue what our conversation has been about.

And rest assured, I'm thoroughly chilled. Heh.

 

[water]

No, I am implying that the mess of so-called divine revelations, muddled up interpretation, pure contradictions, and outright silliness that comes from those say they've spoken to God does not bode well for the prospects of a true, definable "relationship."

If God is having "relationships" with all these people, he's certainly not getting his message across very clearly.

Or, they aren't understanding it. Maybe they think that God is that old man with a beard.

Exactly. Which is why I see it as my duty to rattle the cage when, in fact, it becomes clear that I am trapped in one. And what causes people to momentarily question the ideological forces that bind them? Doubt. Without doubt, there is no question, and without a question, there is no exploration, no movement, no change.

But doubt -- why? Doubt can thrive only in certain psychological and socio-economical conditions.

One doesn't just simply doubt for doubt's sake. You don't doubt that the milk you have put in your fridge a moment ago is still there, do you? There must be some *feasible* reason as to why people doubt. Some inconsistency in their thinking, some uncertainty that is *important enough*.

Of course, I would argue that being human itself constitutes a cage of sorts, a limitation -- one that some forms of religious thought dutifully try their best to undermine, sometimes with success and sometimes not.

I think that some sort of "cage" must be there, or we'd fall apart. For the sake of the metaphor, some people see what is holding them together to be a cage, and some other people see it as a basket, filled with apples. Fascinating, how it all depends on which metaphor we choose to conceptualize a certain phenomenon with!

But other systems of religion (fundamentalism, dogmatism) seek the opposite -- they glorify the cage. They revel in being trapped. Their wish is to nail down every truth, conquer every threat to their worldview.

In times of great socio-economical distress (like wars, famines, ...), this is necessary, or the whole society would crumble. Such fundamentalist systems, seen from a distance, are a society's own stabilizing mechanisms. It is not that a few angry individuals would simply say, "Hey, I want to overthrow the government!". Only if there is enough support from other people (meaninng that the distress is general, and not just a matter of few individuals), then such overthrowings can happen.

Note that in times of war of after war, when the country is in a dreadful socio-economical state, the position to take is "People, we must forget our individual subjective needs right now, and see that we build houses and roads, plant crops -- or we will all perish."

In times of war, you cannot go out and say "I want my personal freedom! I want to do as I please! I want to be an intellectual!" -- Of course, in each person, there is such a need. But the same as the commander shoots deserters in the battle field in front of other soldiers, to make an example that fleeing is worse than fighting (for the aim is to win the battle, and if soldiers flee, the war will certainly be lost), the same those who wish for personal things in times that can't provide for those needs, will also be get rid of.

Sure, my day-to-day "faith" is a tightrope of sorts. So is religious belief. The only difference is I prefer to deal humbly with the unknown rather than attempt to conquer or master it.
/.../
But I do believe the inability of our minds to wrap themselves around ideas such as infinity (coked up George Cantor notwithstanding), existence without time, or even the thought of our own death does make the notion of understanding the creator/source of all this rather unlikely or, at best, a tad wacky. I would never go so far as to say it's impossible -- but I would say that the diversity of thought on the matter coupled with the violence it has caused throughout the ages does not inspire a great deal of confidence when it comes to the prospect of "understanding" of God.

Looking from the perspective of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, for example, the violent history of some religions is rather easy to explain: they were stuck on stage 3 or so. And there is a reason for this: people are more easily to manage, and development usually takes the route of what is *feasible*, not necessarily the route of what is *right*.