Having faith is not smart.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:47 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;128381 wrote:

This is why I say that the argument for the existence of god is an irrational argument. It does not hold up to experience consistently. How do I know? Because there are billions of people who believe god is how they define it but if you try to compare these notes, they are often drastically different. This means if you can not have a consistent experience then chances are it is not a real experience. That is a rational argument.


Well, I'm an agnostic. But if you or I had a private experience that justified a belief in God, it wouldn't be irrational for you or I, having had that experience, to believe in God.

In this day and age, God is a hard sell. You and I are probably alike in our tendency not to believe. In fact, I strongly associate doubt and philosophy, to the degree of doubting this doubt you might say. The thorough investigator investigates the investigator. I feel that the search for truth leads eventually to psychology. I feel that philosophical progress is largely the progress of human self-consciousness.

To return to the O.P.: "having faith is not smart." I guess this statement is itself all too faithful for my taste. It's not that faith is bad in itself, but that I consider this statement to manifest an implicit self-contradicting faith that faith is "not smart." A faith in doubt, you might say. True doubt leads to the doubting of doubt?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

Krumple;128381 wrote:
[/COLOR]
I would say your use of rational is completely different than mine then. Rational does not need to be practical, instead it only needs to be consistent with the experience. If I said that water flows up hill always, is that a rational argument? No, because it is not consistent with the experience.

I see what you mean, but humans don't usually argue about how water flows. Instead they argue about the conclusions drawn from experience. Or so it seems to me. This leads to the argument about what sort of argument is valid, which can get pretty tricky. Who has authority? What is authority made of? Is it matter of believing in one's views? Yes, the internal consistency of a set of beliefs is important to most of us, but so is the pleasure we get from this set of beliefs. To what degree is belief related to desire and self-esteem? Is it wishful thinking to think that we can escape from wishful thinking?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 03:59 AM ----------

Scottydamion;128382 wrote:
The problem I find with this is that people have contradictory beliefs to other people in almost any example I can think of, so how could how the world really works be dependent on our beliefs about it? Of course, I must admit to assuming I am not the only person here, that you are all not figments of my imagination...

As far as practical or animal faith goes, I of course believe in a world outside the human mind. As I think we all do. But like you said, this is an assumption, really. It's not 100% "proven." (What would 100% proven mean?)

It's funny that I'm arguing for the value of faith. I think it's just a psychological point for me. An epistemological point. I simply doubt that humans ever run only on doubt. I would say that faith is natural. Little babies probably often mistake their wishes for reality. We learn the hard way to doubt our wishful thinking, but even this is in the service of another wish, the wish to avoid pain, disappointment, confusion.

I speculate that those who don't believe in ghosts (myself included) are motivated not only by the lack of evidence but by their attachment to naturalism. A universe subject to comprehensible laws is one that can be mastered. We can work with Nature. Nature is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Or so we think. And this is right our of the Bible. Naturalism is a rationalized version of God. Spinoza and Einstein are tight. I suspect that if we were presented with evidence for ghosts we would be prejudiced against this evidence. We would cling to our naturalism as long as possible. I say we call this the inertia of belief.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:16 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128400 wrote:
As far as practical or animal faith goes, I of course believe in a world outside the human mind. As I think we all do. But like you said, this is an assumption, really. It's not 100% "proven." (What would 100% proven mean?)

It's funny that I'm arguing for the value of faith. I think it's just a psychological point for me. An epistemological point. I simply doubt that humans ever run only on doubt. I would say that faith is natural. Little babies probably often mistake their wishes for reality. We learn the hard way to doubt our wishful thinking, but even this is in the service of another wish, the wish to avoid pain, disappointment, confusion.

I speculate that those who don't believe in ghosts (myself included) are motivated not only by the lack of evidence but by their attachment to naturalism. A universe subject to comprehensible laws is one that can be mastered. We can work with Nature. Nature is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Or so we think. And this is right our of the Bible. Naturalism is a rationalized version of God. Spinoza and Einstein are tight. I suspect that if we were presented with evidence for ghosts we would be prejudiced against this evidence. We would cling to our naturalism as long as possible. I say we call this the inertia of belief.


We agree on a fair amount, I think I'll add you to my friend's list (not sure what that does yet... if anything), probably just symbolic!).

However, I must ask if you see a distinction between: "having faith by trusting that something is not wrong", and "believing something while admitting that it may be wrong"?

I think the attachment to naturalism is what makes there appear to be no evidence for ghosts. It seems like most of these discussions eventually boil down to what can be said involving the metaphysical, and/or what can be considered evidence about the physical... I agree that there tends to be an "inertia of belief" and also that this probably grows with time, but I enjoy science so much partially because of a built in skepticism that probably helps to deter an intertia of belief from developing.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:30 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;128408 wrote:
We agree on a fair amount, I think I'll add you to my friend's list (not sure what that does yet... if anything), probably just symbolic!).

However, I must ask if you see a distinction between: "having faith by trusting that something is not wrong", and "believing something while admitting that it may be wrong"?

I think the attachment to naturalism is what makes there appear to be no evidence for ghosts. It seems like most of these discussions eventually boil down to what can be said involving the metaphysical, and/or what can be considered evidence about the physical... I agree that there tends to be an "inertia of belief" and also that this probably grows with time, but I enjoy science so much partially because of a built in skepticism that probably helps to deter an intertia of belief from developing.


Yes, you should add me to your friend's list (which is just symbolic).

Yes, I do see a distinction. Very much. I'm hard-core in the second group.

I appreciate your response on the naturalism thing. Naturalism is seductive, isn't it? Spinoza equated God and Nature and learned to love a "God" that couldn't love him back. He could love this God as a man loves a sculpture.

Richard Rorty conceived of the self as a network of beliefs and desires. Some beliefs are tied deeply into this network. Some not so deeply. We say a belief's inertia is the same as its entanglement in the network of self. But this itself is just a loosely held "belief" about the self. One of the self's images of the self. I suppose that the beliefs that prop up our self-esteem have plenty of inertia. Unless our self-esteem is propped up by the idea that we don't have much of this inertia.(Both of us?) But this gets tangled fast.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:33 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128400 wrote:
But if you or I had a private experience that justified a belief in God, it wouldn't be irrational for you or I, having had that experience, to believe in God.


You are right, however; it doesn't mean that the experience was rational. For example, you could hear a noise in your basement and conclude a great many reasons for the sound. Maybe it was an animal, or maybe it was a pipe bursting, or maybe god was having a picnic. For the experience to be rational it too much hold up to previous experience. I know that might sound self defeating but it is how rationalizing works. If you jump to a conclusion that it was god having a picnic does it make it true? Not unless you go investigate and see the evidence for it. Or maybe you'll find a drown rat from a burst water pipe.

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

In this day and age, God is a hard sell. You and I are probably alike in our tendency not to believe. In fact, I strongly associate doubt and philosophy, to the degree of doubting this doubt you might say. The thorough investigator investigates the investigator. I feel that the search for truth leads eventually to psychology. I feel that philosophical progress is largely the progress of human self-consciousness.


I agree, I think ultimately philosophy will focus primarily on the human condition or psyche if it doesn't already. I am not a fan of impractical philosophy, I really don't see why it is worth spending time on it if it can't be utilized in some way. That's why I find questions silly or pointless to discuss since I can't readily see a use for what the information would provide. Is it required that everyone adopt that outlook? No.

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

To return to the O.P.: "having faith is not smart." I guess this statement is itself all too faithful for my taste. It's not that faith is bad in itself, but that I consider this statement to manifest an implicit self-contradicting faith that faith is "not smart." A faith in doubt, you might say. True doubt leads to the doubting of doubt?


I'm not sure I would have stated thread topic like this either. I always viewed faith as the lowest step in discovering truth. However; to me it seemed people stall at faith and don't head up the steps towards truth. They are happy on the first step. For me faith just isn't good enough, but I see where it is useful as a first step. So in this way, how could faith be not smart?

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

I see what you mean, but humans don't usually argue about how water flows. Instead they argue about the conclusions drawn from experience. Or so it seems to me. This leads to the argument about what sort of argument is valid, which can get pretty tricky. Who has authority? What is authority made of? Is it matter of believing in one's views? Yes, the internal consistency of a set of beliefs is important to most of us, but so is the pleasure we get from this set of beliefs. To what degree is belief related to desire and self-esteem? Is it wishful thinking to think that we can escape from wishful thinking?


Well at some point it must be agreed upon. Or else we wouldn't be able to communicate like we are doing. You obviously have agreed to general definitions of words to understand my sentences. If we were still debating the meaning being each and every word, we would totally lose the purpose for constructing them. I think we can agree on experiences being universal even emotions. When I talk bout fear, everyone probably has some notion of the emotion I refer to. But fear itself can have many broad implications. It could be entertaining, it can be motivating, it can even be crippling. But who would ever mistake fear for love or some other emotion? I doubt anyone would unless they are trying to be an a$$ or they have mixed up emotional wiring.

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

As far as practical or animal faith goes, I of course believe in a world outside the human mind. As I think we all do. But like you said, this is an assumption, really. It's not 100% "proven." (What would 100% proven mean?)


I guess it would mean there are no objections to the statement. If everyone agreed then we can probably safely say that it's a hundred percent proven. Ask a hundred people to pick out the color blue from a set of eight different colored markers. You think all one hundred will pick out the blue one?

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

It's funny that I'm arguing for the value of faith. I think it's just a psychological point for me. An epistemological point. I simply doubt that humans ever run only on doubt. I would say that faith is natural. Little babies probably often mistake their wishes for reality. We learn the hard way to doubt our wishful thinking, but even this is in the service of another wish, the wish to avoid pain, disappointment, confusion.


I see it a tad different. I think as babies we used random trial and error to discover the world. We put things into our mouth to experience them using our sense of taste to determine if it is eatable. Why do we not still do this? Why as adults are we not still sticking everything we come across into our mouths? Are you doing a bunch of assuming? Do we have some sort of vague understanding of objects that we no longer need to do that? Imagine if we still did that.

Reconstructo;128400 wrote:

I speculate that those who don't believe in ghosts (myself included) are motivated not only by the lack of evidence but by their attachment to naturalism. A universe subject to comprehensible laws is one that can be mastered. We can work with Nature. Nature is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Or so we think. And this is right our of the Bible. Naturalism is a rationalized version of God. Spinoza and Einstein are tight. I suspect that if we were presented with evidence for ghosts we would be prejudiced against this evidence. We would cling to our naturalism as long as possible. I say we call this the inertia of belief.


Good point. Sometimes I get reprimanded for my firm stance on the lack of a god or gods existing. Some will argue that I am rebelling against the authority and am in denial refusing to accept god's existence. That is not the case though. I would be more than happy to accept god's existence if it were true because it would put to rest my disappointment with the human condition.

My current outlook on humanity has an imbalanced equation. Total a-holes who get away with messed up things will never be brought to justice and that bothers me. Why a universe would be so imbalanced as that. However I have found my own way to rationalize this injustice. I just figure that there must be something that they ultimately miss because of their position in life. Those who manipulate, or do anything undermined ultimately suffer something as a result that is just not plain on the surface. I don't mean in an afterlife way or a supernatural justice. What I mean is for a lack of a better word, karmic. I don't think it is perfect but I can't help but think there is something that happens naturally as a result. There is no prime watcher that makes things happen to bring justice to the universe. I don't think it happens like that and I do think there will be some individuals who will get away with bad things and we will never know about them.

On the other hand, I am not sure what exactly I would want them to under go for their actions anyways. I mean if someone is a **** then what am I expecting them to experience because of it? Remorse? Pain? Suffering of some kind? No because that would just make me into a **** then.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;128411 wrote:
However I have found my own way to rationalize this injustice. I just figure that there must be something that they ultimately miss because of their position in life. Those who manipulate, or do anything undermined ultimately suffer something as a result that is just not plain on the surface. I don't mean in an afterlife way or a supernatural justice. What I mean is for a lack of a better word, karmic. I don't think it is perfect but I can't help but think there is something that happens naturally as a result.

Is this faith in karma an example of smart faith? You use the word "rationalize" which indicates some doubt on the matter. But isn't this hope for if not faith in karma an example of desire intertwined with rationality?

Let's say a person views faith as an obstacle to truth. But who do we know that? I would say the Enlightenment has bestowed the concept of universal reason upon us. It used to be the Holy Ghost that connected us to truth, or Jesus. Now it is a faculty within us. But a faculty and a spirit aren't terribly different really. If we really zoom in on reason, what do we find? Is reason just rhetoric, argument, persuasion? Is reason just the consensus of respectable citizens? What is the relationship between truth and power and truth and self-esteem?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 05:02 AM ----------

Krumple;128411 wrote:
You are right, however; it doesn't mean that the experience was rational. For example, you could hear a noise in your basement and conclude a great many reasons for the sound. Maybe it was an animal, or maybe it was a pipe bursting, or maybe god was having a picnic. For the experience to be rational it too much hold up to previous experience. I know that might sound self defeating but it is how rationalizing works. If you jump to a conclusion that it was god having a picnic does it make it true? Not unless you go investigate and see the evidence for it. Or maybe you'll find a drown rat from a burst water pipe.


No matter how we choose to interpret an experience, I suspect that our desires were a factor in the interpretation. I guess I just don't believe in a neutral pure standpoint. I suspect that we are always already biased. Time and chance has put us all through different experiences. Those experiences have "programmed" us, you might say. Why is one an atheist and the other a theist? Was there really any choice involved? I'm not sure. Can I answer this question without bias? I doubt it. Can I answer that last question without bias? I'm not sure. And so on. But life goes on, so we take the beliefs that seem rational and run with them. Another thing: how many of our beliefs are automatic? To what degree does spontaneous action manifest unconscious belief (if you allow the phrase.)

How does depth psychology tie in to this? Can we believe opposite things simultaneously? I think it's possible. Maybe not consciously at the same time, but think about our social ambivalence on the question of Free Will. Society acts as if it does and does not believe in Free Will. I trust you can guess the sorts of social practices that I refer to.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:07 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128417 wrote:
Is this faith in karma an example of smart faith? You use the word "rationalize" which indicates some doubt on the matter. But isn't this hope for if not faith in karma an example of desire intertwined with rationality?


Well what I am really trying to say is, I believe there are people who deserve to be punched in the face, who never get punched in the face. Although I would never punch them in the face, I still want them to get punched. The only thing is, punching them actually doesn't bring the proper justice to the situation, it just makes you temporarily feel better about them getting away scot free. I don't really want to punch anyone, well except for maybe Obama but who doesnt? jk.

Reconstructo;128417 wrote:

Let's say a person views faith as an obstacle to truth. But who do we know that? I would say the Enlightenment has bestowed the concept of universal reason upon us. It used to be the Holy Ghost that connected us to truth, or Jesus. Now it is a faculty within us. But a faculty and a spirit aren't terribly different really. If we really zoom in on reason, what do we find? Is reason just rhetoric, argument, persuasion? Is reason just the consensus of respectable citizens? What is the relationship between truth and power and truth and self-esteem?


This is why I am so skeptical of religion. I mean if someone actually held the truth, why is it so damn slippery? Why is it always so difficult to obtain or acquire? Why does it require so much input to comprehend? Why wouldn't it be something so obvious and readily available? Some will try to claim that it is, but that is just a marketing scheme in my opinion. If it was so obvious and so easy, surely there would have to be thousands, not millions, but thousands of people who have it. Yet I fail to see even ten who claim they have it, but their gold watches and smug smiles tell me a different story.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:17 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;128421 wrote:

This is why I am so skeptical of religion. I mean if someone actually held the truth, why is it so damn slippery? Why is it always so difficult to obtain or acquire? Why does it require so much input to comprehend? Why wouldn't it be something so obvious and readily available? Some will try to claim that it is, but that is just a marketing scheme in my opinion. If it was so obvious and so easy, surely there would have to be thousands, not millions, but thousands of people who have it. Yet I fail to see even ten who claim they have it, but their gold watches and smug smiles tell me a different story.

I suspect that religion is real for some as an emotion. God as the word for an emotion. For instance: god as love.

Sure, most public religious figures seem like total and absolute frauds to me. Mass media religion is trash in my eyes. Obscene.

But there are quiet people out there who have a notion of God that seems to help them live well. They don't force anything on anyone. They don't get counted because they don't need the attention. They aren't desperate to convert precisely because they do have God. Even if this God is just a thought and emotion connected, it is real in this sense that all experience is real. Scientific objective truth is just an abstraction of the subjective experience of observing scientists. All reality is grounded on experience. But public reality is more stringent about what gets in. Science is great, of course. Sometimes I think it has taught us too well to put away our subjective bias. We start to get objectively biased, and forget that reality only happens to individual humans. We are all alone in our skull. We see thru our eyes, and only our eyes.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:44 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128424 wrote:
I suspect that religion is real for some as an emotion. God as the word for an emotion. For instance: god as love.


Yeah perhaps, but I would never call love a god because my take on love is rather um negative. I couldn't imagine a god having so many flaws, yep I said flaws. Some view love as being highest, I consider it differently.

Reconstructo;128424 wrote:

Sure, most public religious figures seem like total and absolute frauds to me. Mass media religion is trash in my eyes. Obscene.


Yeah religious porn. Marketing truth. It doesn't help and it causes more problems. These are the people I would like to punch. These are the people who often get away with what I consider the worst evil that goes unpunished. What kind of justice would I want served them? I don't know, perhaps there is nothing that could justify it.

Reconstructo;128424 wrote:

But there are quiet people out there who have a notion of God that seems to help them live well. They don't force anything on anyone. They don't get counted because they don't need the attention. They aren't desperate to convert precisely because they do have God.


These are the people I have absolutely no problem with and in fact I would praise them even if I disagreed with their belief. Why? Because they are allowing everything to be as it is. These are truly wise people in my opinion. Although ironic because these are the people I would probably learn something from.

Reconstructo;128424 wrote:

Even if this God is just a thought and emotion connected, it is real in this sense that all experience is real. Scientific objective truth is just an abstraction of the subjective experience of observing scientists. All reality is grounded on experience. But public reality is more stringent about what gets in. Science is great, of course. Sometimes I think it has taught us too well to put away our subjective bias. We start to get objectively biased, and forget that reality only happens to individual humans. We are all alone in our skull. We see thru our eyes, and only our eyes.


We don't always have to accept the majority held belief. I admire those who can challenge the widely held beliefs with convincing arguments. One of the best examples of this is art. It is so subjective it slaps you in the face any time you try to pin it down. We try to objectify it all the time but it alludes us. If you are too different then people will hate you, so you should be the same as everyone even though you shouldn't copy them.
 
bsfree
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:34 pm
@Pyrrho,
Here are a few thoughts that need no "knowledge" to substantiate truth.

We are a part of the universe. (As is everything else)
The universe brought us into existence. (As it did everything else)
As vast as the universe is, it is also at our core. (As it is to everything else)

Our core is our soul.
Earth is the essence of soul brought into life.
Life is consciousness.

Consciousness completes the trilogy of soul and essence when it is cognizant of all three in harmony and the potential to be as one is released into actuality.
Potential is limited when harmony is not considered.
The inherent desire for harmony is the only indicator free will has for direction.

It is the same throughout the universe. The soul does not need life habitation of every celestial body to be aware of existence, anymore than a human body needs every cell to be cognizant of the consciousness it carries; it is enough that consciousness is aware of the connection.

This is not to say Earth is the only conscious planet in the universe; just the only one we are aware of.
As such, it behooves the consciousness of Earth to reflect on a possible higher purpose than the self-gratification it is presently inclined to.

It is only our "attitude" towards truth that denies acceptance of our true potential in favor of singular gain.

Faith is knowing in oneself what is true.
Faith in oneself is where it must begin if an end is to be realized.
Faith in others is rendered unnecessary when each feels the same.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:50 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;128566 wrote:
Here are a few thoughts that need no "knowledge" to substantiate truth.

We are a part of the universe. (As is everything else)
The universe brought us into existence. (As it did everything else)
As vast as the universe is, it is also at our core. (As it is to everything else)

Our core is our soul.
Earth is the essence of soul brought into life.
Life is consciousness.

Consciousness completes the trilogy of soul and essence when it is cognizant of all three in harmony and the potential to be as one is released into actuality.
Potential is limited when harmony is not considered.
The inherent desire for harmony is the only indicator free will has for direction.

It is the same throughout the universe. The soul does not need life habitation of every celestial body to be aware of existence, anymore than a human body needs every cell to be cognizant of the consciousness it carries; it is enough that consciousness is aware of the connection.

This is not to say Earth is the only conscious planet in the universe; just the only one we are aware of.
As such, it behooves the consciousness of Earth to reflect on a possible higher purpose than the self-gratification it is presently inclined to.

It is only our "attitude" towards truth that denies acceptance of our true potential in favor of singular gain.

Faith is knowing in oneself what is true.
Faith in oneself is where it must begin if an end is to be realized.
Faith in others is rendered unnecessary when each feels the same.


That's a lot of ambiguity in one post! If you define it as true, it is true by definition, but not necessarily by any other standard!
 
jack phil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:31 pm
@Pyrrho,
A recent conversation with friends revealed something essential about logic, IMO. It weren't something like this:

Dakotah was speaking of time and of infinitesimals. He quickly turned to large numbers of seconds, and then asked whether 2 million seconds were intelligible- and how that might better be represented.

......................................................................................................................

Dakotah: One times one is one. Two times one million equals... ?

Kevin: One million!

Dakotah: No, I said 'two'.

Kevin: Oh, two million!

Me: If p, then q. P, therefore...

Kevin: Q!

Me: Thank you, Kevin!

Kevin: How do we arrive at conclusions?

Me: How do we arrive at premises?

......................................................................................................................

Never mind the 'blind faith' and 'true faith' and 'good faith' and all that gobblygook. How does one come to accept premises?

Is this what people call faith? -the strength of premises-

Consider science, which continually develops over itself by realizing new premises. This can be seen in the transition from astrology to astronomy, from alchemy to chemistry, scholastic logic to propositional logic, etc.

How can any premise be valid if such is the history of man's knowledge?

......................................................................................................................

Logic deals with other things as well; things other than premises and conclusions. Logic also deals with contradictions and tautologies.

Wittgenstein showed that the logical calculi [such as and, or, if/then, etc.] could be examined by way of a truth table. If the proposition holds, T, fails, F.

With the logical calculi [such as and, or, if/then, etc.], we have a variation between T and F. But with a contradiction, we have consistent Fs, and with tautologies we have consistent Ts.

That is, there can be no premise to disprove the existence of tautologies. Tautologies are a part of logic. We might say tautologies and contradictions are the limits of language. The limits of what can be expressed.

My girlfriend got me a valentines card that captured this difficulty people have. The cover of the card said, "Happy Valentines! Love is in the air! Love, love, love, love, love!"

On the inside, it said, "And also toxins, and carcinogens, and dead skin flakes, and flying insects, ..."

So the religious person says something like "love is in the air", a tautology. Then, another person says something like, "No! There are toxins and carcinogens and dead skin flakes in the air. There is no love in the air!"

I think it is easy to see how crusades, witch burnings, etc. could come from such misunderstandings of the logic of our language.

So, when the Christian tells me "Christ died for his sins", I know he is telling me more about himself than anything else. Likewise, when the atheist says, "There is no such thing as God", he is, like the Christian, telling me more about himself than anything 'out there'.

.......................................................................................................................


If I were to speak in tautologies, I might say: He lived a wonderful life.

Wink
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:51 pm
@jack phil,
jack;128579 wrote:
So, when the Christian tells me "Christ died for his sins", I know he is telling me more about himself than anything else. Likewise, when the atheist says, "There is no such thing as God", he is, like the Christian, telling me more about himself than anything 'out there'.

.......................................................................................................................


If I were to speak in tautologies, I might say: He lived a wonderful life.

Wink


The sad thing is are you not preaching to the choir, because true-believers wouldn't believe what you said lol.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:59 pm
@jack phil,
jack;128579 wrote:

So, when the Christian tells me "Christ died for his sins", I know he is telling me more about himself than anything else. Likewise, when the atheist says, "There is no such thing as God", he is, like the Christian, telling me more about himself than anything 'out there'.


Well said. As I don't see what some call proof for either position, I also interpret such statements this way.
 
bsfree
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:06 pm
@Pyrrho,
I don't feel I defined it as truth so much as it defined itself as truth through conscious reflection.
They may be my thoughts, but as far as thoughts go aren't they common to all humans?
If the "answers" are not "true", do they at least have their basis in truth.
If so, is that not enough to begin with?
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:10 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;128596 wrote:
I don't feel I defined it as truth so much as it defined itself as truth through conscious reflection.
They may be my thoughts, but as far as thoughts go aren't they common to all humans?
If the "answers" are not "true", do they at least have their basis in truth.
If so, is that not enough to begin with?


I can certainly tell you that my thoughts and your thoughts are not the same, but we are both thinking if that's what you mean.

"it defined itself as truth"... kind of like saying:
1. P is true
Therefore,
2. P is true
?...

"through conscious reflecton"
Wait, whose conscious reflection? Yours or "its"?!?
 
bsfree
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:26 pm
@Pyrrho,
Wait, whose conscious reflection? Yours or "its"?!?

They are one and the same when constructed "nowledge" is removed, what is left is reality.
Then the arguments come down to what is reality?
And so it goes around ad infinitum.
My reality is "real", as is yours, only the reference points may differ, and so alter ones' perception of it.
I'm simply allowing myself to be "pinned" down by the "common" reference points in the hope we can find our common ground of purpose.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:34 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;128609 wrote:
Wait, whose conscious reflection? Yours or "its"?!?

They are one and the same when constructed "nowledge" is removed, what is left is reality.
Then the arguments come down to what is reality?
And so it goes around ad infinitum.
My reality is "real", as is yours, only the reference points may differ, and so alter ones' perception of it.
I'm simply allowing myself to be "pinned" down by the "common" reference points in the hope we can find our common ground of purpose.


Ok then I see your point about references, but I find it hard to see your choice of reference points as common to me... that is the hard part of this all I suppose...
 
jack phil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:51 pm
@Scottydamion,
Thank you, Reconstructo. I like many of your posts, as they often seem reminiscent.

Scottydamion;128586 wrote:
The sad thing is are you not preaching to the choir, because true-believers wouldn't believe what you said lol.


Scotty, I have no choir. I cited a famous philosopher. What did you hear?
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:04 pm
@jack phil,
jack;128632 wrote:
Thank you, Reconstructo. I like many of your posts, as they often seem reminiscent.



Scotty, I have no choir. I cited a famous philosopher. What did you hear?


Oh, you know, just the voices in my head.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:26 pm
@Scottydamion,
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 11:14:24