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.

[/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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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

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?