posted
C3PO: "OR, we could stop making silly generalizations about who REALLY believes or disbelieves, and accept that most people really do believe what they say they believe."
I think the argument is not whether religious people are truly believers in a religion or atheists are well informed about all the good stuff that usually goes into a shunting of the god hypothesis before either of them drastically change beliefs. I think what the argument going on here is about is whether or not someone can provide a reason that is unique to religion on why a given person should be religious.
Note: It is not unique to religion that you become a good person and learn to like everybody and things like that. The same could be reached in something like the indian guides, or, in my case, through my parents and family. We aren't religious people, but I think we're still pretty nice.
I'm not wondering how sincere people are in what they hold to be true. I'm wondering how sincere people SHOULD BE in what they hold to be true based on reasoning they can provide. I'm willing to accept that religion is often a positive force in life, etc etc, but the question is, is the fact that it can be a positive force equivalent to the statement, or implication, that other things cannot work just as well, without an inherent need of belief for something that I feel there is inadequate evidence to support(that being god).
Bootjes: "I wouldn't want a judge to ask god what verdict he should give. I do want a judge who asks god to give him wisdom and strength to give as good a verdict as he can based upon reason. I am also fine with a judge who doens't ask God anything as long he is out there to give a wise verdict."
So I'm curious here, as it applies to what I just said more or less. You have a positive attitute toward a god asking for qualities to improve his ability to make a decision, cool, unfounded? perhaps. but cool. You are also fine with a judge who does not ask for this aid. Either you A. feel that some people who go through the criminal justice system are entitled to a judge who is inherently more just, presumably, because of god's aid, than others who are stuck with the other judge who's just trying his hardest, despite his lack of godly help.
Or B. Feel that the first judge is probably not really gaining more than peace of mind (perhaps also attainable by sitting down and relaxing with a nice piece of chocolate, to dredge that old issue up), and it is therefore insignificant that another judge may not feel a need to consult god for strength before making a verdict.
This confused me when I read it, because to have a positive attitude toward the religious judge would imply that you think it is in some way good(I guess the fact that he was asking for "strength and wisdom" made me say he was presumably then making a better decision), while the second part would imply that it is unimportant that a judge ask for any aid. Do you truly feel positively toward the judge who is religious for any other reason than you feel he is likely to have a stable reasoning system and a healthy community of support, and is this then, by default, assuming that you just feel less strongly about the prospects of the other judge being in a stable condition to make a decision.
It is your positive desire for a judge to request aid from a god, and your neutrality toward one who does not request that aid, that confuses me. to positively desire the first, you must see a benefit in it, to neutrally accept one who doesn't you must NOT see a benefit in it, or see unequivalent judgement for different people as acceptable!
(sorry i had to rehash that a few times to make sure I wasn't just tricking myself...)
I think that religion is good for people that believe in it. I don't think ist good that they use it to govern or judge.
If you don't believe, then there are other things that are good for you. A loving family for example. So a judge who relies on that can also be a good judge.
As long as both are sincere to their beleifs or non-beliefs.
The point I was making was that relegion is good for personal matters, not for state matters.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I can rephrase starsnuffer's very good question more briefly. bootjes, you have no objection to a judge praying for wisdom. Do you believe that this prayer has an effect? If so, why do you not want all judges to get that extra dollop of wisdom? If not, why are you not objecting to the waste of tax-funded time?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bing! Thank you for playing. Mental states, indeed: In this particular case, the mental state of having been exposed to the Bible but not the Eddas.
If by "evidence that depends on internal mental states" you meant "evidence that depends on whether or not you know of the evidence", then there is can be no evidence for anything that doesn't depend on internal mental states.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but now I have told you of the elder Edda. Why are you not rushing off to investigate this new piece of evidence?
Edit: What's more, you can hardly plead ignorance of the Koran, the various Buddhist texts, or the Hindu writings.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe you are as good a person as I am. Therefore I believe God is not a necessity for all. Just for those who want to. He is for me (I could not do without anymore, maybe I could but I feel I would miss something deeply)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Fair enough, but now I have told you of the elder Edda. Why are you not rushing off to investigate this new piece of evidence?
Edit: What's more, you can hardly plead ignorance of the Koran, the various Buddhist texts, or the Hindu writings.
why should I?
There is a realy good dutch translation of the Koran by Kade abdollah. An Iranian writer who lives in the Netherlands and writes in de Dutch language. I am going to read that.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am copying one of my posts from another thread in case the wording of it is helpful to bootjes.
quote: KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.
Bootjes, if you have more energy for this than I do, go for it. I have been unable to shake KoM's "superman in the sky" idea of God.
Thanks! Expressing my thoughts quite nicely. I still have some energy left. Let's see where it takes us.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore I believe God is not a necessity for all. Just for those who want to.
Then I do not understand what you mean by belief. How can you 'believe' in something that is only for those who want to believe in it? When I say I believe gravity exists, I mean there are certain actions I will not take, such as stepping out of a fourth-floor window, because of that belief. What actions do you change because of your 'belief' in your god? The reason I believe in gravity is that I have dropped things and seen them fall. This is not a question of choice. How can you say you believe something when you know it is only a choice you have made?
Either your god exists or it doesn't. This is not something you can change by believing differently tomorrow. So how can you, so to speak, believe in your own belief? How can you believe in something only because you want to? You must know that your desire for belief does not change the facts. I don't understand your thought process here. It looks to me as though you are saying
1. I want to believe in a god, because that will fill a hole in my life. 2. Therefore, I believe in a god. 3. Therefore, god exists.
I think we agree that the transition from 2 to 3 is not valid. Right? But that means you have no reason to think your god exists. So how can you still honestly assert 2? How can you believe in a god without any reason to think it exists?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also a Duthch minister who has writen books in which he re-tells the sorys of the bible, and explaining what they mean to him. A bit like in a sermon. He gives other explanations of the wonders. he doens't take them literally. Sometimes the book is a little condescending but I liked the book. It started me on reading the bible.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can you believe in a god without any reason to think it exists?
Perhaps, consciously or not, God exists for these people as sort of an approximation of some inscrutable aspect of their psyche or the universe itself sort of how string theory and brane theory are mathematical models which are in accord with known laws of physics while being thus far untestable and therefore not strictly scientific.
They may be right or wrong but a conclusion on the subject is largely a matter of personal opinion, based more on how much sense they make to the individual than on empiricism.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If kmb or bootjes would like to say "God is the name I give to certain aspects of how my mind works", I would have no quarrel with that. (Actually, I tell a lie. I would still think they were abusing the English language very badly. But at least they wouldn't be abusing the actual evidence.) But it seems to me that at least kmb, and proabbly bootjes, believe there is something external to their own minds, to which they give this name 'God'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so following MattP, can I say that your god is the name you give to certain aspects of the universal laws? For example, some people believe that punishment for bad deeds is inevitable, and built into the fabric of the universe; and they give this perceived pattern the name 'karma'. (Yes, I know, I simplify.) is your god something similar to this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just that by any means. But that would be closer than the superman in the sky thing.
Lover, beloved, and love itself as one theologian (don't remember who, a Sufi I think) put it is one place to start too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Define "sentient" and "individual". I think "purposeful" would be true, and "aware". So probably yes to "sentient". "Individual" seems too small.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, now we are getting somewhere. You believe (in part - I understand that we have not yet probed the fullness of your beliefs) that the Universe behaves in certain ways, and this behaviour is, or is caused by, what you call God. It seems to me that this is testable: To wit, we can check whether the universe really does behave as you say it does, if of course you are able to give any sort of specific description of that behaviour. Would you like to try doing so?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I still think that you are thinking of God as something separate from nature. If something can be explained by, say, gravity, you would say that isn't God. I would say that is God is in/with/of gravity and that gravity is with/in/of God. Mover, moved, and movement.
posted
Well, in that case we are back to me not understanding what you mean by 'belief'. How would a gravity without your god be any different from gravity with? Or how would your actions change if you did not believe this? I assume you are not asserting that your 'God' is just a different name for my 'Standard Model of physics'. But what is the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for a point of reference, I was a believing Christian, who argued for Christian beliefs both in person and online, and believed that I had experienced a direct, personal answer to a prayer at one time.
I later decided against all that stuff. I'm guessing I'm not alone.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks kmbboots and mattp for expressing things along my line of thought. It is helpfull.
about prayer: For me it is energy and attention used in a certain direction.
Example: in the “weird question” thread I was struck about the Lisa’s situation. I wished her the best. Praying is my way of putting my energy and attention to those wishes. I hope the energy will find a way to Lisa. I have no proof that it will, but giving it extra thought by praying is meaningful to me anyway. If Lisa understands this way of praying than it is meaningful to her too. I added (if that is not offensive) because some not-religious people find it offensive if you do religious things for them. I don’t want to impose myself upon others.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may have noticed that Peter Pan is found in the 'fiction' section of most bookstores. Nor was ET marketed as a documentary. But if you believe that your belief changes reality, then that does answer my question. Not in a pleasant way, unfortunately, but I understand the internal logic of your beliefs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You may have noticed that Peter Pan is found in the 'fiction' section of most bookstores. Nor was ET marketed as a documentary. But if you believe that your belief changes reality, then that does answer my question. Not in a pleasant way, unfortunately, but I understand the internal logic of your beliefs.
Is this a nice way to say you think I am mad?
Let’s try an analogy:
The matrix is the world made by machines. Because they manipulate all 5 senses of the people in it, people living in the matrix believe it’s real. They can even proof it’s real. They don’t believe there is something outside the matrix because there is no proof of it.
Neo has a sense that there Is something outside the matrix. I’m like Neo because of this, the Neo before he met Morpheus. (not because I think I am the chosen one, or that I think I am as good looking as Keanu)
The physical world is the matrix. We have no way to proof that there is something outside our world, because our senses are of this world. That is not the same thing as saying that there is no outside.
In this analogy miracles could happen by someone who can see through the fabric of the matrix. But like in the film that is very hard to do. Try not to bend the spoon, try to see that there is no spoon. And then Jezus did in fact walk on water.
This is for me something that could be possible. It is not something I base my everyday life on. It is me trying to find an explanation. It is me toying with ideas.
The God that works for me does not do fantastical things in the physical world. It does things to my state of mind. I find inner peace. That is what I create by believing. The rest is toying or matter of speech. What is real is my state of mind. That is something that I can create. I can only create it for me by believing in God.
So ….
1. I want to believe in a god, because that will fill a hole in my life. 2. Therefore, I believe in a god. 3. Therefore, god exists. FOR ME, giving me a state of mind. And I don’t even need drugs to do this.
And the state of mind is awesome: Whenever I find it, its real peace and joy. An indescribable feeling. It’s not always easy to get there. I am often distracted by everyday worries. It’s also not something I need everyday. Just to know it’s there and I will get to it if I need it, reassures me.
That is how I create by believing.
It’s not all, but for now the best way I can put it.
So rest assured I do not believe I can believe you a motorbike as a birthday present.
Still think I’m mad?
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again KoM you are thinking of God as external. Because I believe, I behave a certain way that does indeed change the universe. That this seems ordinary and explainable does not mean it isn't God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you appear to have reduced your god to your own belief in it. But above you said that it was also external to your mind. This appears inconsistent.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T:man, your attempts to incite another legendary Hatrack religious debate crack me up! Nothing personal of course.
Perhaps if you want a spirited debate with witty logic and intense rebuttals, I suggest you starting us off. People aren't going to take "I just don't like religion" very "serioudly". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again KoM you are thinking of God as external. Because I believe, I behave a certain way that does indeed change the universe. That this seems ordinary and explainable does not mean it isn't God.
Well said.
I started my church initiation vows with: I believe God is a name for all that is.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Now you appear to have reduced your god to your own belief in it. But above you said that it was also external to your mind. This appears inconsistent.
That is a good question that needs some thinking. Can I get back on that? My answer will appear to be something of a tailbiter.
It has to do with a the difference between sensing, feeling, believing, and believing for fact.
I sense that my God is everywhere and that you only have to reach out to percieve it. Percieving mostly is being in the state of mind I described. So everybody can reach out and touch. It only becomes real if you do that. That is not something I know for a fact. I can not proof it. something deep inside me tells me it is so.
It is very diificult to describe this feeling. That is why it is said that it is not wise to speak of the unspeakable. It's like describing something of 3 dimensions in a 2 dimension language.
In a flat world a triangle can't have two corners of 90 dergees. On a round surface it can.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T:man, your attempts to incite another legendary Hatrack religious debate crack me up! Nothing personal of course.
Perhaps if you want a spirited debate with witty logic and intense rebuttals, I suggest you starting us off. People aren't going to take "I just don't like religion" very "serioudly". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worked Didn't it.
Yeah, well, I wasn't expecting King of Men.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We necessarily reduce God when we talk about God. We can only imagine bits, so we talk about interact with the bits we can imagine. Often we make the mistake of thinking that is all there is, because that it all we can comprehend.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If God translates to "all that is, both internal to me and external to me" then when someone says, "God did something" it actually translates to "Things happen."
I'm not sure that renaming the universe and everything in it "God" has any purpose. Why not just call it the universe, and say, "Sometimes things happen in the universe."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because naming it God makes it more personal. I then can make contact with it, by praying meditation etc.
If you are for example a Wiccan, you could use the name "universe" or "mother earth" in the same sort of way.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We necessarily reduce God when we talk about God. We can only imagine bits, so we talk about interact with the bits we can imagine. Often we make the mistake of thinking that is all there is, because that it all we can comprehend.
How do you know that there is a part you don't comprehend?
Let me ask a more concrete question. Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and if so, why?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If God translates to "all that is, both internal to me and external to me" then when someone says, "God did something" it actually translates to "Things happen."
I'm not sure that renaming the universe and everything in it "God" has any purpose. Why not just call it the universe, and say, "Sometimes things happen in the universe."
"Things happen" implies random and purposeless. Not that there is a purpose to everything that happens, necessarily, but that there is a purpose. "Things happen" is passive.
Though sometimes things do happen. And things happen or are made to happen that are not in accordance with God. We are not finished yet.
ETA: That is not as concrete a question as you might think. The answer would be "yes" ultimately but not in the way we imagine it. The answer would also be, "not the point".
E(A)TA: Just time to throw in the caveat that I do not in any of this claim to speak for anyone but myself. And myself at this particular point in time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe you can tell a purposeful event from a purposeless or non-accordingful (is that a word?) one? Do you believe you know (even a small part of) what the purpose is? If so, how? Can you give an example of a purpose-ful event outside your own mind?
Do you believe that the Apostles saw Jesus crucified, as described in the various gospels; saw him buried, likewise; saw him alive some days later, likewise?
It seems we are now down to "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning, plus the incomprehensible part". Is that a fair summary?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Percieving mostly is being in the state of mind I described. So everybody can reach out and touch. It only becomes real if you do that.
Amusingly, this is precisely my philosophy, although I think I approached it from the exactly opposite direction: namely, the definition of the word "real" as applied to what Tres would insist are qualia.
quote:It seems we are now down to "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning..."
I suspect that for many believers, this is precisely their own sub- or semi-conscious definition of God -- which may well be the reason that so many believers have difficulty conceiving of atheism without nihilism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps there is no purposelessness (we're getting really liberal with made-up words around here, aren't we?), and therefore no need to distinguish purposeful events from things that just happen.
Jesus rose from the dead to:
1. Prove that in dying he triumphed over death. The disciples weren't very clear on this until he got them to feel around his hips (please don't misinterpret that sentence PLEASE!) 2. Get things going so that he can rejoin the Father and let the Great Commission get started. 3. Spread hope to all who hear the gospels (Messiah conquers death – that's pretty nice to hear)
If he had anything else in mind, I will repent for missing the point if ever such a revelation comes.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It seems we are now down to" shows me that you are not getting this. Narrowing God down is not the right direction. Which you would have figured out by now if you were going to.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please substitute "My understanding of your definition of your god is now", if you prefer. The questions stand.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try "my understanding of one small part of your understanding, which is itself a tiny part of an infinite God" is that God gives purpose - or perhaps is purpose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. KoM is saying that he believes his understanding of your understanding of God is encapsulated in his "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning..." statement, and moreover that he would like you to indicate the ways in which you feel that precis is incomplete. As a precis, mind you, and not as another pile of random superlatives. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fair enough, but now I have told you of the elder Edda. Why are you not rushing off to investigate this new piece of evidence?
There are billions of pieces of evidence I could be investigating, and not nearly enough time to do so, especially if I actually intend to live my life. I have to use my judgement to determine what is most important to investigate. I'm not convinced that the elder Edda is likely to be true just because you've told me it exists.
quote:Edit: What's more, you can hardly plead ignorance of the Koran, the various Buddhist texts, or the Hindu writings.
I've read various Buddhist texts and have factored them into my beliefs - they seem to be partially true. I've also read various Hindu texts and think they seem inconsistent with how I've judged the world to be, so I mostly don't accept those texts as truth. I've not read the Koran.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try "my understanding of one small part of your understanding, which is itself a tiny part of an infinite God" is that God gives purpose - or perhaps is purpose.
If you like. The questions stand.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The resurrection question? I think that most of the apostles did not see Jesus crucified (most were not present). I believe that Jesus was crucified that the gospels, written several decades after the event from oral tradition and in various narrative forms for various audiences and for various purposes are a true, if not historically accurate - as we think of historical accuracy - account. Understanding the gospels in a literal way as we would read a newspaper would be an error.
There are some oddities in the biblical accounts of the risen Jesus. Three days could be literal or symbolic, the first day of the week, also a symbol. That the apostles in at least one account did not recognize Jesus right away leads to questions.
I think that the truth is that death had no power over Jesus and that Jesus still is. The details of how long he was in the grave, what his body was like afterwards, what exact manifestation of this truth was apparent to the apostles is not what matters.
Again, let me try to make clear. I have no hope or desire to convince you or to make you understand the nature of God. I would like to make clear the utter impossibility of anyone, especially me, articulating the entire nature of God.
Thank God that the existence of the infinite does not depends on my very finite ability to imagine it or to communicate its nature.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
