posted
Except, Karl, that "I think, therefore I am" is precisely an argument for existence based on perception. Kate's argument boils down to "I exist, therefore I am full of imperceptible jellyfish;" it doesn't follow in the same way.
Kate, I submit that you're self-aware because you perceive yourself and are conscious of your own thoughts, something which makes it possible for you to conceive of yourself as an individual. We would describe the absence of such perception as "oblivion."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Because I doubt she'd say that God's existence is conditional on her belief. I get the impression that she's saying the opposite: that her belief is a direct and completely non-incidental product of God's existence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No. Because I doubt she'd say that God's existence is conditional on her belief. I get the impression that she's saying the opposite: that her belief is a direct and completely non-incidental product of God's existence.
Yup. But the part I am struggling with is (and maybe you are, too) is perceive how ? It isn't just logic and it isn't just sensory input. We have machines that do that and yet are not self-aware. Instinct? But that doesn't really explain anything. Soul? Again, doesn't explain and you all may not think such a thing exists.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ups, I hope I didn't spoil the discussion. It wasn't my intention at all. And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Here is what I meant:
[following hint #1:]
quote:(1)Originally posted by TomDavidson: You're arguing about the EXISTENCE of God, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
quote:(2)Originally posted by suminonA: Note: kmbboots IS NOT this conversation
[hint #2 is about LOGIC, so:]
From (1) and (2) I infer that "the EXISTENCE of God" might be relevant for kmbboots.
And with that I wanted to say that even if the existence of the deity is completely irrelevant for TomDavidson's side of discussion, we should not confuse that with kmbboots, who is entitled to place great relevance on that existence.
Maybe it wasn't my place to "point that out", but I did it hoping to add "an external POV" on the otherwise truly interesting discussion.
A.
PS:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: "I think therefore God is"? So to speak?
Descartes said: “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum, sum ergo Deus est.” [I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am, I am therefore the deity exists.]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that "ergo Deus est" is the weakest part of that argument.
Descartes, like Kate, relegated every thought he couldn't classify as a "sense perception" to the res cogitans -- a hypothetical "immortal soul," the part of us that does the thinking even when we aren't perceiving things -- and used the fact that he could imagine seeing something even when his eyes were closed to justify the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore a God. But this is bad philosophy and even worse science.
-------
quote:It isn't just logic and it isn't just sensory input.
Why not? Why isn't it? What part of it have you experienced that wasn't thought about or sensed (i.e. experienced?) I believe the issue here is that -- now that we know more about the brain than Descartes did -- it's important for people who don't want to admit to some materialism in their divine communication to somehow make the distinction between things we've simply "thought about" and actual constructs of the "soul;" to Descartes, who didn't know that thought was the electric transfer of information across neurons, thought ITSELF was the soul and (tautologically) proof of the soul's existence. But since "thought" is now a materialistic function, shown to be affected by chemicals and electromagnetism, we have to create a whole NEW class, the res acogitans, to accomodate "thought without thinking."
But I submit that "thought without thinking" doesn't exist. And, moreover, that it CANNOT exist for any useful definition of the word "exist," no matter how much the electrical impulses dancing through our brains make us WANT it to exist.
posted
Oooh, Tom, that's interesting! What part of "us" remains when the electronic transfer of information across neurons doesn't work well enough for logic? Perhaps that is where the spark of faith resides?
I would really love to "hear" more, but I have to go the dentist. I'll be looking forward to more tomorrow.
quote:What part of "us" remains when the electronic transfer of information across neurons doesn't work well enough for logic? Perhaps that is where the spark of faith resides?
Perhaps. Although I cannot understand how you would be conscious of this spark of faith if it can only be perceived through the absence of other consciousness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can't "only be perceived" through the absence of everything else. I'll have to read back to see how I gave that impression. We are obviously who we are when things are working, but are we still "us" when things are not? What still exists in the absence of everything else?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to read back to see how I gave that impression.
You've said that you don't use your brain or your senses to perceive it. That seems to imply that it's not perceived.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What part of it have you experienced that wasn't thought about or sensed (i.e. experienced?) I believe the issue here is that -- now that we know more about the brain than Descartes did -- it's important for people who don't want to admit to some materialism in their divine communication to somehow make the distinction between things we've simply "thought about" and actual constructs of the "soul;" to Descartes, who didn't know that thought was the electric transfer of information across neurons, thought ITSELF was the soul and (tautologically) proof of the soul's existence. But since "thought" is now a materialistic function, shown to be affected by chemicals and electromagnetism, we have to create a whole NEW class, the res acogitans, to accomodate "thought without thinking."
I don't think this is accurate. What is true is that a number of people believe that thought is a materialistic function, but I think that is observably false. The trouble is that thought is not merely the processing of input into output, but rather the experience of processing input into output. And while the processing of input into output can consist of nothing more than neurons (or computer components) moving around, experience cannot be constructed out of any system of materials - because experience is qualitative. Thus thought is NOT a materialistic function, and does prove the existence of the soul, as a thinking thing.
I don't see how the soul proves God, though - which is what Descartes seems to argue.
But, more to the point, it is possible that what kmbboots means is that nothing physical (eyes, ears, brain) perceives God, but that the soul (or something nonphysical) does. I think this is a possibility, but I would still call it a sort of sense - and a sort of evidence - even if it is not reflecting any physical evidence.
(In truth, all physical evidence is built upon a combination of nonphysical evidence and our faith that that nonphysical evidence reflects something physical. We don't "know" that fossils exist. What we do know is we can experience touching and seeing them, and we experience other people telling us that they too can touch and see them. Those are all nonphysical experiences which we then use to infer that there is some physical evidence there. We see an image, and then assume that image reflects something that physically exists. It is possible there is a similar nonphysical sort of experience that could tell us that God exists, but I think even then we'd have to assume it was accurately reflecting the true existence of God, on faith.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to read back to see how I gave that impression.
You've said that you don't use your brain or your senses to perceive it. That seems to imply that it's not perceived.
I've said that I don't only use my logic or my senses to perceive it and that it does not depend on my logic or my senses.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, though. We are talking about things that are, by their nature, beyond our imagination. All we can do is approximation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they CAN'T be beyond your imagination, since you're aware of them AND are presumably able to identify them. While you might not be able to perceive the whole thing -- in the same way that I might not, on casual inspection, be able to see the bottom of an iceberg -- you're able to see enough to say "Ah! That's an iceberg."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I told you this would be frustrating. Again, while it is perceived by the senses, it is not only perceived by the senses.
it has been described as a "still, small, voice" - but, of course, it isn't a voice that you "hear" through your ears.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be describing some sort of conviction, though, in the same way that I might be convinced that, say, 'these data are weird'. It's not something I perceive directly, but an awareness nonetheless. But it doesn't exist outside my thoughts; and I don't see how you can possibly claim a conviction that it does. How would you tell the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If by "thoughts" we mean everything that isn't purely sensory; ideas, emotions, fear, love, passion, dreams, instinct and so forth.
AREN'T these thoughts? I find it hard to imagine that any of them would exist without a brain to think them.
Specifically, it's exactly these things which Descartes meant when he equated "thought" with "soul" -- his res cogitans. But he ALSO meant thoughts like "I don't like supper" or "I remember that my father had brown hair" or "2+2=4," because he felt these were equivalent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking back at the posts, I don't see why it matters anyway. You were the one who brought up the distinction between thoughts and reason; I was only referring to 'thoughts', not specifying the kind. So why is this relevant?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was stating (to begin with) that my faith is dependent on neither logical proof or material evidenc. This seemed, during the discussion, to divide into two catagories, sense and reason.
To clarify: My faith is not dependent on logical proof. Although I can think and reason regarding my faith, I do not have faith because I can prove it logically. That does not mean it is contrary to logic, but that it is beyond logic.
My faith is not dependent on material evidence. Although faith does evoke feelings, if those feelings were (as they sometimes are) absent, it would not alter my faith. And though I often witness the goodness of God, my faith in God does not change when I cannot rely on such witness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hang on, though. You cannot very well claim that you would have the same faith if you had never been told about the Bible; so to that extent, it is dependent on sense information. And also, asserting that your faith can survive the occasional period without the feelings it evokes is one thing. But to go from there to saying that it would exist even if you'd never had those feelings is another matter entirely. I'm not sure if that's the claim you're making, but if so, how would you know?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To clarify: My faith is not dependent on logical proof. Although I can think and reason regarding my faith, I do not have faith because I can prove it logically. That does not mean it is contrary to logic, but that it is beyond logic.
My faith is not dependent on material evidence. Although faith does evoke feelings, if those feelings were (as they sometimes are) absent, it would not alter my faith. And though I often witness the goodness of God, my faith in God does not change when I cannot rely on such witness.
But your faith is dependent on something, isn't it? Is it something of the sort that it makes you reason that "If I am experiencing this, then my belief in God is true"?
My point is that whatever that something is, it is a sort of evidence, because it supports your belief. I believe evidence includes more that logic and material evidence. Hence my initial argument that faith in a religious belief is, like faith in any belief, normally built on some sort of evidence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Aren't they? The only parts of dreams and love which aren't reason are the biochemical parts, which are materialistic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, consider this : You seem to be saying that you would believe no matter what, because, apparently, it's the way your brain is built. (If this is not true, perhaps you could give an example of something that would shake your faith?) But if that's true, then why bother? After all, your brain could just as well be built to believe that no colour except pink exists. Such a belief does not say anything about truth. A belief based on nothing at all strikes me as being extremely worthless, even as religious faith goes.
Also, you did not answer my previous post.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. As to whether or not I would have had faith without exposure to either "feelings" or other testimony (I'll expand that from "told about the Bible" so that it includes being told about God in other ways) - good question. I have no way of knowing, really, as that didn't happen. I know that my faith extends back before I can remember.I do know that very young children and severly mentally disabled people are capable of faith.
As for your second question, my faith isn't based on "nothing at all" - it is based on something you don't believe in, though. I emphasized "based" because I am talking about the foundation. The structure on top of that foundation has been built through experience and thought and study, etc., but the core of my faith, I believe, is pure gift.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That may be a broader definition of reason than I am using. So you would include dreams, intuition, emotion, etc?
Yep. All these things are products of thought, even if you don't concede that they're necessarily products of the brain.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase that to 'a faith that cannot be shaken by any means.' Really, if you believe X because your brain is built that way, or because (if you prefer) your god shaped it that way, what's the point? You could just as easily believe in the IPU, Communism, or free love. It doesn't say anything about the utility or truth of the concept.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
What you have said is true. It doesn't. Faith is dangerous. A lot of people have faith in some really evil stuff - or good stuff that has been perverted.
Let's see if I can keep using the foundation/structure analogy.
The foundation is the invitation, the call, the desire to believe that we are more than the sum of our parts. That we are meant for something. The generalized optimism for the "good/moral/love" thing.
The structure is our response to that invitation. That is what is shaped by our thoughts, reason, experience, personality and so forth.
That is why, for me, the sort of absolute faith that I am talking about is not big on details. God loves me; God wants me to love. That is all I know for sure. The rest, the structure, is subject to change - not likely, but possible. But change won't trouble the foundation. And I am more certain of the foundation, God loves me; God wants me to love, than I am of anything else, even the evidence of my senses or my logical thought.
Where I think religion gets into trouble is when we equate and confuse our certainty in the foundation with certainty in the details. When we can't separate them. Then, people who have built different "structures" - even slightly different - become a threat. And challenges to our "stucture" become challenges to the "foundation". Instead of meeting people of different religions and thinking, "Now that is interesting. How does that fit with my belief? I like it, will it fit? Can I make room?" We either defend our faith (sometimes violently) or reject everything - including the "foundation".
That may make no sense at all and be either more of less than the answer you were looking for.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not going to think about the free love part? I am losing my touch!
I do appreciate the thought you are putting into this discussion. I am sure that you understand that I am not trying to "convert" you, but it is fun to use you and Tom as an incentive/whetstone.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am more certain of the foundation, God loves me; God wants me to love, than I am of anything else, even the evidence of my senses or my logical thought.
Have you never wondered why YOU are so sure of this, whereas the majority of the planet is not? Since this surety doesn't depend on any behavior of yours, God has chosen you for this sensation and has presumably not chosen others. Do you ever wonder why?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. We are all chosen. That my experience/thought/personality may make me more or less inclined to respond in the way I respond is an entirely different thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if you didn't have your experience, thought, or personality, you would not have faith? Your faith is, then, completely dependent upon these things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Have you never wondered why YOU are so sure of this, whereas the majority of the planet is not? Since this surety doesn't depend on any behavior of yours, God has chosen you for this sensation and has presumably not chosen others. Do you ever wonder why?
Tom, I don't think she feels that the majority of the planet disagrees with her, but precisely the opposite. I'm putting words in her mouth here, but I'd be willing to bet that Kate views practicioners of other religions as having the same *base* faith she speaks of, even if they are antagonistic to hers-- from the way she described it, being Catholic, or even Christian, is built, perhaps by reason, on the "God exists and loves me" foundation.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The shape my response takes to the invitation of faith. The "core" of my faith is not. And it gets fuzzier regarding "personality". We probably need to define that a bit more exactly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Have you never wondered why YOU are so sure of this, whereas the majority of the planet is not? Since this surety doesn't depend on any behavior of yours, God has chosen you for this sensation and has presumably not chosen others. Do you ever wonder why?
Tom, I don't think she feels that the majority of the planet disagrees with her, but precisely the opposite. I'm putting words in her mouth here, but I'd be willing to bet that Kate views practicioners of other religions as having the same *base* faith she speaks of, even if they are antagonistic to hers-- from the way she described it, being Catholic, or even Christian, is built, perhaps by reason, on the "God exists and loves me" foundation.
posted
But I would argue that most people who call themselves believers -- of whatever faith -- would not describe the "invitation" in the way she, as a believer in numinous Catholicism, has done. Their experience with the invite -- if any -- has been quite different. Is this due to a difference in their background, or in some quality of the invitation itself?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Is this due to a difference in their background, or in some quality of the invitation itself?
and that's the big question with Kate's line of thinking which, while I don't outright disagree with it, causes me to not quite assent to it either... which I guess makes me one of those "semi-pelagians" Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Kate, is it correct to say of the faith you are talking about that all people have this faith from birth, but respond to it in different ways? (Assuming one of those "different ways" might be to not respond to it at all?)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good morning! Tom, I can't really speak to the experience of others except that I believe that God wants to be in relationship with each of us. I imagine that the "invitation" is experienced differently by different people and that would likely be because people themselves are different. I think that I have had it pretty easy. For example, I have loving, supportive parents who, while giving us access to various religious traditions, never imposed them on us. As a matter of fact, my sibs and I weren't even baptised until we chose to be. This freedom is one thing that has made it easier for me to respond.
Karl, I think that God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us quite possibly from the beginning of time, but otherwise, yes, I think that's right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
