quote: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.
How do you reconcile this with your stated Catholicism? More to the point, why do you consider yourself a Catholic if you feel this way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
This is just as well. But you are perhaps misunderstanding the direction of my questions. I am trying to figure out how you justify your belief in your own mind. So far, all I can tell is that your belief is extremely strange, indeed.
Perhaps a better question for this purpose would be, why do you believe as you do about Jesus and death? How were you convinced of this in the first place?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Short answer? I am, after some study and prayer, convinced that the Catholic faith is not dependent on a literal understanding of the gospels or even a fourth century understanding.
KoM, I don't believe that I have to fully understand something in order to believe in it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, um....What actually makes it Catholic, then? What would distinguish your faith from that of a Unitarian?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bootjes: "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?"
Firstly, and in all kindness(as I assume you strive for being proficient in english... what with your high quality of writing), 'proof' is a noun, while 'to prove', is a verb. So it would be "I cannot prove." Hope i'm not offensive.. it just seems to be recurring..
Bootjes, thank you for providing an explanation of what you think god is in even faintly comprehensible terms. No talk of "oh my, it's too big to describe." or simply "I don't have to explain this to you." I very strongly support something that can serve as a comfort to you as described. There is something that confuses me, though. You said that god exists for you because only such a profound concept could allow you to focus yourself on things you hold valuable in your life, such as peace and joy. Do you feel that the god you conceive could possibly have any DIRECT influence on the world, such as throwing a coffee cup? More importantly, (well... assuming you answer no to the prior question, if you answer yes, I'll be fascinated to hear that story)do you understand that by your very definition of God you describe him as a mental construct you find it useful to either compare yourself to, or hold yourself responsible to, or counsel yourself with? Do you believe that the sense of happiness you associate with god is from an external source, that you are being led into joy by anything other than yourself suddenly being willing to be joyful after conceiving of the idea that is God in your mind.
Without any elaboration on what you've said so far it appears to me that the use of the word God to describe what you are describing is nothing close to what you previously described (it being completely incomprehensible). It sounds far more like a lovely ideal to consider that is very valuable in being helpful to your life, but I see nothing supernatural! It is simply you need such a construct to bring certain benefits to your life and apparently I have similar analogous ones that I have not attached to supernatural overtones. I think I am baffled why you feel the need to describe what I quoted above with the word God.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading kmbboots posts I could go to the same church as he. My background is not catholic so I go to the remonstrant church: a Dutch version of the protestant church. They were thrown out in the 17th century, because they didn't believe in predestination.
A friend of mine is brought up catholic and goes to our church a lot. He likes the sermons which are of more meaning/content than in the catholic church. Every Sunday it gives you food for thought.
I go to the catholic church sometimes. What I like about that service is the use symbols. These help to reach out in a different way than with the mind, more from the heart so to speak.
So for me the difference between the churches is that of mind and that of heart. I like both. What I don't like about the catholic church is the hierarchy: the pope telling priests what to do. But a lot of Catholics I know feel like that too. They don’t leave the church because they feel at home there, which I understand. That is the same reason my friend (although attending my church) doesn’t become a member of it. He still has ties with the catholic faith.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
thanks for the correction. (and for the compliment it includes)
And then again thanks for your understanding. It literally gives me goose bumps _______________ Quote: It sounds far more like a lovely ideal to consider that is very valuable in being helpful to your life, ___________________
This is the most important part of my belief. It’s what works.
The thing is: the state of mind I get is so very different form my state of mind when I am worried by everyday problems that it feels like it’s coming from outside.
Examples:
In the “God state of mind” I can really connect with people, be patient with their moods, see trough it. In my everyday sate of mind I can get annoyed by those same people.
In my everyday sate of mind I can hang on to how I want things to go, and get frustrated when they don’t. In the “God state of mind” the frustration is completely gone.
So it feels to me if God is helping me to percieve the world in a better way. This is also something I said in my initiation vows.
________________ Quote: . . .that you previously described (it being completely incomprehensible. . . ________________________
If you mean the matrix thing: That part is just private philosophy. My mind seeking ways that wonders can be true. So no wonder that is incomprehensible. It does not interfere of have any other influence on the first part of my religion.
And thanks to all of you. it's good to review your beliefs. You all have helped me do it (are helping me do it, I should say)
I went through this process in my initiation year. it's good to renew it now and then.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm actually ok with your belief. From what you've said lately it sounds like you believe in God, and it helps you out, but you don't claim that it is anything capable of extraordinary things. It does not compel you to terrible things such as the destruction of other people's rights(regarding gay rights, here). You don't, I don't think, disbelieve in evolution or geology, or paleontology for what your religion says, which is nice. I still feel that there are lots of silly things in Christianity, mainly belief in miracles and the like. I also maintain that there is no reason to assume that the feeling you prescribe to God is unique to God, that your choice of belief is in no way privileged over any other belief based on wishful thinking. I realize that your conception of god is necessary for you, and is not overtly trying to assert anything that contradicts evidence, and at that level, I am ok with it.
Wow. I have never understood this menagerie any better than this, though there isn't anything fantastical going on other than thinking that some external source is providing the comfort which (I believe) is coming from your own self esteem and thoughts.
Please, nobody think this is a conversion for me away from atheism, but an acceptance of this instance of belief in god.
quote:I thought you were asking how I justify my belief.
Indeed I was. The mere statement that you do not need to understand something fully to believe it does not answer this question. Presumably there was some initial evidence that led you to the belief that there is something you only understand a part of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always (well as long as I can remember) knew there was Something. Christianity as I think it should be practiced is a good way to access that Something. Other religions are, too, but Catholicism suits me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if I understand correctly, you get "There is a god" from intuition, and Catholicism from grabbing the closest reasonable approach. How do you know that your intuition is reliable?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we cannot fully understand an infinite being, how can we possibly know that it's infinite? It seems to me that all we can know is that it's exactly equal to or slightly larger than our current understanding.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say that you know there was something, without providing any explanation of how you know there was something, is to say that you THOUGHT there was something. Feeling rather confident is NOT evidence. Your confidence in the fact that there is something does not constitute a reasonable explanation of why you should have confidence in the fact that there is something to have confidence in.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said before, this isn't a matter for evidence. There is more than one way of understanding experience. And my belief has proved reliable for me for a long time. It works.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have evidence for all my other beliefs either. Scientific method is great for a lot of things. It isn't the only way to understand everything.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I guess I'm actually ok with your belief. From what you've said lately it sounds like you believe in God, and it helps you out, but you don't claim that it is anything capable of extraordinary things. It does not compel you to terrible things such as the destruction of other people's rights(regarding gay rights, here). You don't, I don't think, disbelieve in evolution or geology, or paleontology for what your religion says, which is nice. I still feel that there are lots of silly things in Christianity, mainly belief in miracles and the like. I also maintain that there is no reason to assume that the feeling you prescribe to God is unique to God, that your choice of belief is in no way privileged over any other belief based on wishful thinking. I realize that your conception of god is necessary for you, and is not overtly trying to assert anything that contradicts evidence, and at that level, I am ok with it.
Wow. I have never understood this menagerie any better than this, though there isn't anything fantastical going on other than thinking that some external source is providing the comfort which (I believe) is coming from your own self esteem and thoughts.
Please, nobody think this is a conversion for me away from atheism, but an acceptance of this instance of belief in god.
I think we can agree on this. Even on the part that my religion isn't necessary to find the kind of peace I find.
(I don't like churches that forbid to teach evolution theory etc. Actulay I think they are a bit dangerous. Thankfully my church doesn't.)
edit:
So I don't think that I have the better deal because I have religion and you don't. That is something that has kept me away form religion a long time: The condescending way some Christians look upon non-believers, at best pitying them.
quote:To say that you know there was something, without providing any explanation of how you know there was something, is to say that you THOUGHT there was something. Feeling rather confident is NOT evidence. Your confidence in the fact that there is something does not constitute a reasonable explanation of why you should have confidence in the fact that there is something to have confidence in.
Isn't it possible to know something without knowing how you know it or being able to prove that you know it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have evidence for all my other beliefs either. Scientific method is great for a lot of things. It isn't the only way to understand everything.
The scientific method was invented precisely because intuition turned out to be such an unreliable way of getting at truths about the universe. Why do you believe that this is the one exception to that rule? People have 'intuited' all sorts of things; why should your intuition be so much better?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different kinds of "truth". I don't think it is the only exception - I don't even think that there is a "rule"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Different kinds of "truth". I don't think it is the only exception - I don't even think that there is a "rule".
I don't understand what it means for something to be "differently true". Sounds like a euphemism for "false", but that's presumably not what you intend. What do you mean by 'truth' if it's not "corresponding to the real state of affairs"?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have evidence for all my other beliefs either. Scientific method is great for a lot of things. It isn't the only way to understand everything.
The scientific method was invented precisely because intuition turned out to be such an unreliable way of getting at truths about the universe. Why do you believe that this is the one exception to that rule? People have 'intuited' all sorts of things; why should your intuition be so much better?
I studied social Science. I think it sucks at predicting or even describing social behaviour. Way too many variables that can't be controlled. Not suggesting that we replace it by religion or intuition, just saying science does not have all the answers.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you have already stated that you do not believe your god to exist only within your own mind.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The questions are coming like automatic guns. Where is the time when you had to reload after every single shot? Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. But that's not really "knowledge." And there have actually been lots of studies on instinct recently that demonstrate that accurate instinct depends heavily on a high level of familiarity with a given complex situation; what appears to be instinctual is actually a high-level ordering of multiple variables at a subconscious level. An expert's "instinct" is almost always more reliable than a novice's.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it would be disingenuous for me to say that I "know" how to take a dump? But fair to say that I "know" how to take a dump better than a baby?
Posts: 158 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You're asking me to prove a negative?
Why do people have such trouble with this? Proving negatives is easy (the existence of the largest prime number, for example).
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax: "Yes. If you know it isn't possible, what is your proof that it isn't possible?"
WHO SAID IT ISN'T!!! All any of us have said, or what we meant to say, is not that it is impossible, just that there is no evidence to direct us in the direction of that belief, and much to point us away from it. Much to point us away from it I would call the historical use of religion to explain the unknowable, only to replace those religious beliefs regarding things such as lightning, astronomical motion, and fire with scientific explanations. I would also argue that we should stray away from religious explanations of things as they seem exceedingly improbable next to a simple extension of current scientific knowledge. I feel that it is more likely that our sentience(and what that particularly means) will be explained better by science at some point than it will be by invoking a completely new force called God that is called upon to take such a limited role in the world, and transcend so many other things we accept.
We have shown through history such a multitude of things that happen, that are, without the invocation of a God. We have eliminated so many possible reasons for why he should be thought to exist, while finding not one reason why he should be thought to exist. Not one reason with testifiable, quanifiable, falsifiable results that prove a reason for him to exist, that I am of the opinion that a belief in God is superfluous, unless there is no claim that God is anything more than a term for certain feelings you have sometimes. You can say why he doesn't need to exist over and over and over, but that doesn't mean he doesn't. What it means is that, so far, we have only found that he does not need to exist, and the trends in scientific advancement and in humans to be deceived, should suggest that he probably does not exist, not that he does not, or cannot. ...
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay here comes my canon. It took a while to load it. Let's hope it hits the target.
The target being better understanding from (on?) both "sides", NOT convincing the other side. (That is why I am so pleased with startsnuffers posts, because he already has hit it)
Can we agree on this:
1. science is a great instrument
2. intuition is also a great instrument
3. Neither are infallable
4. Science is the better instrument for decisions regarding others because it is more transparent
5. intuition can be a good instrument for decisions regarding yourself only
6. Intuition can be a good instrument to complete your view of the world next to science, always remembering nr. 4 of course! (or nr. 3 for that matter)
(Intuition is the instrument with which I see God)
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
reading this I should say you would grant me 5, and that at 6 you would say: there is nothing to complete. Fair enough, but then there is also nr 3 to consider.
edit: not sure about the use of the words: should and would
I would say that I feel no need for number 6 since I'm just waiting for the gap to be filled in, but I won't tell you you can't imagine a god to fill those gaps until they are explained, so long as you are willing to accept evidence as it arises. Basically, my only qualm about religion is when people use it to maintain things that are blatantly untrue, rationalize their own prejudices and hate, and the attitude of willful ignorance that seem to go along with many of them. (For example, criticism of evolution, gay discrimination, and the catholic church's condemnation of Galileo's work)
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bootjes: Okay here comes my canon. It took a while to load it. Let's hope it hits the target.
The target being better understanding from (on?) both "sides", NOT convincing the other side. (That is why I am so pleased with startsnuffers posts, because he already has hit it)
Can we agree on this:
1. science is a great instrument
Sure.
quote:2. intuition is also a great instrument
No. It's too unreliable.
quote:3. Neither are infallable
Sure. But science will always be a great deal more reliable because it makes a point of trying to disprove its claims, and because it makes a point of only claiming things which have supporting evidence.
quote:4. Science is the better instrument for decisions regarding others because it is more transparent
I'd say that science is the better way if you want the smallest chance of being wrong. And yes, other people do appreciate that, but when it comes to your own personal stuff, like your health, for instance, you pick science over intuition every time.
quote:5. intuition can be a good instrument for decisions regarding yourself only
I wouldn't call any method as unreliable as intuition to be good for anything.
Which will serve you better in Vegas, a solid understanding of math and statistics, or an intuition that black is due on the roulette wheel?
quote:6. Intuition can be a good instrument to complete your view of the world next to science, always remembering nr. 4 of course! (or nr. 3 for that matter)
No, if your intuition is wrong, then it's not good to complete your world view with it. And if your intuition is right, you can justify it with facts and reasoning too, which brings one back to science.
quote:(Intuition is the instrument with which I see God)
Sure. We get that. But intuition is notoriously unreliable.
The reason that science works so well is that it takes into account a basic truth about humanity. That people make mistakes a lot, and that people are very very bad about figuring out that their ideas are wrong. And the history of science shows quite plainly...when you are rigorous, stuff works really, really well.
And so you say that you are ignoring this method, which has been shown over and over again to work, and, in the places where its working yields answers you don't like, you are substituting a method which has been shown over and over again to yield wrong answers.
Essentially, you are making a habit of driving without a seatbelt, and you are trying to justify that decision. Well, you are never going to do it satisfactorily.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: you are substituting a method which has been shown over and over again to yield wrong answers.
Essentially, you are making a habit of driving without a seatbelt, and you are trying to justify that decision. Well, you are never going to do it satisfactorily.
I think I didn't say anything about substituting. Maybe I should have added that in personal affairs where it is available I use a scienctific approach . There are many personal decisions where sciense isn't available. Then I use intuition. Even than very carefully. Just to show that I am sometimes too carefull about my intuition:
My previuos job was chosen using reason. My intuition said "no". But everyone convinced me I made the right choice. All reasonable arguments said so. So I went for it. Didn't work out. Not because I didn't try. By making the decision I stopped listening to my intuition on that matter.
So I try to balance the two in my own life. not subsitute the one with the other.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't demonstrate your knowledge, then it is only a belief.
But can you demonstrate that the above statement is true? Or is it just your belief?
quote:I know it isn't possible, but I don't know how I know that it isn't possible.
If that were the case, then there is at least one thing you claim to know without being able to know how you know it, which in turn proves the original statement wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: you are substituting a method which has been shown over and over again to yield wrong answers.
Essentially, you are making a habit of driving without a seatbelt, and you are trying to justify that decision. Well, you are never going to do it satisfactorily.
I think I didn't say anything about substituting. Maybe I should have added that in personal affairs where it is available I use a scienctific approach . There are many personal decisions where sciense isn't available. Then I use intuition. Even than very carefully. Just to show that I am sometimes too carefull about my intuition:
My previuos job was chosen using reason. My intuition said "no". But everyone convinced me I made the right choice. All reasonable arguments said so. So I went for it. Didn't work out. Not because I didn't try. By making the decision I stopped listening to my intuition on that matter.
So I try to balance the two in my own life. not subsitute the one with the other.
A single anecdotal does not make a case. Also, the variables that led you to choose the job may not have be involved with why the job didn't work out. In fact, they may not have even existed until you chose the job.
Intuition is a synonym for instinct, which in turn is basically the same thing as logic, except quicker and sloppier, as it is done subconsciously (see Tom's statement above). As such, the reasons why either might fail you are the same, the primary reason being some amount of ignorance of the subject at hand.
Every great once in a while, your subconscious might make some random connection, or recall some bit of white noise that you weren't actually paying attention to, and so lead to a better decision. To say that this holds true as much as, or more than methodically sorting and making connections among the knowledge you have of a subject however, is highly doubtful.
Unrelated: Another matter that gets to me about religious discussions, including this one, is when the religious side takes advantage of science's tendency not to claim anything as fact. Generally, scientifically worded answers are along the lines of "tends to", "seems to be", "most likely", and the such. I've seen far too many of the opposing side take that statement as a victory. When someone says, in such a case, "Oh, so you admit that you can't prove it?!?", that is only displaying one's own ignorance of the nature of science. I would go so far as to say that there is no such THING as proof. There is only "evidence that suggests...". Please keep this in mind before you claim victory and walk away.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Death to the white chocolate! I am loving this serioud debate about our chocolate religions while witty comments abound!
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
