posted
Your precise point seems to keep changing KoM, and I think you know as well as the religious that to many people religion does have a point even if it doesn't fix your fever.
posted
I am a man of many points, and the theists keep changing which of their many confusions is manifested in the latest post. To summarise a bit, in no particular order:
Beliefs should be backed by evidence.
Theists agree with this when real-world outcomes actually matter to them; 'faith' is only acceptable when dealing with things whose truth has no consequences.
Labeling things internal to the human mind 'God' is confusing, misleading, and harmful.
Cherry-picking only the parts you agree with doesn't even qualify as faith.
quote: Labeling things internal to the human mind 'God' is confusing, misleading, and harmful.
I think you mean it confuses you and is harmful to your arguments? I'm okay with that. A little research would have informed you that the Holy Spirit has been, by definition, God for most Christians for quite some time.
quote: Cherry-picking only the parts you agree with doesn't even qualify as faith.
So you mean I have to let someone else decide what I believe for it to count as faith? Why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
I have said many times that my faith is not just or even primarily about feelings.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
And once again my reservations about gathering and collectively choosing KoM as the theist spokesman are validated.
As for points changing, yours have changed sharply on at least two occasions that I recall. One was when you believed that people could be honest and thorough and still arrive at a mistaken conclusion, until the question became about theists. Another was when you were suggesting the approach and phrasing of an argument were important, except when it's you we're talking about and you're talking to theists.
'Man of many points', when used to describe you, seems to really mean 'hypocrite'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not disagreeing. I just didn't think it was an important distinction to make in this thread.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that as you originally stated it, the sentence was untrue.
As far as this thread, it is as pointless as almost every thread currently at 5+ pages on Hatrack. Rehashing the same arguments, over and over, and the main difference is the level of nastiness increases with each iteration.
posted
::shrug:: I pretty much stopped arguing a while ago. I just didn't want KoM's arguments to stand against ALL theists.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka did you know that you are member 4859 and I am member 4752?! I've never found anyone else that close in number.
Yet I distinctly remember joining because I saw your "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. I guess I had already joined. Maybe to ask a question on the other forum...yea...that sounds about right...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite so. You have yet to say so convincingly. Even the other theists here don't believe you.
And once again my reservations about gathering and collectively choosing KoM as the theist spokesman are validated.
I think you ought to reverse the polarity of this sentence lest we all be sucked into an alternate universe where Lisa is a communist, Blayne is a responsible father frustrated by his slacker teenaged son, and OSC posts screeds about the utter evil of the Bush years and the hypocrisy of those who cannot see the greatness of Obama.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Rivka did you know that you are member 4859 and I am member 4752?! I've never found anyone else that close in number.
And our posts counts are almost the same too.
(BTW, that smiley was a link.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because your 'faith' eventually boils down to "I believe this because it feels good". Its only reference point is your own mind. You must know that this is not how one arrives at truth.
This only demonstrates a misunderstanding of faith, KoM. "Faith" doesn't boil down to "I believe this because it feels good."
I'll repeat the point I made earlier... I'd bet that if you compared beliefs a given individual accepts based on faith in something vs. beliefs a given individual has attempted to logically derive himself, you'll find the beliefs based on faith tend to be more often correct. When I get sick, I rely on faith in my doctor rather than trying to deduce how to heal myself based on the evidence. When I studied in school, I generally relied on faith in my teacher and my textbook that the answers they were giving me were true, rather than trying to deduce everything myself. And so on.... It varies by subject, but it is often more successful to trust someone who (or something that) can testify as an expert rather than try to figure everything out yourself from the evidence.
quote:This only demonstrates a misunderstanding of faith, KoM.
You'll note he was speaking specifically to Kate. I think it's a pretty accurate description of Kate's faith.
Your definition of "faith" -- believing someone who is supported as an external authority on a given issue -- is interesting, but not relevant to KoM's initial complaint. Nor do I think it's a particularly common or useful definition of "faith." (It also makes for a bad analogy, since it's not like you're demanding regular certification of your religious leaders to prove they know God better than a layman, whereas doctors, lawyers, scientists, and teachers all have to regularly deal with external certification based on generally rigorous, verifiable standards.)
---------
quote:One was when you believed that people could be honest and thorough and still arrive at a mistaken conclusion, until the question became about theists.
As I said elsewhere, this isn't hypocritical of KoM, as his definition of "thoroughness" excludes exactly what distinguishes "faith" from "fact." If you're thorough and honest, by his logic, you can't be a theist; there's nothing inconsistent in this, although I certainly understand why someone with a different definition of "thorough" might initially be offended.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Tres: Provided you can test that evidence or have had the experience that relying on the expert leads to a good outcome. Just because a priest prayed more doesn't mean he's more of an expert on God (and God's will) than me. He's more of an expert in his religion; meaning if he says "my religion says you should do this" I'll believe him that that's what his religion says. I'd have no reason to believe him that I should actually do what he says.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be. If I believed things that didn't make sense to me, would that count as faith? Or believed things that I didn't really believe?
And again (though you just call me a liar) religion doesn't spring from or reliably produce "good feelings".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Sure. This makes them an authority on the history and principles of their religion. Do you believe it makes them an authority on God? Does any religion even claim that it does?
quote:Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be.
The reason KoM has to specifically address you is that you put the cart before the horse relative to many other religious people. Most people with whom KoM has these conversations say: "I believe in God, and God says X is good. Therefore I believe X is good." You, on the other hand, say: "I believe in good, and I believe X is good. I also choose to believe in God because I believe it is good to have a good God. And because I believe X is good and I believe God is good, I believe God believes X is good."
I can't necessarily speak for KoM on this point, but what amazes me about the latter position is that your belief in God doesn't actually appear to have any functional utility. None of your decision-making processes depend upon faith or reference to your religion's dogma; you do not use religion for epistemology.
Now, I'm actually okay with that. I wish more religious people were like you in that regard. But it does leave me wondering why you bother to insert God in there at all, particularly the god of a specific, dogma-heavy religion. My own conclusion is that you find the social advantages and long traditions of liberal Catholicism comforting in themselves, and find using "God" as a framework to be convenient for you in lieu of relying on other philosophies that strike as you potentially more problematic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said elsewhere, this isn't hypocritical of KoM, as his definition of "thoroughness" excludes exactly what distinguishes "faith" from "fact." If you're thorough and honest, by his logic, you can't be a theist; there's nothing inconsistent in this, although I certainly understand why someone with a different definition of "thorough" might initially be offended.
As I replied elsewhere, I believe it's hypocritical because of his definition of 'thoroughness'. Especially since he seems to conflate that with honesty as well.
If someone else were to approach the discussion that way, to pose that condition, I might be inclined to think that maybe they weren't being hypocritical. But KoM has always been such a bad-faith participant in such discussions that you're asking me to believe his thought processes and intentions are as academic and sterile as you're claiming, despite the long-term and frequent evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that basically is my definition of "thorough," as well; I can't actually conceive of a definition of "thorough" that would permit another conclusion while still remaining a useful definition.
The only reason it hasn't been an issue for me is that I don't harp about how it's not possible to be intellectually honest and intellectually thorough while remaining a theist, even though this is absolutely what I believe (and what I think most atheists believe, for that matter.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anything you don't believe that you think an intellectually honest and intellectually thorough person could believe?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It becomes a question of how important and reliable one deems their own mind and memory then, doesn't it?
To KoM, and apparently you, no matter how much time-proven trust one has in their rationality and the memory of their own lives and experiences, if one day they tot up reality and start coming up 'Theism!', that conclusion and all the things which led up to it must be scrapped and labeled 'inconclusive or irrelevant' in order to be intellectually honest and intellectually thorough.
Or, put another way, to have trust (faith) in their own minds only so far as they come up with a specific set of conclusions. 'Honest' and 'thorough' don't to me seem very appropriate words for that style of thinking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most denominations, becoming a member of the clergy requires schooling beyond a bachelor's degree.
Sure. This makes them an authority on the history and principles of their religion. Do you believe it makes them an authority on God? Does any religion even claim that it does?
The same was any education makes anyone an authority on intangibles. Someone with a doctorate in theatre criticism, for example, has studied the accumulated thinking about theatre throughout history. Their opinion on a play is going to be a more informed opinion. There is room, though, for the validity of less informed but still authentic responses to a performance.
Someone who has studied theology will have gathered to themselves the accumulated thinking about God (and there is a lot of it) so has better tools for more informed opinions about God, but still leaving room for less informed but authentic responses to God.
quote:
quote:Tom, KoM, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, you think faith should be.
The reason KoM has to specifically address you is that you put the cart before the horse relative to many other religious people. Most people with whom KoM has these conversations say: "I believe in God, and God says X is good. Therefore I believe X is good." You, on the other hand, say: "I believe in good, and I believe X is good. I also choose to believe in God because I believe it is good to have a good God. And because I believe X is good and I believe God is good, I believe God believes X is good."
Not exactly. More like: I believe God is good. I believe X is good. Let me use the brain God gave me to see if I am missing why X is not good. No? Okay. Let me see if there is a likely reason that other people might be wrong about thinking X is not good. Hmmm...that makes sense. Are there experts I trust who agree with me about X being good? There are! Okay, so I can be reasonably confident in believing that X is good and God is okay with X.
Or: God is good. X is something that any rational person would think is bad. Does it make sense that God would endorse X. It does not. Let's look into this. Nope. Still doesn't make sense. Are there reasons that the people who think God endorses X are/were likely to be misled. There are!
quote:Is there anything you don't believe that you think an intellectually honest and intellectually thorough person could believe?
Certainly. I don't, for example, believe in super-string theory. I don't believe there is only one universe. I don't believe that Bono is being sincere when he complains about how he'd rather not be famous. I'm absolutely confident that intellectually honest and thorough people can come to another conclusion, however.
Theism, however, is unsupportable by evidence and by logic. As a position, it requires that someone first renounce a need for supporting evidence and logic in order to hold it, thus violating my definition of "thorough."
(Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong. Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives? )
----------
Kate, I don't actually see any substantive difference between your restatement and my own original statement. Where do you think the two diverge? (Especially since there has apparently never been a situation where you have concluded that "any rational person thinks X is good and Y is bad, but God thinks Y is good, so therefore I should change my mind?")
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You suppose a particular reason for my belief that God exists and is good, that isn't quite accurate and I think you discount the consideration I give to other opinions about what God thinks is good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I do discount that, I'm afraid. You could show me I'm wrong to do so by discussing a time when you changed your mind about what was good based on reading other people's opinions of what God wanted.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of things that I think about differently because of my religion. Beggars, for example. I dislike giving money to panhandlers. It makes me cranky. I do it because I think there is a fairly clear mandate to do so. I have had to revise my thinking about what is "fair" and am still struggling with that. I think I am struggling toward something better, but I don't like it and it is a clear departure from what I used to believe.
You may think I have always been a liberal Catholic progressive, but not so!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly. I don't, for example, believe in super-string theory. I don't believe there is only one universe. I don't believe that Bono is being sincere when he complains about how he'd rather not be famous. I'm absolutely confident that intellectually honest and thorough people can come to another conclusion, however.
Theism, however, is unsupportable by evidence and by logic. As a position, it requires that someone first renounce a need for supporting evidence and logic in order to hold it, thus violating my definition of "thorough."
What evidence is there that there's only one universe? What evidence is there that Bono's being sincere? Particularly for the average person who knows little about physics and doesn't personally know Bono, I'm not sure how you can say there's more evidence available for these issues than there is for the existence of God.
After all, with God we do have eyewitness accounts - both historical accounts in the Bible of events that if true seem inconsistent with anything other than theism, and personal testimony from a lot of currently living people who say they've seen/heard God in a direct way. Sure, they could ALL be lying, but you're saying that their testimony doesn't even count as any evidence at all? It's more evidence than I have available about Bono.
quote:Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong.
Why would that be true? If everyone else believes cold air causes the common cold, that doesn't make it enormously unlikely that I'm wrong in thinking a virus causes the common cold.
But as an aside, I haven't really had a personal experience that I clearly understood to be a direct experience of God. My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
quote:Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives?
The main testable (at least in this world) element of Christianity is the notion that if you follow Christ's teachings, you will live a good life. I have found that to hold consistently true, among people I know and in my own life. That's the primary reason I accept that religion.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what testable earthly claims one can expect from God. I don't believe we've been given reason to expect Him to appear on cue or heal people on demand, and I don't think that's the point of religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
Why don't you? Is it that you believe there are no real consequences of being wrong?
quote:The main testable (at least in this world) element of Christianity is the notion that if you follow Christ's teachings, you will live a good life.
Ah. So we're going to define "main element" to serve our purposes, here? Go ahead, but be aware that as you do so, you're only proving my point for me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, I attended the Parliament of World Religions in 1993. One of the big events was a celebration of religious performing arts - a gospel choir, Jainist poetry, religious dance and so forth. The Wiccans had by far the coolest presentation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They acted out this story about a winter queen and the prince of spring - there was some sexual content implied. It had magic tricks! At one point the main actor tore up what must have been flash paper and suspended the pieces in the air for a really long time with some elegant fan work so it looked like snowfall. Then he somehow lit the paper so all the snowflakes became stars for an instant. It was very pretty.
(Much more fun, to my taste, than the recitation from the Banarasavilasa.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Lest you disagree, citing personal experience of the divine, let me point out that it is enormously more likely that you are wrong about the meaning of your experience than it is that you are correct and everyone who has had a similar experience but attributes it to another (contradictory) cause happens to be wrong. Especially since the things you might conclude to also be true if your interpretation is true, when testable, repeatedly fail to prove themselves true. It's like I once told a Wiccan friend: if there were anything to magic, why do most Wiccans live in trailers and do nothing with their lives? )
So you're withdrawing 'evidence' from your list then, Tom? Or qualifying that with 'reliability'?
Anyway, I do believe that it's enormously unlikely theists, myself included of course, aren't right about our experiences. How could we be? Us meatbags have a hard time grasping the simplest concepts, moral and scientific both.
That's very different from concluding that we must be completely wrong. As for all those Wiccans you mention, there is another possibility: maybe they've got the right idea, but they're also losers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'll repeat the point I made earlier... I'd bet that if you compared beliefs a given individual accepts based on faith in something vs. beliefs a given individual has attempted to logically derive himself, you'll find the beliefs based on faith tend to be more often correct.
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
I'm sure there have been discussions of Monty Hall problem somewhere in Hatrack. How many of the people who actually simulated it got it wrong, versus the numebr of people who went with their gut?
Do you think that we might find some people who correctly simulated it, and decided that their gut understanding was superior, and therefore wrongly rejected what the evidence was telling them?
quote:When I get sick, I rely on faith in my doctor rather than trying to deduce how to heal myself based on the evidence.
But it's not "faith"! There's lots of evidence that the body of techniques used by doctors work.
quote:It varies by subject, but it is often more successful to trust someone who (or something that) can testify as an expert rather than try to figure everything out yourself from the evidence.
But the experts are working based on evidence. Trusting in them isn't blind faith if their techniques are validated by the real world.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're withdrawing 'evidence' from your list then, Tom? Or qualifying that with 'reliability'?
That is precisely why the word "thorough" is in there, you realize. It's intellectually honest enough to say "I have felt something that I choose to interpret as the hand of God." It's just not thorough.
quote:As for all those Wiccans you mention, there is another possibility: maybe they've got the right idea, but they're also losers.
But here's the thing: the things Wicca is supposed to do for you would normally preclude loserdom.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: But the experts are working based on evidence. Trusting in them isn't blind faith if their techniques are validated by the real world.
Sure. Some experts. Experts in science, sure. But what about experts in art or music? What evidence is there that Michaelangelo was a good or important artist?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that actually raises an interesting topic. The subjective evaluation of quality -- and, as a consequence, our ability to evaluate the people who do those evaluations -- is always constantly changing. It's one of the reasons that fashion goes in and out of vogue. Michaelangelo is at least partly an important artist because people who say they are experts say that other people are experts who say that Michaelangelo is important.
But even there, there is this: we can produce standards for an "important" artist, and we can look to see whether Michaelangelo meets them or not.
What standards should we use for God?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is precisely why the word "thorough" is in there, you realize. It's intellectually honest enough to say "I have felt something that I choose to interpret as the hand of God." It's just not thorough.
My mistake. You were listing some things separately, or rather not as a comma'd list, so I was reading tone differently.
Anyway, why isn't it thorough? You're in no position to evaluate a) how potent the feeling or feelings were in the first place, or b) how reliable that person's feelings and experiences and mind have proven him in the past.
quote:But here's the thing: the things Wicca is supposed to do for you would normally preclude loserdom.
I don't know much about Wiccans, but I'll bet one of its tenets isn't, "Call yourself a Wiccan, and you'll stop being a loser."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My belief in such experiences mostly comes from the testimony of others, whom I have no real reason to doubt.
Why don't you? Is it that you believe there are no real consequences of being wrong?
Why don't I have reason to doubt them? The same reason why the court system doesn't assume all witness are lying about everything....
I'm not going to reject someone's testimony just for the heck of it. That's irrational.
quote:Ah. So we're going to define "main element" to serve our purposes, here? Go ahead, but be aware that as you do so, you're only proving my point for me.
I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't defined the main testable earthly element of Christianity to serve any purpose. I'm just telling you what I think it actually is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're in no position to evaluate a) how potent the feeling or feelings were in the first place, or b) how reliable that person's feelings and experiences and mind have proven him in the past.
The potency of the feeling has no effect on the validity of the interpretation. Potency, as an attribute of a subjective internal feeling, doesn't make a feeling any less subjective or internal. Mental reliability might be evidence, except that there's not really anything to suggest that someone who has never previously experienced a delusion is less likely than the average person to experience a delusion at some point.
quote:I'll bet one of its tenets isn't, "Call yourself a Wiccan, and you'll stop being a loser."
In the same way that Mormon garments are broadly supposed to protect you from harm, the practice of Wicca is broadly supposed to stop you from being a loser. Sadly, both of these things are essentially untestable due to the refusal of believers to actually define terms.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The potency of the feeling has no effect on the validity of the interpretation.
None at all? Feeling something strongly, in and of itself, is I agree totally insufficient for a reasonable person to conclude anything.
quote:Mental reliability might be evidence, except that there's not really anything to suggest that someone who has never previously experienced a delusion is less likely than the average person to experience a delusion at some point.
So now it's, "No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
quote:Sadly, both of these things are essentially untestable due to the refusal of believers to actually define terms.
Yeah, because after all it's a good idea to define subjective terms. Works out great:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
