Hogwash!! Is it rational for scientists to believe in something they have yet to prove? Humans operate every single day making judgements both about the subjective and objective without absolute proof. It is not irrational. If we waited for proof before we believed and acted the race would be paralyzed.
these kind of assertions are just as ridiculous as any fundie belief.
Logic starts with an axiom. In the case of spirituality it may be "God is"Since the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved forming this axiom for ourselves is not irrational. The statement makes no other assertions about the nature of God. It doesn’t embrace any organized religion. It is through experience and the use of logic and reason along with the surrender of our egos, that true seekers can eliminate certain concepts of God {the angry man in the sky} and clarify our understanding.
Irrational assertions and the emotional or egotistical clouding of our ability to reason exists beyond religion. Yes, our ego’s as well as emotional attachments to a group or even a certain self image compromises our ability to discern the truth. That is also a consistent part of the human condition in the believer, the agnostic and the atheist. In this regard religion claims no unique irrational status.
So those are the only two choices?
Don’t worry. If these empty assertions are all you have to offer then there’s not much chance of that. The meaning in the spiritual journey is not a promise of eternal life as a motive to behave well. It is the transformation of the individual from within. If we through the inward journey become better people than we were , and in that becoming have a much more positive effect on those around us, that seems to me to be real meaning, not illusory. As we become more of our true spiritual selves and understand our connection to all creation, we begin to live more and more in harmony with the world around us. That, my friend, is real meaning.
No, that’s not why it’s ludicrous. There’s a better reason.
Which cave allegory are you speaking of? The one I like is the one that describes man as prisoners in shackles in a dark cave. Their only memory is their currant condition. When a world of freedom and light outside the cave is suggested they fear the unknown and cling to the familiar security of their imprisonment. They must at first have the freedom and light merely suggested , perhaps with brief partial glimpses. That is the spiritual journey.
Science will serve to help dispel some of the myths and traditions of religion. In the quest for truth science can help bring the focus of religion back to the inner person where it has always belonged.
The problem with relating religion and experience can be found in war. Although you have asserted this is not “paralyzing” the Islamic terrorists who plan attacks on the United States do not usually base their proof on rational argumentation or scientific evidence. Perhaps others can point this out. Beliefs such as those for religion are not to be willed, much less beliefs men die for. Relating religion with experience morally vicious. Let us hope others realize this before they jeopardize their lives in the simple task of choosing a religious belief.
Man’s use of experience and seclusion into himself should not be grounds for particular religious beliefs. These emotional experiences are usually experiences where one drifts towards a particular religion or the belief in a monotheistic God. These lucky few who are touched are miniscule to those who are not, unfortunately they are granted the fate of eternal hellfire and those with these emotional experiences are saved. This is not fair in the least and practically everyone would agree. It is also not fair the man who drops religion entirely due to hardship and the man who adopts Christianity due to hardship did so for the same reasons yet one is given paradise like benefits forever.
These personal ‘spiritual journeys’ where man comes to gripes with his faith are simply matters which ostracize others and lead to willed beliefs. The man did not encounter an informed dissertation on Christianity, he simply came to religious through consolance from experience. If Christians are right let us hope we are all so lucky to have God touch us in our sleep tonight, we should all hope to be so fortunate.
It is important also to address science and the quest for verility. We needn’t resort to a “divine god” unless we have rational grounds to do so or we are no better than all of the other religious… some of them brutal. It seems not all of them are correct in their doctrines, this is easy to observe, one must be wrong, or at least “tripped up” in some way. If we were to take a poll it would be ‘every other religion but mine’ that has tripped up.
Religion and the “quest” for spiritual truth each have their own downfall. It numbs man’s senses by thinking the enigma known as death is not death at all… but gives way to another life, an “afterlife”. This sort of guess is not based on empirical knowledge, it is a consoling view that is not founded on good evidence.
The limited time here on earth is not to be used as a “waiting hall” as CS Lewis calls it.
I sincerely hope there is a particular point one can make that will give evidence for Christianity. I and some of the greatest thinkers have not encountered them. The greeks believed the soul survived the body… scientists later discovered there is no physical soul in the body. The soul was in actuality the mind.
Man used to think Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is yet to be seen if they created the first cave paintings 17,000 years ago in France, much less where Dinosaurs and the like play into this.
This “spiritual truth” adoption is nice but is degrading if taken into the proper perspective. Man no longer marvels at the mystery of “natural law” or the world around us, he becomes content in fable doctrines created by scribes who never met Jesus. The first written work detailing Jesus’ life was the Gospel of Mark, this was created 20 years after his existence. Paul never met Jesus nor saw his ministry yet he is attributed with 16 of it’s 27 works, he also took Christianity from a Jewish sect into one more private, one that Jesus’ own brother James disagreed with. Peter, Barnabus, and others did too, Paul left without compensation at Antioch to found what we know as Christianity even though he never used the term… and the Jews who were circumcised and had strict food laws were fools to them. Man only need say “Jesus is the christ” and they will be saved. All others burn in hell, it is more likely Jesus burn’s in hell based on our current theologies. Jesus preached about the ‘coming kindgom of God’. This was a political kingdom where god would descend from the heavens, uproot all the deceased and behead the evil, then instill a new political kingdom on earth. This is in part why you see no writing for 40 years on his personal life.
Paul’s first writing was First Thessalonians, it is the earliest work in the New Testament. The intention of First Thessalonians was to console the people of Thessalonica over the recent dead and to promise them they would again rise and take part in God’s soon-to-come political kindgom.
The apostle Paul was not unique, the earliest Christians believed in an imminent apocalypse until 67 CE, which marked the time just before the fall of the temple.
I messed up in my post prior, Mark was written 40 years after Jesus, not 20. The first christian writing that surfaced was indeed Paul’s, 20 years after Jesus’ ministry. Paul had a divine dream in the road where he tells us he was off to persecute Christians… Jesus appeared to him three years after his own crucifix… and then Paul forgot to write something down for another 17 years… Scholars believe rather that these works are lost. Some of the earliest Christians believed Constantine’s reign as emperor was the “kindgom” Jesus spoke of.
Jesus was a Jew, preaching to Jews, about Jewish tradition. The name Christian used to describe the religion itself wouldn’t arise for another 90 years. The number 90 is also unique because it would also be how old John was if he truly wrote his Gospel. Presupposing John was 20 when he saw Jesus’ crucifix, his written work was composed seventy years later. How fortunate John lived to be 90 years old, most scholars believe he would’ve been 120 by the time his gospel was edited into our current copy. Nevertheless, the age attributed to a generation during this time is 40 years. I suppose John’s age goes along with Noah’s fate… Noah he lived for thousands of years, this unfortunately parallels the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Moses also led 2 million in the Exodus for 40 years, God threaten to kill Moses because he had excess skin on his penis but his wife was skilled in the matter and she cut off his son’s skin on his penis instead and then touched it to Moses’. Moses also crossed the sea of reeds whose depths exceed that of the Grand Canyon. God also killed 600,000 men of warrior age during this 40 year stint but archaeology reveals no bones. Add to this the fact that Jesus’ form of death was blatantly condemned in Deuteronomy and we have quite a paradox for a religious doctrine. It is also worth noting that Jesus’ life resembles that of Dionysus… who was born to a mortal mother, fathered by God, betrayed by his mortal companions who didn’t believe, ascended upon his death to sit next to Zeus on his throne…and gave humanity two gifts before he left: Wine and grain. This character was 450 years before Jesus.
Much of the objective information can be found here, I wrote most of it:
Do you read this stuff before you post it? Whose definition are you referring to? Yours and a few others you like to quote? I can’t find any logical reason why I should accept your definition.
That might be profound. Was that an accident?
Since every human {including you} does so, your statement condemns the lot of us. Fortunately it’s only another ridiculous assertion.
Not I. I think the search for truth and the commitment to truth in science or spirituality go hand in hand.
Check your phrasing. I’m not really interested in listing absurdities.
However, if you’ve read my posts you may have noticed a few things.
God is
Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself.
The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth and the truth will set you free.
Value the eternal qualities above the fleeting elements of life that decay with time.
The kingdom of heaven is within
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Now , if you happen to have proof, as in, solid evidence that these things are not true please present it. If, on the other hand all you have are more assertions then perhaps you might acknowledge that your unprovable assertions are no better than anyone else’s.
Do you believe that returning violence for violence is some kind of solution? Gandhi, perhaps you’ve heard of him?
Sure, Christianity and other religions have some easy targets none of which I have promoted. Let’s not waste time with this.
Please explain to me if you can how it is not using logic simply because I don’t agree with Russell’s narrow definition of faith. This is the proverbial pot here. You make wild assertions yet because you embrace them as “true” and I don’t then the conclusion is I am illogical and unreasonable. It’s laughable. You repeatedly insist that the world is only as you define it and yet accuse me of being unrealistic.
Since you agree assertions are not true simply because they are ‘assertions’… I would for you to explain which specific “subjective truths” human’s live by including myself.
I am glad you said this. The creation story in Genesis tells us that the world was created in seven days. The seventh day was even “very good” because this creation story was created by a Priest during the time of Ezra around 600 BCE. Evolution and the law of causation lead us to believe that this creation story is wrong, Adam and Eve were not responsible for the earliest cave paintings 17,000 years ago. The creation story was not even the earliest work composed in the Hebrew Bible. I touched on this in a thread prior. I do not think “spirituality” has anything to do with truth, if it were truth than we would call it such. We would not resort to biblical texts where they contradict science.
The problem with asserting “God” is love mean’s those who do not know God do not love. Abraham Lincoln was a great humanitarian, perhaps one of the best. He was atheist. Lincoln could have absolute affection and adore his dog, this has nothing whatsoever to do with God. There are also different degrees of love. You are told as a Christian to love your neighbor as well as your family. You assert God is love… I suppose it is God we are making love to when we have sex. I suppose we should also have sex with our family, we should perhaps love them more than a sex partner. You can see where your logic of love falls through. First Corinthians is where Saint Paul defines love. He classifies love as “unselfish.” He also condemns women and says they should never speak at a church meeting, if they have questions they should ask their husbands at home. He also blatantly says if you are to be circumcised you might as well get the whole thing chopped off. If we are to assert God is love because it comes from the bible we must also assert women as sinful dimwits as the following comes straight from the bible… most of which from Paul and the new Testament. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. It was not Adam who deceived; it was the woman, who, yielding to deception, fell into sin…Man is the image of God, and the mirror of his glory, whereas a woman reflects the glory of man. For man did not originally spring from woman, but woman was made out of man; and man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the sake of man… Women should keep silent at the meeting. They have no permission to talk, but should keep their place as the law directs. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home… Abimelech came up to a tower and attacked it, and as he approached the entrance to set fire to it, a woman threw a millstone down on his head and fractured his skull… he called hurriedly to his armour-bearer and said “Draw your sword and dispatch me, or it will be said of me: A woman killed him.” So the young man ran him through, and he died (1 Corinthians 11;2-10; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14; and Judges 9:53-54. )
Laughing is perhaps a joyous embrace of irony. You should share it with the rest of us as you seem to be laughing over a definition of “faith” you do not share. You think your faith does you good yet other faiths do harm. Some are even fighting over ‘faiths’ right now. Let us hope those who fight for religious purposes are right, according to your definition and mine they are both fools.
My assertion was that faith was an irrational attempt to believe a certain thing. This “belief” is willed and deservable of eternal hellfire. A man should never believe anything less he knows it, he must believe what he must believe. There are numerous quotes on faith that I can share. I would prefer you offer a better definition of faith so we can both objectively observe it and poke its holes. I will wait.
May I butt in to discuss this, without trying to pin you to beliefs I know you don’t hold?
Let’s examine how we act, then move to the rationality of religious belief and its impact on our actions, first in ways that I’m pretty sure you agree with and then in ways you may not.
People of course do not wait for proof to act. Even if they did, it would be proof in the sense of beyond a reasonable doubt, not mathematical proof. However rational people, when confronted with choices, choose the most likely avenue - including not choosing, which usually has an impact also.
This is a bit different from belief. Say you’re at the track, and, looking at the racing form, decide to bet on horse 2. This in your opinion is the most likely to win, and you feel that not betting would mean you’re wasting your time there, but you probably don’t “believe” that horse 2 will win. If it doesn’t, you’re not the slighest bit surprised. (If you’re like me, you’re more surprised if it does win.) So people do things without believing in them all the time.
Now let’s look at your axiom. As you say, the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. (I disagree about the proven part - I can come up with actions that would convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.) But, if God cannot be proven, then there will be no actions by God which will demonstrate his existence. That includes punishing us for nonbelief in this world. Perhaps he can punish us in the next world, but since his existence (and characteristics) cannot be proven, acting in a specific way to please god is irrational, since it is done on no evidence.
Now, one can go to church the way one goes to the opera, for the music and pageantry, but going to commune with god is irrational.
Now, let’s talk about our actions. I’m pretty sure that you agree that acting to hurt other people because of what an unproven god supposedly says is wrong. By the same logic, acting to help people because of god is just as wrong. (There are plenty of nonreligious reasons to do this, though.) In fact, acting to affect other people because of a god belief is just as irrational.
Let me support that a bit more. Say you think God is telling you to blow up an abortion clinic. You have a choice to do it or not do it. What happens if you don’t? the only bad thing is that God will be mad at you (in your belief system) but we’ve already seen that thinking an unproveable god is going to be anything is irrational. Say you want to do good thing B because of God. What happens if you don’t? Well, again, God may be mad at you, but in this case the benefit to society or some other people from doing B won’t be there. So, you discard the religious reason for doing it and still do it.
Now given this, can you explain to me why God (in any concept) has anything to do with spirituality? If self-exploration is at all useful, then it is useful whether or not there is a god. An atheist can be just as spiritual as a vague theist like yourself, and probably both can be more spiritual than the typical religionist who feels he doesn’t need to examine himself because the answers are all laid out in a book.
Now all this depends on your axiom of unprovability. If God is provable, then we can argue if it makes sense to act like he does exist when no convincing evidence for his existence is known, and we get into Bible history and the like. I think it winds up in the same place, though.
Bottom line - spirtuality may or may not make sense for people, but its value is independent of the existence of a god, and the belief in the value of spirtuality should not be dependent or be seen as justifying god belief, even in the most modest of forms.
Man’s search for knowledge and insight takes on many forms and facets. The question of what happens after death is only one. The promise of a heavenly reward certainly holds an attraction for many people. I agree that it is a distraction. The true lesson is that we live in the now. Who we are now and what moves our choice in this moment is what matters.
Scientists discovered there is no physical soul? I hope they didn’t spend to much time on it. They could have just asked. BTW. any links to this startling revelation? When was this scientific discovery made?
Irrelevant to this discussion
Here is an example of ridiculous arrogance. You declare that you know what goes on within the hearts of believers. They no longer marvel at the mystery of world around us. It’s just another version of “Those people are like that ya know”
Do you think being literate and informed means your bias is not bias anymore but fact?
Perhaps you might stick with my responses rather than bring up your own pet targets that have nothing to do with what I’ve posted.
My point is that all people, including you, make value choices day to day moment to moment based on subjective evidence. It is their belief system and their faith. We choose and act based on what we think is true, hope might be true, or just plain guess. That is how all people move forward and grow{or not}
It is an undeniable fact of humanity.
Here at last, something you recognize as your opinion. Spirituality is not religion. Religion may or may not contain spirituality. Spirituality in its essence is about love and truth. Not the truth of what happened when. I don’t care if the Red Sea parted or not. It’s irrelevant. It’s about the inner person.
It also means that those who experience love experience God even if they don’t recognize it.
Honest…there’s no point bringing up these points and arguing against statements I haven’t made.
Please…I haven’t supported any of that. It should be obvious to you by now that I don’t hold the traditional Christian beliefs. Stop wasting post space with this.
It’s slick the way you avoid answering my questions directly. We don’t see that much here on the SDMB. :rolleyes: If you’re speaking of faith as a noun representing specific beliefs such as the faith that is Islam, or the faith that is Christianity, that’s a different discussion. My purpose in this thread was to point out that faith as it exists within people is much more than religious tradition and myth. Those are the easy targets. I’m weary of those who use the easy targets as a justification to dismiss all spirituality. I don’t care if that’s their personal choice but when they parade their false logic out in a public forum I respond. I’m willing to put the spiritual journey on a level playing field with everything else. No special status because it’s a “religious” belief. In doing that the discussion of faith becomes more than an opportunity to dismiss cherry picked targets.
I think your definition of faith is one that can be valid. People do use the term faith to justify holding beliefs that are illogical. When that happens and they use “I just have faith” as a shield my question is "faith in what? They profess faith in God but seem to put their faith in the traditions of their particular religion rather than a sincere pursuit of the truth which is what I believe Jesus taught.
My objection to your definition is that it was presented as the only definition of faith. It is narrow and inaccurate.
To me faith is the thing that moves us and propels us forward. What do we value and believe in? Do we believe that material acquisition is an adequate reward? We might have faith that money and status is a safe haven. It is not. We may have faith in our intellect. While reason can serve us well without love we are still empty shells. Smart empty shells.
My faith is that the only worthwhile goals are love and truth. If you can objectively poke holes in that then have at it.
It seems in summary faith deals with values and beliefs; your faith entails “the only worthwhile goals are love and truth”. If this is the case than many others share similar faiths like you, albeit they don’t believe in God. Einstein mirrored his life after “truth, beauty, and goodness”. He also said thinking a God who rewards and punishes humans is for feeble souls.
I think it is interesting we both hope the same things; I certainly hope Jesus was the son of God. I will not say I believe such a thing, this is to ignore evidence and to simply believe what I choose to believe, this is morally wrong.
Take for instance a doctor, we wouldn’t think it right for him to tell a patient “I believe you’re going to die” without doing so on good grounds. Perhaps it’s beneficial for him to say such a thing if the man is quite rash in the face of disease. However the doctor still compromises the patient’s choices and his actions, heck forbid the man lives and this belief was huey-pooey. Just imagine if the man had a suitable chance for life and the family pulled the feeding tube because of the doctor’s willed beliefs.
I think Jesus’ ethical treatise was good, love humanity as you are to love God and you will enter a “heaven” like arena at death. This overcomes other ethical principles because people only loved because it was pleasing, once man has a selfish desire for salvation he will do anything, including love everyone until his dying days. This prolongs human justice on earth. It is also interesting to ponder the merits of sexual behavior. We would say that marriage limits the possibility of illegitimate children. It does a world no good to have children without fathers and every man running around impregnating every woman. Thus reserving sex for marriage limits this and provides perhaps a better worldly atmosphere. This however is at the expense of “salvation” rather than the end to improve the upbringing of children on earth.
I also think it’s difficult to believe in Jesus’ and his proclamations because he preached about the “coming kingdom of God”. There is a good website from scholars from Harvard, Brown, Princeton, Yale, and Duke about early Christianity and it could be found here:
His ethics of love are no doubt ‘nice to the ear’, but what is all this “kingdom of god is imminent” hoopla. Why did he perhaps tell all his followers him and God would come again and behead all evil (He tells them the present generation will live to see it all). I know of no early follower in the first 40 years after Jesus’ death who didn’t believe in an imminent apocalypse. I do not understand how God forgot to come down to earth to save his prized creation.
In the Book of Job God tells us that humans are we not his most prized creation, it is the monsters of chaos named Behemoth and Leviathan. Scholars believe they correlate to the Whale and Crocodile. A God who loves whales and crocodiles over humanity is not very loving, much less why did he create a human race that is but temporary? Scientists believe our life here is limited and we are but a speck of a speck of a black and dark universe. Man and animal sprang from Evolution. Jesus has nothing to do whatsoever with any of this.
Another problem is that many of the Hebrew prophets or “great prophets” foresaw a great destiny after their release from Cyrus and Babylonian activity. Some didn’t think the temple would rebuilt; other’s thought there would be peace on earth. Nevertheless, none of them specifically mentioned a messiah who would come 500 years later. Deutero-Isaiah believed Cyrus was the son of God. David to Jews was the son of God. Jesus to Hebrew tradition should’ve defeated the Romans, restored the Davidic monarchy, and created peace on earth. He did none of these things, he died a shameful death. The first person to say he “rose” was Paul… yet he never knew Jesus. Who is to say Jesus wouldn’t be against our orthodox Christianity, Jesus was a Jew who preached about Jewish tradition… the Torah was not to be completely wiped out… Jesus’ followers classified themselves as pious Jews. Thanks to Saint Paul this was completely thrown out of whack and with his writings (he couldn’t write well… he had a scribe) and the Gospels Jesus’ sayings are about as distinguished as a “diamond from a dung hill”. This according to Thomas Jefferson.
Some choose to believe these things but it is hard to associate the “meaning of life” with the controversial idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. I say these things because one’s spirituality can be “truth” and “love” yet this nothing to do with Christianity. One must absorb the doctrines of Christianity and hope for the best without being wrong, it would do all of us well to examine the evidence first.
A bit different. Perhaps a variation? Let’s use a cliche example. A woman has a painful romantic experience and believes that all men are untrustworthy dogs. She has some evidence for this belief. Her belief now colors all future experiences and because of that it becomes more difficult for her belief to change. Logic becomes clouded by emoional attachment both conscious and unconscious.
Looking back at my own experience I can understand that the conclusions I drew my forst meaningful spiritual experience were heavily influenenced by the people I was around. My attachment to them influenced me to accept their beliefs. When questions and doubts arose my attitude was “well, I don’t understand that but I won’t worry about it right now” I think that kind of thing happens a lot in religion and other things. Is that kind of thing irrational?
I can accept that. There are compulsions and emotional motivations we may not understand or recognize. Maybe deep seated beliefs. Still the person at the track was moved by something. Part of the journey is to make our subconscious motives conscious ones so we can choose otherwise.
Let me rephrase. The existance of God has not been proven or disproven to mankind by objective evidence. One person cannot prove or disprove God’s existance to another. Better?
Hmmm I understand but I don’t think I can agree. I don’t believe God punishes in this world or any other. I think if someone truly believes in God it isn’t irrational to try and please him. They may be misguided in the details of their belief. Is that irrational?
Same answer. People have lots of motives for going to church and one of them is to feel the spirit when a group of people come together to reach out to God. I can tell you from experience it can be very powerful. You may call it just emotion but if the experience exists and they believe it is communing with God is it orrational to seek it?
Does that mean acting to affect others because of any subjective concept of right and wrong is therefore irrational?
I call it a spiritual journey because we have not arrived. The interaction between beliefs is part of it. Even the atheist and the believer. If someone believes God is wants them to blow up an abortion clinic and my God belief says it’s wrong we both have to choose what to do. If I try to stop that person our interaction will have some effect on our belief. There are lots of extreme beliefs I would call irrational both religious and otherwise, but having God belief influence our decisions doesn’t seem irrational, or at least any more or less irrational than other choices we make. I’d qualify that by saying that I believe that our decisions have consequences. It’s not about a seperate God who punishes or rewards. The essence of God is love and truth. When we choose otherwise there are consequences and those consequences lead us to other choices and actions.
Buddism seems to do well without the Christian concept of God. I’m okay with that. I agree that self exploration is useful even without believeing. The essence of God is love and truth and those who seek those things are on the path regardless of what label they choose. We are in agreement. The word God is just a tool that represents life’s unsolved mysteries. You may have noticed that badchad asked whether I see us as part of a seperate God or I see as collectively as the One. I don’t know and don’t need to know to continue on.
I don’t disagree. I’ve never proposed that belief in a or the God is nessecary for the spiritual journey. My objection is folks who use selective beliefs to discard all forms of spirituality and then make blanket statements that is subtle or not so subtle ridicule.
Where the rubber meets the road is our daily interaction as people. I think to seek the truth we must be true to ourselves where we are at this moment. If that means the Christian God for some and no god for others then fine. Even with all it’s flaws I see Christianity as a valid path.
The decisions people make are often influenced by emotional and other nonrational elements. There are plenty of studies in behavioral economics that show this. So, yes her action is irrational, even if he belief has some basis in fact. (And many of us base beliefs on anecdotatl evidence far more than we should.) On the other hand, if you’re read Blink, sometimes we compute things rationally at a subconscious level, so what seems irrational is actually better thought out than what our conscious mind says. Maybe this woman has found that she is attracted to shmucks, and her “belief” is filtering out losers. Maybe she’ll change her mind when she meets someone who is different.
Now this I agree with totally. We can choose to follow our subscious, our intuition, but we should know what we’re doing.
Interesting. That is a totally different statement. I think very few people will disagree that God has not been proven - all but the most literal of literalists, or those who have had powerful subjective experiences who won’t accept other causes than communication with God. With the lack of evidence, I agree that as of now no one can prove god. (I think we can agree that we can’t disprove the concept of God in general - only specific instantiations of God.) But it is a quite different thing to say, twenty years ago, that Fermat’s Last Theorem has not been proven and Fermat’s Last Theorem cannot be proven.
The important thing is that if we stop at your statement, we can see evidence that is part of a proof of god, even if it is not all in. If God is not provable, then we can’t. Now if God exists, and can provide enough evidence to prove himself, we can wonder why he hasn’t bothered to, but that is another story entirely.
Actually, yes. Consider the Boy Scout who insists on helping the little old lady cross a street she doesn’t want to cross. A subjective sense of right and wrong most be moderated by an objective sense of the situation and concern for what the other person really wants. Helping purely out of the subjective is actually selfishness. “Let them eat cake.”
My point with my examples is that removing God from a decision cannot help but make the decision more rationally based. Let me modify that as follows. If you apply the tag “God” to existent concepts (like love and truth) and then say God is influencing your decision, my objection does not hold, since love and truth are, and those are perfectly reasonable things to have influence it. If I call God “maximization of profit” I can say God influences my business decisions. I’m really considering God to be, at least, an independent entity that has some sort of consciousness different from ours. If you tell a doctor you want a second opinion, you aren’t likely to accept that of his imaginary doctor friend. For a more recent example, when Bush says that God tells him what to do, we suspect that it’s actually a case of him reassuring himself (unless Cheny snuck a speaker under his pillow, of course. )
You see, if God is love and truth, then if you think Christianity is valid it becomes a case of “there is no existent God and Jesus is his son.” That’s not to say there aren’t valid pieces - invalid premises do not imply that all conclusions derived from them are not true. (They may be provable by other means.) Buying into the most basic precepts of Christianity involves buying into a lot of other stuff you don’t seem to buy into (and I’m not talking about Creationism or literalism here.) What is Christianity without salvation? Most Americans (and Westerners) were brought up with this concept as a given, and so have this ingrained acceptance of it. Being Jewish, and being brought up witha concept of atonement and not salvation, I can see this premise very clearly, and it is very alien. To repeat, I’m not saying that people following Christianity will go astray, but if they don’t it is becaus of their using their own directional sense, and not by following the road signs that the religion puts up. (Heh, what a good analogy.) Those who follow the road signs exactly wind up on the detour of fundamentalism, while those who have gotten to a good place (like many Christian Dopers have) have at least one point looked at where the sign pointed and said to themselves, “I’m not going there.”
PS - many thanks as usual for helping me broaden my self understanding.
There are many concepts of God and I reject some but not all of them. IMHO the essence of God is love and truth so to seek those we seek God. If someone else believes those are the worthwhile qualities of life and doesn’t believe in God I have no problem with them. Our paths may differ now but our destination will be the same.
It would be morally wrong for you believing as you do. It is not morally wrong for someone who believes. I believe Jesus is the son of God but I also believe Buddha is, you are and I am. That belief is a part of my life compass that steers my choices. I am willing to modify that belief as time and experience teaches me.
Your example serves no purpose I can see.
One thing we also know is that the texts that became the Bible are a sketchy presentation of Jesus. We have evidence that the books were added to and subtracted from as they passed through different hands. We have evidence that text was changed in order to support certain doctrine. That being the case we don’t really know if Jesus thought the end was near or that was added by writers later. I tend to think he didn’t but it’s just an unknown.
It does make a convenient target for you doesn’t it? You seem to enjoy the easy ones.
I deleted much of your post because once again it had nothing to do with what we were discussing. You presented objections to arguments I never made. Please stop. It’s such a waste of time.
I left this last paragraph because you made a point I agree with. One can certainly seek truth and love and hold them as the central focus of their spirituality without embracing Christianity. I am one example. There are many others. Gandhi remained a Hindu but also believed truth and love to be the essence of God. He also revered the teachings of Christ but not necessarily Christianity. People can also revere Christ and his teachings without embracing all your favorite targets within Christianity. Christianity itself is very diverse and although there are some common beliefs many people have grown beyond a lot of the traditions you enjoy criticizing. You should read some John Shelby Sprong who wrote ; Why Christianity must change or Die, and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.
The process for me has become abandoning certain concepts of God. The way in which God can be personal to us but not separate from us is part of the mystery. The language within Christianity {and others} which keeps God as a separate being who judges us bothers me. I have seen the love, hope, and joy in many Christians and I celebrate that. Those who insist their narrow definitions must be true for everyone have missed the point IMO. Christ described them as those who “worship me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me.”
I also think it’s likely that the plane on which God exists will never be realized in any objective physical way. I tend to think that our connection to God means that we are responsible for where we are and what happens next. Since God is not separate from us then there is no separate being to prove his existence to us. It is up to us to awaken to the reality of that connection and what it means about our behavior and state of mind. When I see others as too separate I see adversaries. When I see us as connected or even “one” my response is always more positive. Ultimately if I believe something of us continues on after physical death and you may believe nothing does. That belief should never separate us as people. It doesn’t matter in the now.
There’s a great book by Ram Dass called “How Can I Help” He talks about those times we are more attached to the label of helper than we are seeing the real need. I think that happens a lot. In living the connection we must try to develop the ability to listen and get a sense of the people we encounter. When do we step in? When do we leave them alone? We don’t always know.
Perhaps it’s a matter of degrees. I would call it more misguided than irrational, but I see that it can go there.
Yes I see. In a real sense what moves us is our god.
Pretty funny. I can see a doctor moving the little mirror on his head to the other side and presenting himself as a different doctor.
Although I used to see God as just that I have a hard time with it now. It’s difficult to explain even to myself. If you put sea water in a jar is it still the ocean? Is the blood that the doctor drew from my arm and the blood in my body different or the same. When you think of geography then you might say yes, but the substance of those two things remains exactly the same. The water in the jar is ocean is essence and the blood in the syringe is me in essence.
I do see. If we are drops of sea water, are we sons of the ocean? IS there an ocean? Only when we look at it from a geographic sense. When we look at it from the substance of what is then there’s no difference. Both can be equally true at the same time. I don’t mind the language that says we are children of God because it is symbolically true. I do mind the language that says *we * are but they’re not.
I think you are correct. That’s why I believe it is necessary to challenge beliefs. Jesus spoke his truth which enraged the religious leaders of his day. In thinking about this yesterday I realized that while it appeared I was defending Christianity I do see some serious problems there. Mixed in I see good people who at some level are seeking love and truth as well. I have my own path along this journey which passed through Christianity and you have yours which is different. It’s a tricky balance to honor someones path, respect their right to choose while challenging the things you think are misguided. In the challenging I usually find I learn something as well. Kinda cool.
I also have a certain trust that the essence of what we are and that connection calls to each person from within. We don’t always see it but we can trust it in some way. I heard a preacher who was a counselor at a college for Christian students. Some were experimenting with things other than traditional beliefs. He became concerned and was praying about how he should handle it. One day while walking and thinking about it he felt a very clear impression and message.
“Leave them alone. They are in my hands” IMHO he was being told that it was right for these kids to seek their own true connection and path rather than be forced into a traditional path that wasn’t right for them. If they did that their parents would be happy in a superficial sense, but the real journey would only be hindered. To hear a preacher say that I almost jumped up and yelled Hallelujah!!
The feeling is mutual. Your gracious manner and pertinent observations always help me.
First off, sorry for the late reply. I’ve been pretty busy and net access isn’t always guaranteed with my service provider
I really appreciated the thought you obviously put into your response to my first post, and it cleared a lot of things up for me. This especially:
is an excellent point, and one which I may have been slow to appreciate. As an atheist, it’s easy to spot instances when religious belief receives preferential treatment, but it’s far harder to spot the reverse.
Your position, as I understand it, isn’t a typically Christian one, as you freely admit that you don’t consider Jesus to be any more divine than you or I. As such, there is very little I can find fault with in your belief system. I do have a couple of comments on one or two issues you raised, however.
I think I see your point, but I still contend that faith in the values one holds dear - even a flawed logic - is still a faith grounded in empirically verifiable experience. I value mercy because I’ve both given and received it, and I value the positive consequences of its bestowment and receipt. I know it exists because I know that the people who bequeath it exist. While I value it, I wouldn’t say I took any aspect of it on faith.
But then again, we might still be talking at cross purposes. Having been raised a Catholic with 13 years of Catholic education under my belt, my own definition of faith comes with a lot of religious baggage. That is to say that when I hear one speak of faith, I understand it in terms of unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural (or in terms of the more mundane kind of faith we were discussing earlier, which I prefer to call experience). As such it is difficult for me to conceive of other definitions of faith which may be rooted in something other than religion. It’s conceivable that, when you talk about faith in intangible concepts like mercy or justice, you’re using a definition of faith I’m not familiar with and not practised in applying. For instance, when you say that:
I am inclined to reply that what we value is entirely based on experience and environment. We are born without a moral compass. It is fashioned over time and through experience, of which acquaintance with Jesus’ teachings is but one. The teachings of Jesus are not entirely consistent. For instance, he routinely rebukes the Pharisees for their blind dogmatism while simultaneously asserting he came to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law. It seems to me that the direction in which Christ’s teachings lead you depends to a large extent on what you bring to the table when you encounter them. In other words, you are the one who decides what is good in the Good Book. The faith you profess, as I understand it, seems to be more like faith in your own judgement of Jesus’ teachings, since they are open to interpretation and could have lead you down a different path to the one you currently follow had you unconsciously placed different emphasis on different verses. It is ultimately a faith grounded in your own experience and, as such, is quite different from the supernatural faith professed in, say, Jesus’ divinity. I have no problems whatsoever with that kind of faith.
I can’t argue with this. However, the reverse is equally true. Levitical passages we may consider brutal and unchristian are undeniably as canonical as any in the Bible. There is no uncontested standard by which to ascertain the superiority of one interpretation over another. But you’re right that it is all a question of emphasis. Can we agree that, depending on one’s interpretation of Scripture, faith can be a tool for both stagnating exploration or facilitating it?
As a physicalist, I think that our emotions are merely the byproducts of complex chemical reactions in our brains. The technology exists to manipulate our brains into inducing feelings of extreme euphoria, or its antithesis, with the flick of a switch. It follows that the emotional states which incline us to bestow mercy, or withhold it, are rooted in physical processes. From this perspective, to assert that we are more than our physical bodies is to assert that there is some part of us that is independent of such processes. Would you agree? On a related note, do you believe in the Christian concept of the soul?
Sorry, that’s my catholic baggage interfering. When I said ‘The Church’ I was talking about the Vatican. Still, briefly examining the history of the evolution of Catholic dogma proves instructional. While the Vatican has revised its own dogma on numerous occasions, each revision was intended to be the final one. Since the goal of the Vatican is to serve God as faithfully as possible, it is illogical to presume that they would make any revision which would leave room for further improvement.
I completely agree and I concede that the faith you profess is a valid tool for exploration. I only hope I understood it correctly
You have now helped quiet my pangs of abandonment. As it turns out. Your response is worth the wait
Thanks you for saying so. I agree with Sam Harris in that religious beliefs should not be out of bounds for questioning and challenging. Putting religious beliefs on a level playing field with other beliefs is a little more than a license to attack or ridicule them. I think it requires a closer look at our humanity and beliefs beyond those we are able to examine objectively.
Yes, a valid point. I would say that your faith is that mercy will yield a better path than other choices. Not only for yourself but for others. You choose mercy even in the face of knowledge that it might not yield the desired results. You know you do not always receive mercy, love, or compassion, when you give it just as I do. Still I believe they are the right things to choose for others and to better develop them in myself, regardless of the response I get. That’s faith IMHO.
I understand that definition and I think it is a valid. I just wanted to point out that it is a narrow definition. All Granny Smith may be apples but not all apples are granny smith. I have friends and siblings who hold some traditional Christian beliefs that I don’t believe or even strongly object to, but I know that their faith is also the inner search. They are passing through the myth to get to the truth as we all are. No need to eagerly criticize the path they’ve chosen unless it harms others. Sometimes the judgement that goes with dogma does just that and then I support criticism and resistance.
For instance, when you say that:
I understand but I’m not sure I agree. How is it that people can turn to be good or bad from incredibly similar environments?
Of course it’s subject to interpretation as it has always been. All Christians decide exactly the same thing. {I don’t claim to be one} For me deciding what Jesus taught also consisted of seeking in other religions. I found a common thread. It occurred to me that all men of sincere hearts who sought the truth would eventually come to many of the same conclusions. It’s surprising how similar the teachings of Buddha and Jesus are. Mankind being what he is likes to mess up the simplicity of the lesson with myth and tradition and ceremony. One must want to see past that to the kernel of truth within.
As I said in a previous post , we know the Bible is not original. It has been altered for various reasons including to support certain doctrines. We do not know how much of Jesus words it contains. I’ve made certain judgement calls based on various reasons and decided what might be a close reflection of Jesus words.
“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
The kingdom of Heaven is within you
among others.
Believing that the essence of God is love and truth I look for the teachings that speak to that essential truth.
I can see where some would say I’m just cherry picking the verses. There’s more to it than that but it would be a long explanation.
Of course. What someone gets out of anything, including so called holy books is a reflection of what is written in their heart. What they seek. IMHO the only word of God is the one we listen to within. Love and truth.
Yes on both counts. It does intrigue me to consider the chemical reactions associated with emotions. I’m open to new info. I believe we are primarily spiritual beings rather than physical. We do however live in the now. The details of any afterlife are interesting food for thought and that’s all.
Thanks. It appears you did. I’d mention that it might be worth considering that even people who hold beliefs you believe to be irrational may still be exploring.
Thanks for your thought provoking response.
Okay, if you leave it at just this question without any other details I’d say Yes.
For someone to hold something as reality simply because they wish it were true would be irrational.
My point was that the beliefs we’re talking about do not occur in a vaacum. Most people do not hold their religious /spiritual beliefs simply because of a wish.
I believe it all boils down to humans;every thing we believe,read,or was taught is just human. We decide which human we want to believe. Belief fills a need in mankind,so one believes what is a help to him or her at the moment. Some never change thier beliefs and some change many times.
Truth is what is, even if we do not understand it, know it,accept it, or not.
