J
You’ve lost me. I believe that I should love God with my heart. What you should believe, I cannot say.
[…tip o’ the hat…]
I have never heard a more satisfying description of the universe.
Truly, yours is a beautiful metaphysic. God go with you as you sojourn through your moral journey.
Thanks, J.
jb_farley
You, sir, are a man who knows what faith is. Thank you.
Ah, but you would only be having faith in yourself, not in God.
What is that supposed to mean?
And you are saying it is OK not to love God with your mind? Does Reason need to be the enemy of Love, or can they not work together for a common purpose such as Wisdom?
Anyway, jb_farley, I doubt you are going to find anyone with faith here. Of course, being able to move mountains shouldn’t be held out as a demonstration of faith – but more minor miracles should certaintly be able to be made evident. But would this prove there is a God, or only that someone who has faith in God, regardless of His actual existence, has super-newtonian powers? And is there a difference?
As I previously stated:
To expand further upon this idea, if biophysics does not preclude the spiritual realm pertaining to faith, then the spiritual is not precluded by the synaptic firing resulting in a sneeze. I doubt you would go so far as to state that small demons caused one to sneeze when a discourse on the synaptic firings would suffice. Am I correct?
jmullaney, it is true that transportation as you describe is simply highly improbable; however, if every atom in a mountain were to jump and realign themselvses perfectly in another location, would you call this faith or permissible by quantum mechanics? A nitrogen atom oscillates in an ammonia molecule, but I wouldn’t consider such an action the result of faith.
Libertarian, since the heart to which you refer is not a muscle, I assume it is a part of the brain–an emotional center, if you will. In that light, how is faith not a neurological function?
Nen
We seem to be straddling two threads with this:
Go to here. (<–Click the link) Look for my post at 08-02-2000 09:38 AM
Moomph. No, I would not presume the existence of small demons tickling the inside of my nose when neurological and otorhinological evidence is sufficient to explain my sneeze. But did you post your last message because you wanted to or because {insert here three pages of neurological and behavioral gobbletygook relating to learned responses involving the fingers and the QWERTY keyboard, the ability to produce written English sentences – also a learned-response process-complex, the limbic and vestibular systems, and a few dozen other biophysical data points to be brought into account}? Obviously, both are true.
In a world in which there is a real God, knowable by humans and to whom some humans have committed themselves in what is referred to as “faith” – both are true, as well. That is, Lib. and I are using our God-given bodies’ neural centers for the purposes of living lives committed to following that God whom we think that we know and who loves us. On our worldview, we are doing this because in fact it is true. That is why we are doing it; the neurological discourse is how we are doing it.
We have on this board a common universe of discourse, in which the Cosmological Principle, the scientific method, and a series of other data points on which intelligent men can agree are taken as axiomatic. Attempts to add axioms that are not held in common are skewered by other posters on a regular basis. But, while we insist on no further axioms than common consent will allow, the idea that different posters may reach different conclusions on different weightings of the evidence is more than acceptable. We do not delimit our reasoning to the common-consent axioms. David B. and I have agreed to disagree for some time on the truth value of certain First Century events involving Jesus of Nazareth on the basis that one of us accepts a world in which there is an activist God who worked through Jesus and the other, rejecting on the grounds of insufficient evidence that conceptual world, is more inclined to see the accounts that point to God working through Jesus the evolution of a legend structure, much the same as the urban legends debunked by Snopes. If ever I have evidence that meets David’s standards, I have promised to furnish it to him; and if he finds a refutation of my worldview that would meet mine, he will no doubt do likewise.
So I can agree with you on the biophysical mechanism for faith, or anything else you care to name, being neurological in nature, without rejecting the other aspect that the faith in question functions through a “soul” and has an exterior object, to wit, the God I believe in, as its focus.
This point is precisely where I disagree. Both are not true. My want and the slew neurological processes are identical. Likewise, I assert that hope, elation, faith, trust, et cetera can be placed in lieu of the word want in the previous sentence.
Although I intend no disrespect, I only know God as a construct of some human minds. In that regard, I maintain that faith is a neurological response to a neurological construct.
I suppose that I adhere to the tenet of Ockham’s Razor. That is my reasoning for not believing in small demons in my nose or God. I am fully aware that the agreement you and David B have is the rational endpoint for these discussions; moreover, I am pleased to have reached such a conclusion with a poster as esteemed as yourself. Until we have our next volley about a similar topic, may your God and your faith be good to you.
This is not faith. If you have faith then you can do so – and I don’t know what you would call it – the working of a miracle (see the OP for the longer description).
Nen, as one who believes in Ockham’s Razor, would say that, though it were effectively your will that the mountain move, that fact that it did so could not have been anything more than a coincidence.
Are you implying that miracles are the manifestation of faith?
This assertion is correct to a point. I don’t know of a vehicle through which neurological functions can affect quantum probabilities. If a mountain were to move, an analysis at the level of quantum mechanics would provide information as to the means. I fail to see how faith has any bearing on quatum mechanics. If faith is a neurological function or not, how does it have any bearing on quantum mechanics (i.e. what is the nature of the interaction)?
Nen
I am nearly a life-long adherent to William of Ockham’s famous tenet. I have heard it mangled into nearly every imaginable misconstruction, from “K.I.S.S.,” to that inane interpretation from the movie, Contact, i.e., “the simplest answer is usually the correct one.”
What he said (and what I adhere to) was: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.” Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. I very much consider an entity that I experience daily to be a quite necessary one. Ockham did not intend that we go 'round reducing everything to absurdity.
It is a misapplication of Ockham’s Razor to exclude entities on the basis of simplification. They should be excluded on the basis of necessity. Demons up your nose might not be necessary to explain your experiences, but God is most certainly necessary to explain mine. It is not an application of Ockham’s Razor to say, “Well, Lib can’t possibly have experienced God because I have no such experience.” That is like a heterosexual denying that attraction to men is possible.
Demons up your nose indeed.
If a person lives a life of Faith, they can work miracles.
Perhaps, but science can not do analysis at the level of quantum mechanics, basically due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. All science can say is the moving of the mountain is not beyond physical possibility.
Beats me. It would seem to lend evidence that there is a God. Scientifically, if you start with this as a hypothesis, it is ultimately testable – though, historically, a few people have come away from such a test unsatisfied with the results (“St.” Benedict comes to mind), but it is difficult to say if they were running the experiment correctly as from an external observer things are very subjective. The Apostles, outwardly living a life of Faith and following Jesus, could not cast the demon out yet, presumable their faith internally had not grown sufficiently, although after the Holy Spirit came upon them later they had no problem doing so.
(Benedict went into the desert for forty days, came back and ultimately led to the institutionalized corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, presumably because he did not see whatever miracle he was looking for out there. I would presume the Holy Spirit did not come upon him)
Perhaps I should elaborate. Demons in ones nose may result in sneezing. I believe that a neurophysiological reaction to a material stimulus is a sufficient explanation. One might assert that demons exist which produce the same effect in tandem. Double causation is not necessary. The result is a simplification. I have not had any experience which requires me to create a mental construct of, postulate the existence of, or have faith in God. Personally, I cannot fathom an experience which would require me to engage in the aforementioned activities; however, this fact in no way denies the validity of your experiences. As an atheist, I would assert that the experiences you have had could be explained as a product of synaptic firings. As a theist, you would probably assert that I haven’t yet experienced God; moreover, that said firing would offer inadequate explanation. From my perspective, God is as unnecessary as small demons in my nose. The ensuing faith is equally unnecessary as an intangible, extraneous and superfluous property. My perspective in no way discredits your opnion nor revokes your entitlement to your opinion. It’s just that I’m right and you’re wrong ;).
So then, my opinion that you’re dogmatic is incorrect? 
You sneaked that post in on me.
Can you provide evidence?
Such an analysis is possible. The information regarding the oscillation frequency and location of the nitrogen atom in an ammonia molecule is evidence.
The “beats me” response is precisely my problem. One cannot offer a reason why faith can produce a physical effect; therefore, one asserts that something unproven produces the effect when another explanation is sufficient.
Ya! What he sez!!!
Damn, Nen. I’ve been trying to get that point across for two days now. How is it that you’ve managed to do it so simply?! You gow, bra…
<scratches head and walks away muttering…>
What would you accept as evidence? If I tell you it is cloudy today, and you are not willing to look up at the sky, I can hardly convince you. All I can provide you with is my own testimonial, and you certaintly shouldn’t take that at face value – what kind of science would that be? All I can provide you with are the guidelines of an experiment I have performed and a suggestion that you perform the same experiment and see if you get the same results.
At what point? The mountain would be there one second, and somewhere else the next. What you think this has to do with the vibration of an atom I know not. You should read up on QM some before making such assertions.
Here is no why. What is the more suffient explanation?
Present a phenomenon which is claimed to be a miracle performed through an act of faith for which there is not a feasible scientific solution.
I am one course away from receiving my bachelor’s degree in physics–I have read up on my QM.
Quite simply, science offers the sufficient explanantion. Reference the “small demon in the nose causing sneezing” analogy above.
Nen, QuickSilver
Oh, but one can “offer a reason why faith can produce a physical effect”. One named Ramachandran. Buy the book, and read the chapter titled “God and the Limbic System”.
When you want answers to questions about neurology, shouldn’t you consult a neurologist? You bullies, shame on you. What if I started in on you about how your whole deduction system is a question begging house of cards. Play nice, now.
If there is no why in the realm of faith and God, does that not limit imply some kind of limit?
There are always why’s in the physical and natural realm. It’s just that not all the why’s have been answered, or even asked, as of yet.
And if by some stretch of imagination, science yields up God as the final answer to the last question, then atheist will have arrived at the result in earnest and I suspect that the resultant God will be dramatically different than any previous characterizations.