Religious Faith is an Emotion.

[Nen]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
To what physics source is “next” attributable?

I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Would you please rephrase? As to lilah, she is the same as love–the basis of her constituent elements are not her total. One does not simply stare at several gallons of paint and deem it art. It is the ensemble on a canvas, it is the structure and form which make it art. The same holds for lilah.

*Originally posted by lilah *
this knight of faith discovers the object of his love, the one thing which makes his wretched life complete. he then gives this one thing up, for he knows that the real cannot be as wonderful as his conception of it.

Are you making a recommendation? Seriously, are you stating that the object of love is less wonderful than his conception of it? If so, how is this situation analogous to faith in God?

*Originally posted by lilah *
the final step which makes the knight of faith the knight of faith is that despite the knowledge of impossibility that he will ever attain the one object of his desire, the knight of faith believes just the opposite–that he will gain the object of his affection (again, though it cannot and does not exist as he conceives of it).

Suppose for a moment the object of his love is God (which, I believe, is out of context), then I must concede your point; however, I do remember discussing this knight with you a couple of years back and, IIRC, the object was a woman. There is no doubt as to the nature of her existence.

Triskadecamus, are you questioning my fidelity toward my wife?

[Liberal]

Nen

I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Would you please rephrase?

I might have misunderstood you. I thought you said that you believe in only what is attributable to a physics source. I then asked you to what physics source “next” is attributable. It is attributable to ordinality, certainly, and prevalent in the abstract metaphysic of number theory. But what in physics guarantees a moment after this one?

As to lilah, she is the same as love–the basis of her constituent elements are not her total. One does not simply stare at several gallons of paint and deem it art. It is the ensemble on a canvas, it is the structure and form which make it art. The same holds for lilah.

Forgive me, but in your reference frame, how can lilah be anything other than your own senses and your own sodium ion storm?

It sounds to me like you are speaking of a gestalt, where something is more than the sum of its parts. What is the physics formula that might explain a gestalt? Other materialists here, most notably Gaudere and Spiritus, have argued passionately that such gestalts do not exist objectively. That means they are subjective. You know, synaptic spasms.

[Nen]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
But what in physics guarantees a moment after this one?

There is no such guarantee.

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Forgive me, but in your reference frame, how can lilah be anything other than your own senses and your own sodium ion storm?

She is an entity in her own right.

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Other materialists here, most notably Gaudere and Spiritus, have argued passionately that such gestalts do not exist objectively. That means they are subjective. You know, synaptic spasms.

I’ll agree with Gaudere and Spiritus Mundi. As I said, lilah is an entity in her own right. She is comprised of atoms. It is my synaptic spasm which perceives her existence. In that regard, she is simply atoms. I cannot see atoms. I perceive an aesthetic.

[Liberal]

Nen

Let me say that I greatly admire your balls.

quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
But what in physics guarantees a moment after this one?

There is no such guarantee.

But do you believe there will be a next moment?

quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
Forgive me, but in your reference frame, how can lilah be anything other than your own senses and your own sodium ion storm?

She is an entity in her own right.

Gratuitous assertion. Do you have proof of that other than your own senses?

(Note: you can’t use measuring devices to prove it because that simply adds another layer of obfuscation; i.e., your senses are reading the measurements.)

quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
Other materialists here, most notably Gaudere and Spiritus, have argued passionately that such gestalts do not exist objectively. That means they are subjective. You know, synaptic spasms.

I’ll agree with Gaudere and Spiritus Mundi. As I said, lilah is an entity in her own right. She is comprised of atoms. It is my synaptic spasm which perceives her existence. In that regard, she is simply atoms. I cannot see atoms. I perceive an aesthetic.

And what in physics accounts for a perception that isn’t there?

[Nen]

Orignally posted by Libertarian
But do you believe there will be a next moment?

Yes, I do believe there will be a next moment. That opinion is a matter of induction. Of course, induction cannot be proven to work in the future.

Orignally posted by Libertarian
Gratuitous assertion. Do you have proof of that other than your own senses?

No. I could take her word for it, but I in the same sense as utilizing tools of measurement, I would merely be removing my sense by one step. What are you driving at here?

Orignally posted by Libertarian
And what in physics accounts for a perception that isn’t there?

I have not perceived anything which is not in this situation. I cannot perceive the atoms in a crystal lattice due to my inability to resolve light on that scale. I can, however, perceive the lattice. Likewise, I cannot directly perceive the synaptic firings in my brain as they are, but I can perceive the realization of said firings.

[Ptahlis]

This thread has reminded me strongly of a favorite piece of music, the lyrics of which are below. It was recorded by Rush back when rock music actually addressed something beyond sex, partying, and romance, even if they were sometimes screaming when doing so. It is a long piece, with several movements.
"CYGNUS X-1 BOOK II: Hemispheres"
Words by Neil Peart, Music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson

I. Prelude
When our weary world was young
The struggle of the ancients first began
The gods of Love and Reason
Sought alone to rule the fate of Man

They battled through the ages
But still neither force would yield
The people were divided
Every soul a battlefield …

II. Apollo: Bringer of Wisdom
‘I bring Truth and Understanding
I bring Wit, and Wisdom fair
Precious gifts beyond compare
We can build a world of wonder
I can make you all aware’

‘I will find you food and shelter
Show you fire to keep you warm
Through the endless winter storm
You can live in grace and comfort
In the world that you transform’

The people were delighted
Coming forth to claim their prize
They ran to build their cities
And converse among the wise

But one day the streets fell silent
Yet they knew not what was wrong
The urge to build these fine things
Seemed not to be so strong

The wise men were consulted
And the Bridge of Death was crossed
In quest of Dionysus
To find out what they had lost …

III. Dionysus: Bringer of Love
‘I bring Love to give you solace
In the darkness of the night
In the Heart’s eternal light
You need only trust your feelings
Only Love can steer you right’

‘I bring laughter, I bring music
I bring joy and I bring tears
I will soothe your primal fears
Throw off those chains of reason
And your prison disappears’

The cities were abandoned
And the forests echoed song
They danced and lived as brothers
They knew love could not be wrong

Food and wine they had aplenty
And they slept beneath the stars
The people were contented
And the Gods watched from afar

But the winter fell upon them
And it caught them unprepared
Bringing wolves and cold starvation
And the hearts of men despaired …

IV. Armageddon: The Battle of Heart and Mind
The Universe divided
As the Heart and Mind collided
With the people left unguided
For so many troubled years
In a cloud of doubts and fears
Their world was torn asunder
Into hollow Hemispheres

Some fought themselves, some fought each other
Most just followed one another
Lost and aimless like their brothers
For their hearts were so unclear
And the truth could not appear
Their spirits were divided
Into blinded Hemispheres

Some who did not fight
Brought tales of old to light
My ‘Rosinante’ sailed by night
On her final flight

To the heart of Cygnus’ fearsome force
We set our course
Spiralled through that timeless space
To this immortal place

V. Cygnus: Bringer of Balance
I have memory and awareness
But I have no shape or form
As a disembodied spirit
I am dead and yet unborn
I have passed into Olympus
As was told in tales of old
To the city of Immortals
Marble white and purest gold

I see the gods in battle rage on high
Thunderbolts across the sky
I cannot move, I cannot hide
I feel a silent scream begin inside

Then all at once the chaos ceased
A stillness fell, a sudden peace
The warriors felt my silent cry
And stayed their struggle, mystified

Apollo was astonished
Dionysus thought me mad
But they heard my story further
And they wondered, and were sad

Looking down from Olympus
On a world of doubt and fear
Its surface splintered
Into sorry Hemispheres

They sat a while in silence
Then they turned at last to me
‘We will call you Cygnus,
The god of Balance you shall be’

The Sphere: A Kind of Dream
We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim

Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the love of Truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united
In a single perfect sphere

[Liberal]

Yes, I do believe there will be a next moment. That opinion is a matter of induction. Of course, induction cannot be proven to work in the future.

Then it seems reasonable to say that you have a firm belief in induction, but are unable to prove that it will work the next time you call upon it.

Faith: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” — Merriam-Webster, Def. 2b(1)

No. I could take her word for it, but I in the same sense as utilizing tools of measurement, I would merely be removing my sense by one step. What are you driving at here?

Simply this: as Spiritus has noted, every epistemology, by the very nature of epistemologies, is a house of cards, begging the question of itself, and no more valid than the faith we place in it.

Even if you use iron-clad deductive logic, carefully drawing each implication until you build a meticulous conclusion, you have based all of it — all of it — on axioms you have accepted without proof and terms that you have left undefined.

Think about it.

Even induction won’t help you, because you cannot validate what you have induced until you have waited eternally to see whether there is a counter-example.

Moreover, you cannot even prove your own existence — neither deductively nor inductively. Before you can prove anything at all, including your own existence, you must first exist. That makes your existence axiomatic. Since your conclusion (that you exist) is the same as your axiom (that you exist), your argument would be a tautology. So, deduction is out. And you cannot induce your own existence because all of your evidence is subjective. Even if I touch you and tell you that you exist because I can see you, you must take on faith that your senses are delivering to you an actual reality.

I have not perceived anything which is not in this situation. I cannot perceive the atoms in a crystal lattice due to my inability to resolve light on that scale. I can, however, perceive the lattice. Likewise, I cannot directly perceive the synaptic firings in my brain as they are, but I can perceive the realization of said firings.

And now you’ve come around full circle, as will happen in every knowledge system, i.e., what is that realization? That is to say, what is it made of?

The thing I’ve learned here at SDMB of greatest value to me personally is to respect the world-views of others, even when I myself cannot empathize with their frame of reference. A man might not be articulate, but that alone does not make him wrong. A man might believe in God, but that alone does not make him delusional. We ought not to dismiss out of hand a man’s claim to have experienced a Love that is like Truth.