MarcAC, Often when it is very obvious – in this case; didn’t know something, studied, found I now learnt something I didn’t know before – conclusion is that studying led to learning – QED. Induction is a statistical process and works with probabilities as opposed to certainties. It has limitations but is a practical method for living every day life. But there is an element of risk. When someone says they have faith that their car will get them to work it is usually based on the hundreds of prior trips that proved true. One day the car will let them down. Sure but the word has become integrated into common usage so it is always important to understand the underlying intentions. Even in religions the word is used in multiple contexts. The only thing common is the spelling. I tend to agree, and LOL to your final clause. Such discussions about this topic do tend to degenerate into definitions of the word, which is perhaps unfortunate. If I do not use the word and look at the underlying issue what we have is the theist assertion that a god exists. This is the essential tenet of theism and does not express doubt or uncertainty but is a clear expression of certainty. The issue that atheists have with this assertion is the absence of support and theists know this and the more experienced do not attempt to claim evidence or proofs, at least not in the conventional scientific sense. The argument eventually comes down to emotional experience that is claimed as personal evidence of a god. I simply do not find that convincing.
No one is "worthy" of being called. This would be a misunderstanding of the idea that only those who are called, come to God. How can you judge that you are not called? After you murder someone? After you have shown no unrewarded love to anyone for a lifetime? Maybe you were born with a serious chemical imbalance, and it really isn't your fault that you did these things. If there is someone who is not given love, or hasn't seen any love, how can God blame them for not thinking God is real? The number of these people would be tiny, if they even exist. The suffering on this planet is caused by man's turning away from love. Or, if we are all animals and higher "love" does not exist, it is ok that children are starving. They are just the animals that weren't surviving natural selection anyway. Why should I care? It is my job to provide comfort for my family. That is our present phase of understanding as evidenced by cultures worldwide. We are acting like animals. If you have love, or see love, you are being called. Respond. Love. Know that it isn't you but the love you were given, or have seen, that grows within you. Or choose to ignore love. If you do, don't complain about having to lie in that bed. The atheist can SAY they are not being called, but there is no worthlessness implied in not being called by something that does not exist. All research is unsure. Some theories may SEEM more plausible than others. Some theories are "proven". These become elevated to the status of knowledge. Most of the ideas in modern physics should seem ridiculous to the general public. The idea that time is not constant, or that a vacuum is actually a sea of negative electrons, would be unacceptable to most if it were not for the testimony of scientists. If the general public takes the scientist's word for how this works they are "reasonable," although the concepts are irrational to them. ??? The theory of God's existence is neither proven, nor disproven. It has taken way too long to prove, and is therefore excluded from the realms of current science, and finds "proof" in experience and testimony of others. This does not mean it has to be "a-scientific". The promethean fire the tool of science brings is to use reason when trying to "prove" theology. If theology will not be scientific it will be considered "pre-fire", or primitive. This does not require that all precepts be changed to accord with current public beliefs of science, in my opinion. There will always be scientists who chafe against current knowledge. This is called research. All research is unsure.
Cris, Hi Cris. How are you? Why would you wish to spend time and energy studying something with no expectation of learning anythng? Because you would be confident that you are capable of learning, but there would be no evidence that you could learn something else that you were studying, so the whole process would start again, albeit with renewed confidence. The faith aspect, is not localised, but overall, as there must be a reason for your studying, therefore you must have an image of your future which can be attained, but with no guarentee. This is faith. To knowingly take a risk, one must have faith, because there is hope that the evidence one acquired which made one believe the risk was worth taking, comes through. Jan Ardena.
Now how can you believe in things spiritual and then just figure that a "serious chemical balance", undeserved, could simply pop out of nowhere? Have you ever studied the Sanskrit Philosophies? It wouldn't kill you to study up on Karma... even if you don't buy into all of the Reincarnation Stuff, still you could apply the doctrines of Karma to the biological continuum of life. It may be that the son must pay for the sins of the father, and grandfather, and greatgrandfather. Biological Karma may be just as persistent as Spiritual Karma. Also, regarding the Spiritual Calling. Heredity does seem to have a big influence. For instance, it has long been noted that, as rare as Sainthood is, it had often clustered in families. Often if one looked into the pedigree of a Saint one would find that the family had been devout for a number of generations going back. One of the best examples that can be found on line is in Phil Kramer's "My Brief Experience in Eternity and What I Saw" ( http://www.aculink.net/~catholic/africa.htm ) read the first section "About the Author" and you would see that having sourced from from a remarkably Religious Family (having something of a Saint for an uncle.. a very interesting story there) it is not surprising that Divine Grace would be embodied in his genetics.
Jan, Hi. I’m fine although don’t have too much time to visit here these days. Hope you are well. This is stretching this hypothetical scenario too far, but if I didn’t know that studying leads to learning then I’d have no reason to expect a result. Almost. You are incorrect to say there is no evidence since the previous case is evidence from precedence. What you should really say is that there is no proof or certainty that will occur again. In science when an event has been repeated numerous times with a similar result we develop a level of confidence that it might happen again. This is known as inductive reasoning which is statistical in nature and probabilistic. In fact most things in science are of an inductive nature. When using such a technique it should always be remembered that there is a chance, albeit in many cases very small, that at some time the event might fail. Newton’s laws of motion are a good example of this which were shown to be incorrect when Einstein revealed special relativity. The term faith is often used in this inductive sense and is quite logical providing the user recognizes the chance of failure. No that isn’t correct if I don’t know that studying can lead to me learning anything. I don’t have to believe studying will work before I try it, i.e. no degree or any type of faith is required. It may simply be something to try and if it fails I would move on to something else to try. Only if you are using faith in the inductive sense, i.e. there has been previous evidence. Risk assessment is an important aspect of inductive reasoning. In the theistic sense faith is used to mean a certainty that a god exists without any evidence or proofs. This is not inductive and cannot be deductive since there is no proof. Such an assertion lies outside logical reasoning.
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits. Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, “Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!” If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. — Dan Barker, Preacher turned Atheist
Yes, very true. But, how do you know that you learnt something? Verified by others (Prof./Dr./Phd)? I think students of Ptolemy learnt about epicycles? What are those? I wonder if they were to appear in today's world and "learn" about Einstein what they would think about them feeling accomplished after they studied and learnt about epicycles. Are we now in any better position than the students of Ptolemy (not mentioning Ptolemy himself)? We believe we learn something just like the students of Ptolemy did. The question now; Is that belief justified? It is justified through faith... as Jan Ardena implied, and Water implied... and even me I think... a hope that; "Yeah... this time I'm learning something". Past evidence would seem to point to the contrary - 'evidence from precedence'? If so, in all ones rational and logical splendour, why bother? Without faith you can believe nothing. Enjoyed that... very much... still enjoying it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Too much to type in response to the rest... I'm tired...
You forget that there is a Practical Application for most of this Knowledge. Intellectual Knowledge only has to provide a Model that is close enough to Reality in order for Predictions and Calculations to come True. Ptolemy's Structure of Epicycles may have been exactly 180 Degrees out of Phase with Reality, but the Calculations made Astronomical Events Calculable and Predictable. So that students learning Ptolemaic Theory were, in fact, learning something with concrete value. Such is the case for all Knowledge: it is Real to the extent it is Useful, and Useful to the extent that it is Real. We might never have Direct Perception of the Truth, but having a Good Model with many points of Correspondance and Agreement is the next best thing, even if it is only a model, and even if its only flaw is to be 180 Degrees out of Phase.
From what I understand, you don't suffer other people's spiritual karma. You may suffer from it in physical interaction with another, but I think your karma is your own. I could be wrong.
Maybe you have been called by something, but dismissed it based on the dogmatic ideas of the "religious". If you think that you are being called to act in a way that is higher than the animals we are, that may be the first step, I think you may have already taken a thousand steps on that path. How do you know my description of a power, that only a fool or a saint can even claim to understand, is the only God that can call YOU? If you feel there is nothing outside of your self, and you have no spirit, then I would say there is no reason to feel bad about it. You should feel bad for someone who is often confused about it, like me. If you have some idea that God exists, maybe you just acknowledge God, and say, "if you are there, interact with me somehow." It will depend on your ideas of what God can be whether you will "see" anything. Like you have said, the man in the clouds isn't there. Maybe something else is. Maybe you have to say it every day. How do I know what you need? And if it is just you trying to access something you haven't before, what is the harm? You don't get to fit in perfectly with all the "real" athiests? So what? Life isn't junior high. And, like you have also said before, when do you stop and make that judgement? Certainly not before life has been lived thoroughly. Maybe final self-judgement should be never. I still won't give in to the idea that we are "just animals", and a person who lives as an animal, without inter-tribal charity, or compassion, or ESPECIALLY - responsibility, is actualized. Sorry, to anyone who wants to say, I can do whatever I want with no higher morality, and act upon that ideal, and pretend that that is positive. Actually, maybe that is their path to God. Or maybe they get their desire and just fade to black. Who knows for sure? I am still trying to figure out what the category of believer is for me. Most, if not all, dogmatic ideology makes me cringe. I went to church today, which I never do, and the preacher made me want to shout, "no,no,no", when he said that this apostle had this particular experience of God, so, everyone should. I feel that every situation is different, and there is no way for one person to be judged according to the life and experiences of someone else. It is good to have ideals, but how is someone going to have the experiences of God that a mystic has? Living the life of a normal person; in the modern world; with different upbringing; after different experiences; and with different opportunities to learn? They might, but I am not going to feel bad about being just a normal person. If I awaken my sleeping genius, but am never on the level of einstein, I don't care. As long as I am actualized to my potential. Or just making progress. And only you and God can have any true knowledge of your potentials. Most feelings of unworthiness come from comparisons to other people, I think. And the dogmatic, of all religions, who insist that they know everything everyone needs to know about God. They might know everything they need to know, for them. What does that do for me? Nothing, except make me feel ostracized. I still have a problem with not feeling "called" when I slip into handed down understandings. There was a time when I thought as a child, accepting other people's exact dogma as my own. That ended with me saying, "this can't be right", and walking away. When I slip back into the things dogmatists taught me when I was susceptible, I get scared. When I have a wider range of possibility, I feel loved.
It is like this: Master: I am OK/ You are not OK Follower: I am not OK/ You are OK i reckon that succintly summarizes the master follower trip really well what happened when the patriarchy prohibited and emonized and tried to erase from memory ACTUAL spiritual experience as inspired from hallucinogenic sacramants was to replace all of that with the MIDDLE MEN The middle men are: the priests, the gurus, masters, psychiatrists/psychologist--all who claim they can 'help' you connect with 'God', your 'Self', or 'Sanity/Mental Health' Theri scam is to make you feel un-worthy. to claim you NEEd their help, and from there--if you are gullible enough to believe em--they beCOME your author-ity
Agreed: but some may disagree... and as you say below... Heh. Well put. Such as the Theistic and the Atheistic model? How do you surmise it is the next best thing?
And then you grow up. And learn to think for yourself. There are always doubts when you care to dig in to all the available information. The more you dig, the more you are able to trust your own ideas over the experts' ideas. When a person gets to the highest level they can confidently challenge all accepted systems, and be free from group-thinking. The question is, do you want the doubts to be yours, or someone else's? Most people choose to have other people figure out for them what they should doubt and not doubt. That's ok. Just not mature. Blind faith. Blind lack of faith. Both are equally immature. Not "evil", just immature.
I couldn't have put it better. I think everyone has faith in themselves as one primary. I like to believe that my faith in God supercedes my faith in myself: but sometimes I wonder (I think the ideal should be that non supercedes the other). But as Christians always say in many different lights; putting your faith in God permits a change. You begin to 'see'. Some may say they've 'tried it' and it didn't work. For me it simply means they didn't try at all. If they did try they'd be Christians still. But as is said in the scripture - and rather obvious - many will choose the easy road. As Christians, all we can and should do is relay the word, give the info. It is up to the individual to make the decision - go with God... or go without God.
The only person who will ever be truly able to think for himself is the one who is Completely isolated from civilisation. We now are here in the middle of it. Everything we 'know' is built on the expert's ideas.... maybe even what we 'see'. An example I like to use is the appearance of, say a valley or a hill when it is looked at on some aerial photograph. At times, if the captions weren't there, one would have no clue whether he is looking at a valley or a hill. As Leo Volont stated, they will both be in accordance to reality. The question is whether each interpretation will have some consequence associated (fly an aircraft over a valley or into a hill?). Definitely, the atheistic as opposed to the Christian view of existence has relative consequences. Then there is some level of immaturity in all of us. The only person at the highest level is God Himself.
