Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"(2) Rationality enters the picture only at the point where one choses behavior in the context of feelings. If a behavior does no noticeable harm and if it furthers a worthy goal, it is a rational behavior - or, at least, it is not an irrational one. My feeling of my "relationship with God" does no harm, so far as I can tell, it feels right, and it seems to have some practical value insofar as it provides a sense of "centeredness", lowers stress, helps me deal with negative emotions, provides a sense of meaning, etc."
insofar as they see this faith as being grounded in the pronouncements of a book that purports to give moral guidance for behavior, then a whole new set of considerations come into play. Feelings don't need to defended on rational grounds, but tangible physical behavior does insofar as this behavior affects other people. If, in fact, a particular book did happen to give a perfectly accurate account of human history and gave consistently good insights into natural science and consistently good advice on moral behavior, then that book would, indeed, be a wonderfully great resource as a textbook for living. But to earn this status, the book would have to pass a vast multitude of empirical tests. In other words, the hypothesis that "This book is a consistently good source of knowledge about history, nature, and morality" would have to be rigorously tested in a scientific way so that it could earn the status of a well-confirmed theory. Holy books fail these tests. Thus faith in holy books as being perfect guides to actual history, natural science, and morality is flat-out irrational and has often proven itself to be downright dangerous.
Why is this so hard to see?
its not, but the implementation of it becomes dicey when we are trying to match theory to practice. Any liaison between design and machinist can point out the disconnects. and the customers? well, they just use and misuse the product.
what the bible does, is a damn good job at is answering the human question of "what am I". It may not describe god real well, but it certainly is a good look into humanity's mirror.
Maybe so. But I would say that there is evidence of clear thinking only if
(1) Their conception of God is rational (e.g., Rockwell's attempt to propose a naturalist form of theism) and/or
(2) They have a rational reason for having a "relationship with" a Being who they admit cannot be rationally conceived.
Rationality, people, etc are being given naturalistic definitions in the post, which are then mixed with aspects found in the non-naturalistic.
Rationality, people, etc are being given naturalistic definitions in the post, which are then mixed with aspects found in the non-naturalistic.
yup, 1/2 truth's, thats what makes it hard to clear the air for some.
for example, the standard model. Philosophers stamp it with materialistic then minimize as such. On a forum, its nearly impossible to overcome that stamp. In person, with a desk and some paper, there is no way to make a reasonable claim that does not have links into the standard model.
Its not much, but its all we have. we have nothing else. Only on a forum can the notion that its not all we have be treated as an equal.
The second big problem, is that many just don't care. they are at war with religion or want to force their beliefs of 'my god" on others. "How the universe works" has very little use to them. It really is only selectively use to push a personal god or selectively used to deny anything and everything.
The truth is between "deny anything religion can use" and "my god only". The milli/fundy mentals won't address this openly. Its based on common sense alone and of no value to them. so they shun me in the name of "its them, not us." also, The truth is between "deny anything religion can use" and "my god only". is an absolutely sick set of book ends. It shows us that the two ends just don't care.
most people don't get it. that's what we are fighting. i personally don't understand joining either group past cannon fodder to be tossed at each other until such time warriors have to engage.
Rationality, people, etc are being given naturalistic definitions in the post, which are then mixed with aspects found in the non-naturalistic.
Terms like 'natural' and 'supernatural' are generally too vague for productive discussion, and it's hard to pin them down in a helpful way. This is why I introduced the Kantian concepts of phenomena and noumena - i.e., reality as experienced verses reality as it is "beneath" or "beyond" or "independent of" any experiencer. The concept of "noumena" has generated a lot of philosophical controversy over past couple hundred years since Kant proposed it, but my own view is that it is a good distinction that helps us get to the core issues more productively that "natural" vs "supernatural". We have strong phenomenal evidence for thinking that we don't experience everything that is real, and we don't experience every aspect of reality. We also have good reasons to believe that experience is process-based - meaning a lot of stuff goes on "behind the scenes" in order for any particular experience to occur. Each experience has content, and all of these contents of experience can be taken as objects of experience - which is to say, we can orient our experience "toward" any given bit of content to think of it "as" this or that. If there is a cat in my visual field, then I can take notice of - or focus on - the cat as a cat.
In any case, we have good reason to think that not everything that constitutes the process of becoming an experience can be brought before our minds and cognized as an object. So, to me, it seems safe to say that some aspects of reality are, indeed, noumenal, just as Kant says. These aspects of experience are "what they are" even if they can never, even in principle, become objects of experience - i.e., even if they can never be phenomenal.
All of this boils down to something that I think almost all of us agree upon: Some conceptions of God cannot, even in principle, be ruled out by any combination of logic or empirical evidence. Logic leaves room for various conceptions of God, even if these conception rule out any possibility of finding verifiable empirical evidence. Lack of verifiable evidence for X cannot be logically used to prove that X does not exist. Thus it is not irrational to believe in God, even if one's conception of God is such that God's existence cannot be verified by objective empirical means.
As I keep saying, faith in God is not necessarily a problem. Faith in holy books, however, often leads to irrational behavior.
Terms like 'natural' and 'supernatural' are generally too vague for productive discussion, and it's hard to pin them down in a helpful way. ...
I agree. And Teed uses those terms. Which is why Teeds ideas are vague, not productive for discussion, and not helpful. Which is why for me the abstract presented demonstrates a lack of depth, and lack of understanding.
You and Teed both freely use the terms "supernaturalism" and "naturalistic theism." They are used the same way people use phrases such as "magical thinking" "blah blah blah nonsense" "fairy tale." They indicate a lot about what a person brings to the table in terms of their views, their attitude, their clarity of thinking, their depth of understanding, their maturity, their ability to engage with others showing dignity courtesy and respect. Those are indicators of character and integrity or lack thereof.
Regarding any source of learning it is important for me to always evaluate it as I read and listen in light of asking "what wisdom is on offer" in this or that article or abstract or post or book. When a person uses phrases like "supernatural" "naturalistic theism" "fairy tale" "magical thinking" "special snowflake" "fundashield," those are indicators for me of not a lot of wisdom on offer.
This is a considerably different approach than "how can I win an argument" or "how can I debate this topic." Teed's premise in the abstract is how to argue with atheists.
Very different approach than "how can I improve my character, live a life of integrity, treat others with ever more kindness dignity compassion kindness, give wirh generosity to charity"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-03-2017 at 11:50 AM..
...Thus it is not irrational to believe in God, even if one's conception of God is such that God's existence cannot be verified by objective empirical means.
Therefore it is not rational to insist that God's existence must be "verified by objective empirical means."
Therefore it is not rational to insist that God's existence must be "verified by objective empirical means."
I kept reading this yesterday, and it is something that a lot of people just don't get. The joy in knowing God is what true happiness means when you begin to figure out the hidden love notes that run through all the books. That you know you love the ways of God and he knows that you love his ways, and he is speaking things to you that lawless people will never see or understand. This drilling in repetition how God knows who loves and follows him and he is going to bring his people out to show the world that he has a secret love. It is a magical thing that God does where he speaks to his beloved without anyone else being able to read what he says, unless they love the law and the prophets, they just aint going to get this magical connection between God and people who love God's ways.
Isaiah 47 The Fall of Babylon Predicted
1Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. 2Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. 3Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. 4As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. 5Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called, The lady of kingdoms. 6I was wroth with my people, I have polluted mine inheritance, and given them into thine hand: thou didst shew them no mercy; upon the ancient hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke. 7And thou saidst, I shall be a lady for ever: so that thou didst not lay these things to thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it. 8Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: 9But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. 10For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me. 11Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know. 12Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. 13Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. 14Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it. 15Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee. I was wroth with my people I was wroth with my people
God shows us what the deal is, God has his own people and he moves them around and does this and that, and then the whole world is judged by how they treated God's people.
We know who God's people are because they love the law and the prophets, and all this time, God has been moving around his people, HIS PEOPLE, and the rest of the world are just pawns in how they interact with God's people.
Yup. Faith in philosophy is not necessarily a problem. Faith in philosophy books and journal articles however often leads to irrational behavior.
Agreed. One should never have faith in philosophy books. Holy books are, essentially, philosophy books. Keep in mind that 'Philosophy' literally means "love of wisdom" so to engage in philosophical debate is (or, at least ought to be) to pursue wisdom due to one's love of wisdom. If one studies a holy book in pursuit of wisdom, one is essentially engaging in philosophical pursuit. But I suggest that all philosophy books be read with an eye toward critical thinking if one wishes to derive wisdom or moral guidance from them (as opposed to reading for inspiration or entertainment).
Very different approach than "how can I improve my character, live a life of integrity, treat others with ever more kindness dignity compassion kindness, give with generosity to charity"
This has nothing to do with belief in God. It is a worthy goal for any of us, period. The reason you are so off base in these discussions is that you are emoting and NOT reasoning. That is also why you accept without question everything written in your sacred texts even when it contradicts what you recommend in this very post. What you say in this quote has NOTHING to do with whether or not you believe in God or you accept what is in writings supposed to be from God. It expresses a goal we all would be wise to aspire to whatever we believe about God. Your focus on it obstructs your reasoning about the content of your beliefs about God. I guess it is a sign of the times that our society has become so sensitive and offense-taking instead of rational and reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this so hard to see?
