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.
I think God is what you hinted at... this striving for what we think is best, no matter what philosophy or religion we subscribe to or don't.
God is love... love is not just that frilly, kissy, huggy emotion.
IMO Love is wanting & striving for what we think is best, through trial & error.
Love is motivation, which everyone has in one way or another.
It seems to me that you are simply positing that love is everything good and right. That stretches it a mite, but for the moment I won't argue that. But if "God is love", then God is also all of these things. Why bring the God concept into it at all? The "trial and error" part of it sounds suspiciously scientific, as one would test a hypothesis, which I agree with Quan12 is not at all the same as faith. If faith were tested as a hypothesis is, it would soon vanish.
Well you sort of run into a problem there when you consider that "Faith" is the endpoint for religion and "hypothesis" is the starting pointfor science.
And by the way, that is not the definition of Hypothesis. Here's Webster:
1. assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2.a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
There is no requirement that it be made on the basis of no evidence. Almost all hypotheses are made after a period of observation.
Faith requires no observation. None. It is received.
Exactly. Someone earlier in this thread kept saying that you have to believe in something in order to find evidence of it. But he's confusing belief with tentatively assuming. If I assume something is true, that doesn't mean I believe it. It just means that I'm assuming it for argument's sake. If I make a hypothesis, it's based on something I've already observed. For example, I hypothesize that the Earth is round. But I wouldn't just think of this for no reason. It had to have been based on something. Maybe I saw the shadow of the Earth on the moon. So now I'm wondering if the Earth is, in fact, round. So I devise a test to prove it.
But faith requires no such test. It does seem to be based on assumption though. People see the world around us and assume that something must've created it. After all, how could something exist without being created first? Well I believe Stephen Hawking recently proved how it is possible for the universe to have always existed.
Well you sort of run into a problem there when you consider that "Faith" is the endpoint for religion and "hypothesis" is the starting pointfor science.
Faith is hopeful imagination based on some type of teaching or experience & is NOT the endpoint for religion... there is no endpoint for spirituality.
Hypothesis is not the starting point for science... hopeful imagination based on observation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quan12
Faith requires no observation. None. It is received.
I agree that faith does not involve observation, however it is based on some type of teaching or experience. It is not received, but more a part of our energy - belief with active motivation... I have faith that as I want to convey a message to you, my brain will send the message to my fingers & remember how to type it out. Everything we do is based on faith. "Receive" is too passive - faith is not something that happens to us, but the energy behind how we make things happen. Faith is like 95% of our universe (including us space-filled beings)... which is made up of dark energy/matter. It is not observable - & only known by the influence it has on other things.
It seems to me that you are simply positing that love is everything good and right. That stretches it a mite, but for the moment I won't argue that. But if "God is love", then God is also all of these things. Why bring the God concept into it at all? The "trial and error" part of it sounds suspiciously scientific, as one would test a hypothesis, which I agree with Quan12 is not at all the same as faith. If faith were tested as a hypothesis is, it would soon vanish.
Hi Catman,
Let me clarify... I don't believe love is limited to what is good & right.
IMO, Love is the energy/motivation of striving for what we think is best in any given situation - through trial & error.
A man lovingly gives roses to a woman, who is allergic to them... his intention was loving, but his act wasn't the best for her health.
A suicidal terrorist believes he is doing what is best, otherwise he wouldn't give his life.
When we act with limited perspective & impulsively, sometimes we are way off from what is really best. Then, we & others have to suffer the consequences, & we learn through trial & error.
Good question - about why bring God into it at all?
God is the higher good.
Who knows what the highest good is?
Nobody! We just "hypothesize" & experiment & many times we fail, but miraculously, sometimes we get it right.
How do we know we get it right? This is another aspect science can't discern... We feel it, we sense it. Like hitting the wrong note on an instrument... it's not an evil note - it's just not right in relation to other notes & we can hear it, so we try until we get it right. God is the highest best - which requires both Science (logic/intellect) & Spirituality (feeling/intuition) to discern.
I agree that a lot of spirituality cannot be scientifically tested. Yet, if faith is considered belief, it can & has been studied.
When you think thoughts that produce stress, how do you feel?
Do you get a headache &/or tight shoulders?
When you laugh so hard tears are flowing & you're out of breath, how do you feel?
Do you feel good all over - as if your soul was just cleansed?
Faith/belief has influence - even if the belief is untrue, its' influence is still true.
A suicidal terrorist more than likely gives his life not for what is right and good, but for the promised rewards in the afterlife which he believes in. And of course faith/belief have influence, even if they are founded upon smoke and mirrors. However, since they are IMO, the resulting influence is not likely to be a good one.
Why can we not practice ethical good for its own sake, rather than because a mythological being nominally promises rewards and punishments? That only cheapens and dilutes the ethical good.
In what way does "how I feel" after the events you described have anything to do with the existence/nonexistence of a god? I don't believe we have souls; the effects you described are all explainable in terms of psychology and physiology.
If we don't know what "the highest good" even is, why ascribe this unknown postulate to a god, this ineffable being which so many are convinced exists?
Why can we not practice ethical good for its own sake, rather than because a mythological being nominally promises rewards and punishments? That only cheapens and dilutes the ethical good.
It also says something about people. If you need an incentive to be good or need to be frightened into doing good, then that implies that without rewards or the fear of punishment, you would not be good. That's a pretty cynical view of man, to say that he basically needs to be bribed into being a good person. Imagine if someone helped you and when you asked them why they did so, they said "because I'll get a reward for it." In other words, they only did it because there's something in it for them.
Faith is hopeful imagination based on some type of teaching or experience & is NOT the endpoint for religion... there is no endpoint for spirituality.
Hypothesis is not the starting point for science... hopeful imagination based on observation is.
Where are you getting this stuff? There is no "hopeful imagination" behind a scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis is the first step in an attempt to seek scientific truth, or reliability. Sure, you may "hope" the drug you're creating cures cancer, but the hypothesis could also be "this asteroid, with this given trajectory, will hit the Yucatan Peninsula". That is not hopeful, it's a scientific guess, which must be tested, with experiments, calculations, conclusions, and peer-review.
And faith is the endpoint in terms of a religious person's work. If you had actual evidence to evaluate concerning the existence of your God, that'd entail further work. But you don't.
Quote:
I agree that faith does not involve observation, however it is based on some type of teaching or experience.
I guess. But that doesn't make it valid, or good. In fact, it can be extremely damaging, since it's not based on any scientific method.
It's the same thing as UFOs. You believe they're alien spacecraft because someone planted that in your head beforehand. Then, even if you see an experimental US military craft doing amazing things in the night sky (which, ironically, are innovations that can thank scientific experimentation), you think "aliens!"
Your "experience" was misguided and led to incorrect and irrational conclusions, because that "experience" was rooted in mythology, not fact.
So it goes with God.
Quote:
It is not received, but more a part of our energy - belief with active motivation...
Come on. You're a product of your environment. If your environment is India, you think Vishnu and Sutra. If your environment is Saudi Arabia, you think Muhammed.
Because your environment is Western Culture, you think Jesus. It's not some inherent "energy". It's received wisdom. Made-up stuff.
Quote:
I have faith that as I want to convey a message to you, my brain will send the message to my fingers & remember how to type it out.
No, actually you have electrical circuitry in your brain, synapses, and muscle memory. That's transferred to the keyboard, which is connected to the computer, which is plugged into a network using waves of electrical energy that connects to other networks. It can all be explained to you. It's not faith.
Quote:
Everything we do is based on faith.
So wrong.
Quote:
"Receive" is too passive - faith is not something that happens to us, but the energy behind how we make things happen. Faith is like 95% of our universe (including us space-filled beings)... which is made up of dark energy/matter. It is not observable - & only known by the influence it has on other things.
Faith may be what we call it before we figure it out, but that doesn't mean faith is virtuous and magical. In the 1600s, people thought running water was magic, and to turn on the faucet and expect water to flow would require "faith". There would be no knowledge of a valve and a pump. That doesn't mean it's "faith".
A suicidal terrorist more than likely gives his life not for what is right and good, but for the promised rewards in the afterlife which he believes in. And of course faith/belief have influence, even if they are founded upon smoke and mirrors. However, since they are IMO, the resulting influence is not likely to be a good one.
Why can we not practice ethical good for its own sake, rather than because a mythological being nominally promises rewards and punishments? That only cheapens and dilutes the ethical good.
In what way does "how I feel" after the events you described have anything to do with the existence/nonexistence of a god? I don't believe we have souls; the effects you described are all explainable in terms of psychology and physiology.
If we don't know what "the highest good" even is, why ascribe this unknown postulate to a god, this ineffable being which so many are convinced exists?
I didn't write that the terrorist was doing what was right & good...only that he thought he was.
I don't believe in a mythological being - & even clarified a different definition of God - which you could just call energy or motivation if you want. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - Shakespeare
We cannot practice ethical good without some type of reward - even if it's just the good feeling of having done it.
Everything we do is for selfish reasons, whether admited or not.
1. Stupid selfishness - inconsiderate of others &/or consequences.
2. Smart selfishness - considerate of others & self & long term goals/what's best.
All of our thoughts are processed through our brains, which is also interrelated with all of our other body systems, especially endocrine.
So, I concur that alot of everything is just in our minds.
Psychology is the "study of the soul."
We see what we focus on or look for or recognize.
There are moments of serendipity that go beyond phsysiology.
And even if there weren't, believing in them helps us physiologically!
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.
& experiment & many times we fail, but miraculously, sometimes we get it right. 
