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.
O man like 15 people wrote me asking what happened to Plerro when I wrote that, we had all sorts of visitors asking,'' what did you do?'' ya know in that tone where they know that I will KNOW they were really the ones.
But really, I did hear that Plerro is some kind of insect scientist um, like she is some kind of wanna be insect and she is in East Asia studying some kind of bug that a certain color is derived from through the application of heat. Bug freaks, go figure.
So it sounds like you are acknowlwdging basics that religion has known for thousands of years.
Yes, I am betting that some aspects of religion are true, and to the extent that these true beliefs are based on subjective resonance with non-temporal/universal aspects of Reality as conscious or unconscious/proto-conscious, then I would agree that some religious people have known these things for thousands of years. ("Knowledge" in this case, being true beliefs justified by subjective personal experience.) The concept of knowledge gets tricky, however, when dealing with writing based on personal subjective experiences. Accidental true belief, or unjustified true belief is generally not considered "knowledge." I might believe with all of my heart that I am going flip 10 heads in a row on a coin and, by golly, I flip 10 heads. Assuming that it is a fair coin and there is no psychic phenomena involved, most philosophers would say that I didn't really "know" that I was going to flip 10 heads. I simply believed that I would flip 10 heads, and I got lucky.
If I employ my critical thinking skills and conclude, based on the best evidence available to me, that a certain claim, X, in a book is true, then it is fair to say that I came to know X because I read it in a book that, by any reasonable measure, was a reliable source of information insofar as it fits comfortably into the vast web of historical and scientific knowledge. But suppose, on the other hand, that I believe in Bigfoot because the National Enquirer had an article about a guy who says he saw Bigfoot and I have full faith in the National Enquirer as a source of information. Then suppose that next year some well-documented evidence turns up that is verified by numerous respected scientists. Some people would say that I "knew" about Bigfoot before the scientists did, but most philosophers would disagree. They'd say I didn't actually "know" anything. I just got lucky and had a true belief because I just happened to put my faith in a claim that happened to turn out true (sorta like my faith in the claim that I was going to flip 10 heads in a row).
I say there may be some good reasons to believe in certain conceptions of God. If these reasons are based on either personal mystical experience and/or some combination of evidence and rational arguments, and if it does, in fact, turn out that some of these conceptions or aspects are true, then I (and perhaps some ancient religious folks) can claim knowledge. But if I believe these things because I had faith in a book that, overall, does not appear to be a good source of accurate historical or scientific insights - if my beliefs really end up boiling down to peer pressure, or wishful thinking, or gullibility, or ignorance of science, etc. - then I don't really know much at all. If I get it right, it is primarily luck at work, not knowledge.
Even if some ancient sages had mystical insights and wrote down some ideas about God that turn out to be true, I don't really know much of anything if I accept their claim uncritically. Again and again I come back to this: Faith in some conceptions of God can be perfectly rational, but faith in holy books as sources of scientific and/or historically accurate information is simply not rational.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-04-2017 at 08:17 PM..
... I didn't really "know" that I was going to flip 10 heads. I simply believed that I would flip 10 heads, and I got lucky....
...I would agree that some religious people have known these things for thousands of years. ("Knowledge" in this case, being true beliefs justified by subjective personal experience.)
...accidental true belief or unjustified true belief is generally not considered "knowledge."...
...my beliefs really end up boiling down to peer pressure, or wishful thinking, or gullibility, or ignorance of science, etc. - then I don't really know much at all. If I get it right, it is primarily luck at work, not knowledge...
Ahh you have used that before in other threads "lucky guess" when you can't bear to admit that ancients did indeed know a whole lot more than you do in this arena. Not only did they know a whole lot more than you do now, but they also for thousands of years have understood and used principles and concepts that you have yet to consider much less comprehend or study and explore in depth.
When you have an aversion to a source you consider inferior, you resort to playing the oh so condescending "lucky guess" card. The begrudging "accidental true belief" oozing with arrogance from the lofty heights of snobbery. I know the rarified air of intellectual snobbery because I was born and raised in it, married into it, imbibed it, and lived with it for many decades.
That is not addressed at you personally but to the mindset of those who pointedly label themselves as intellectual, genius, superior, scholars, and make repeated pointed references to academic degrees, graduate school this, journal article that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
... But suppose, on the other hand, that I believe in Bigfoot because the National Enquirer had an article about a guy who says he saw Bigfoot and I have full faith in the National Enquirer as a source of information.
If you have full faith in the National Enquirer then you show yourself incapable of gauging whether a source is reliable.
Just like the article by Teed. He is not a reliable source for me, based on my research, reading, and critical thinking. Now Teed may be a fine source for some people, such as the guy in your post who considers the National Enquirer a reliable source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
.. back to this: Faith in some conceptions of God can be perfectly rational, but faith in holy books as sources of scientific and/or historically accurate information is simply not rational.
Faith in some conceptions of philosophy can be perfectly rational; but faith in philosophy books and journal articles as sources of accurate information about God and understanding of God's qualities, is simply not rational.
Ahh you have used that before in other threads "lucky guess" when you can't bear to admit that ancients did indeed know a whole lot more than you do in this arena.
I think you missed the core point. The ancients might very well have known some key things relating to God. It's not "luck" if you acquire belief via first-hand personal experience, and the belief turns out to be true. But if you have faith in the scientific/historical/moral proclamations of a book that, all things considered, shows no signs of being a reliable source of information about science, history, or morality, then, yeah, any true beliefs that you happen to acquire are more like accidental true beliefs rather than knowledge.
Quote:
When you have an aversion to a source you consider inferior, you resort to playing the oh so condescending "lucky guess" card.
Just to be clear: I don't have an aversion to the Bible, as such. I've studied it, and I believe that there is a lot of good in it - especially in wisdom offered by Jesus. But when it comes to claims about natural history, human history, or morality, then I think it is not a reliable source of knowledge. It's more "hit & miss" and it is up to the reader to acknowledge what makes sense from a modern point of view, and what doesn't.
Quote:
If you have full faith in the National Enquirer then you show yourself incapable of gauging whether a source is reliable.
Yes, exactly. And my point is that, with reference to science, history, and moral guidance, people who have faith in the Bible (or other holy books) are clearly demonstrating that they are not good at gauging whether a source is reliable.
Quote:
Faith in some conceptions of philosophy can be perfectly rational; but faith in philosophy books and journal articles as sources of accurate information about God and understanding of God's qualities, is simply not rational.
Yes. Here we agree. One should not have faith in philosophy books. Faith should be reserved for stuff revealed via direct personal/mystical experience - and, even then, I would recommend pausing to consider possible self-delusion or wishful thinking.
....Just to be clear: I don't have an aversion to the Bible, as such. I've studied it, and I believe that there is a lot of good in it .... But when it comes to claims about natural history, human history, or morality, then I think it is not a reliable source of knowledge. It's more "hit & miss" and it is up to the reader to acknowledge what makes sense from a modern point of view, and what doesn't.
And you are missing some of the most essential pieces benefits purpose function of religion and holy books:
Cultivating and nurturing a relationship with God; improving our character traits through focus on integrity, kindness, giving to charity, compassion, honesty, how we treat others. Putting those into practice in daily life.
"Studying it" (anything) is not the same as "putting it into practice." Reading about integrity and respect are altogether different from living with integrity and treating others with respect. Pontificating debating arguing about God's existence (philosophy does this) is very different from cultivating a relationship with God and making self improvement a priority (religion does this).
Your posts stress "science history morality critical thinking modern." Those appear to be your focus, they are what you value rhe lens you view through and use as your yardstick for measuring and determining what are "good reasons" or "unreliable sources" for you.
Prime importance for me is: what wisdom is on offer, what level of integrity does this demonstrate, how do they treat others, what character traits are displayed and valued, what practical application does this have in daily life, does this lead to increased peace, how does this person live their life, what does this ask of me, who does this ask me to become, what is my resistance or aversion to this.
Those for me determine "good reasons" and "reliable sources".
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2017 at 11:00 AM..
....The reason you are so off base in these discussions is that you are emoting and NOT reasoning.... it is a sign of the times that our society has become so sensitive and offense-taking instead of rational and reasoning.
There is nothing rational or reasonable (or mature or intellectual or superior or wise or appealing or impressive or worthy of emulation) when a person blames others for his own problematic behavior.
Rather, the rational reasonable grown ups take responsibility for how they treat others.
Your problem is thinking EVERYTHING you have that is written is from God. That is why you fail. You are trying to accommodate the ignorance and superstitions of men with the revelations of God from Jesus. You test NOTHING against the Holy Spirit that Jesus described in detail. You are trying to pretend that Jesus revealed the savagery of the OT under the veil of ignorance (blind minds) because you think Judaism is the correct religion. It has nothing to do with the correct religion. It has everything to do with knowing the TRUE NATURE of God that Jesus came to reveal and demonstrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Again, you prove God wrong and you have no Messiah to speak of, and yeah, I do pretty much speak for God on here. You see me on here every day defending God from Christians who call him a barbarian and then they try and prove his son was a false prophet. Imagine that.
I do NOT call God a barbarian. I call the beliefs ABOUT God held by our ancient ancestors primitive and barbaric using their own descriptions. Jesus came to correct their "blind minds" from reading the OT by revealing, describing in detail, and demonstrating the TRUE NATURE of God, His Father and ours.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
There is nothing rational or reasonable (or mature or intellectual or superior or wise or appealing or impressive or worthy of emulation) when a person blames others for his own problematic behavior.
Rather, the rational reasonable grown-ups take responsibility for how they treat others.
I blame no one for anything, Tzaph. As a Christian, I point out inconsistencies and contradictions in the descriptions of God that I correct using Christ's detailed descriptions and unambiguous demonstration.
I do NOT call God a barbarian. I call the beliefs ABOUT God held by our ancient ancestors primitive and barbaric using their own descriptions. Jesus came to correct their "blind minds" from reading the OT by revealing, describing in detail, and demonstrating the TRUE NATURE of God, His Father and ours.
Have I told you how much I loved you lately? Anytime I have said those same things to you, I am really not trying to insult you, I just know that you don't understand the magnitude of what you are trying to relate. I have seen you say thta the God of the old Testament is barbaric, and maybe I took it wrong, nevertheless, I don't think you are understanding how you cancel out God. If you just had issue with one single law, it throws the entire law out the window, do you know this? I know you are looking at the law as laws of do's and don't but it is a marriage contract Mystic and what you are reading is just the face of the law, there is so much beauty, and so many secret love notes behind each law. I think that YOU THINK Christ came with another law, and while Jesus DID come teaching secrets of the laws, the laws have not changed, the only thing that has changed is the understanding of what the law was always saying from the beginning. The dietary laws are showing Gentiles, it was never about what you eat.
ITS TRUE, ITS TRUE! Jesus came with the laws of Moses showing and proving that the true essence of the law is hidden within the law itself, and that law of Jesus that is so evading, is actually found in each of the laws. In each law you find a law of freedom and beauty where great secrets of God are unlocked thriugh the practice and study of the laws of Moses. David didn't lose his mind when he was so in love with the laws, David had found the beauty and the hidden love notes contains within the marriage contract.
I really wished I could relay just how much magic there is when you have found the beauty and secrets behind just one law. When you would see it in the future, you will say,'' Was that there the whole time?''
Just saying Mystic, you aren't seeing the fine line that Jesus had to walk in the laws, and for him to have even stepped over the line in the least would have cancelled him out, and if the father was wrong in just one single thing, it cancels out the entire book. It is only that the truth is there hidden for people to find, and it does take some digging. If I say that you should be a Universalist, I am just pointing out that it at least fits you and allows you leeway because there is no leeway with God, you cancel out just one thing, then understand that it all falls.
..... Very different approach than "how can I improve my character, live a life of integrity, treat others with ever more kindness dignity compassion, give with generosity to charity"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
...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.
Your focus on it obstructs your reasoning about the content of your beliefs about God.
No, my focus on it defines and personifies and represents and is deeply rooted in my beliefs about God.
That is one of the (very VERY many) ways we differ. You say it has no relation to God and you separate it from God and you wave it away like many atheists on the board with "nothing to do with God."
Whereas I say it has everything to do with God and I embrace it and chase after it every chance I get.
For me it is part and parcel of God and it is part and parcel of religion. For me "there is no place where God is not." Clearly you don't see it that way. There are so many places you seem to say God is not part of that, You seem fine with removing God from all sorts of places.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2017 at 03:53 PM..
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.
