Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

good. i’m not trying to help you.
i am pointing out a logic conclusion and/or truth. you will appreciate logic as a computer software person. if it works for one carbon-based human life form it will work for any carbon-based human life form. its just logic.

Are you sure you want to apply this kind of logic?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

good. i’m not trying to help you.

Yes, I didn’t ever think you were trying to help.

i am pointing out a logic conclusion and/or truth. you will appreciate logic as a computer software person. if it works for one carbon-based human life form it will work for any carbon-based human life form. its just logic.

If we were all unvaried and identical then I would agree with you. But there seems to be variation in human biology, personality, experiences, and other attributes. It’s not necessarily the case that something that influences one person in a specific way necessarily influence all people in that way.

Laughing gas will make some people laugh. It will make some people cry.

Penicillin will cure some people and kill some people.

Peanuts will kill some people, but not all people.

Some methods may be effective for teaching math to some students. Other students may need a different approach.

This isn’t to say that there are no conditions that won’t result in the same outcome on people, but that we can find many things that don’t have the same outcome.

I had included qualifiers in my earlier statement stating that it was not effective for me. It doesn’t seem to have a universal affect. You also won’t have to dig deep to find others within these forums that pray and find themselves loosing their faith (and express feeling tortured about it) or people that had been praying Christians and no longer are from lack of response or revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, I don’t see the cognitive dissonance. When one is asked for knowledge that one does not have in possession and for which one cannot access the phrase “I don’t know” seems appropriate to me.

I’m not. It’s not hard to find a scientist that admits not knowing something. I’d have other feelings about a person that never admits to not knowing. This isn’t limited to scientist. Occupationally I’ve worked with people that would never admit to not knowing and were skilled at making up answers that seemed plausible to and mislead the less informed.

I think it’s quite telling that you keep referencing an argument no one is making.

Let me be crystal clear: it’s PERFECTLY fine to say, “I don’t know”.

What is mystifying to me is for you, Michael Shermer and other science advocates to** end **the narrative with “I don’t know”.

In science, the quest starts with “I don’t know”. That is the very beginning of the sweet and magnificent journey towards knowledge.

The meme for science, for academics, for intellectually astute folks is: I don’t know. Let’s find out!

But for some reason (and I suspect I know this reason. It’s pretty obvious, really) in this area, AND FOR NO OTHER AREA, you’re ok with ENDING with “I don’t know.”

 

[You]

Yes, I didn’t ever think you were trying to help.

If we were all unvaried and identical then I would agree with you. But there seems to be variation in human biology, personality, experiences, and other attributes. It’s not necessarily the case that something that influences one person in a specific way necessarily influence all people in that way.

Laughing gas will make some people laugh. It will make some people cry.

Penicillin will cure some people and kill some people.

Peanuts will kill some people, but not all people.

Some methods may be effective for teaching math to some students. Other students may need a different approach.

This isn’t to say that there are no conditions that won’t result in the same outcome on people, but that we can find many things that don’t have the same outcome.

I had included qualifiers in my earlier statement stating that it was not effective for me. It doesn’t seem to have a universal affect. You also won’t have to dig deep to find others within these forums that pray and find themselves loosing their faith (and express feeling tortured about it) or people that had been praying Christians and no longer are from lack of response or revelation.

you did not ask, i respond to an idea you expressed.

we are all united in the human family so yes it is possible for every member of the human family.

 

[PRmerger]

A conundrum if I ever heard one. Yet my poor grandson of 15 years of age quipped they are working on it. That is create a vacuum of sorts, an environment where there is ‘nothing’, and see if something just pops in. He couldn’t exactly recall from his reading but he started to tell me they have had something ‘pop up/in’ , like an electron or something. I just can’t believe you can create ‘nothing’ in the first place , especially where ‘something’ will not affect the ‘nothing’. OK, this is where I need a photo like the “Home Alone” boy holding his face and just… screaming into the mirror…

Blessings

He’s probably referencing physicist Lawrence Krauss’ "A Universe from Nothing’.

Krauss claims to have created “something” from “nothing”.

Except what he does is re-define “nothing”.

He starts with a low low level quantum energy field.

So he starts with “something” and then from that comes “something”.

Not that surprising.

But let’s see him actually start with NOTHING, and see if something comes from that.

#cantbedone

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think it’s quite telling that you keep referencing an argument no one is making.

Let me be crystal clear: it’s PERFECTLY fine to say, “I don’t know”.

Okay. It previously seemed to me that you had felt otherwise. My apologies for my misunderstanding.

What is mystifying to me is for you, Michael Shermer and other science advocates to** end **the narrative with “I don’t know”.

In science, the quest starts with “I don’t know”. That is the very beginning of the sweet and magnificent journey towards knowledge.

It can be. But consider that my pursuits in life do not include working out earlier states of the universe. I’ve read the works of those that work on it but my understanding is limited. I earlier mentioned some areas of specialization for people that are pursuing that information. None of us pursue all the knowledge that we don’t have. The quest for knowledge is multidimensional. People that are trying to work out the question of earlier states of the universe might not be going after other information, such as better ways to treat cancers.

The meme for science, for academics, for intellectually astute folks is: I don’t know. Let’s find out!

It can be. In my earlier example I proposed asking scientist for the answers to questions to unrelated fields. One could also receive “I don’t know, why don’t you ask the scientist concentrating in that area over there. They might have worked on that.” With my “couldn’t tell you” I also mentioned areas of speciality in which people are said to be taking various approaches motivated by that question.

But for some reason (and I suspect I know this reason. It’s pretty obvious, really) in this area, AND FOR NO OTHER AREA, you’re ok with ENDING with “I don’t know.”

Well that’s not true. As of yet don’t have complete knowledge about where all the boundaries are on where I will say “I don’the know.”

Here is something to consider.

• With the limited time and resources we have there are limits to what individual humans can pursue and the skills that one can acquire
• People specialize in a subset of skills and knowledge
• I have selected to pursue knowledge in certain areas
• For knowledge outside of what I am pursuing I sometimes know how to access the information others have shared on the matter
• When asked for information in these other areas I might reference it, or I might redirect someone to it
• Sometimes I pursue knowledge in other areas with a cost being that I’ve reduced the time I have to engage in areas in which I am already working

You asked about a beginning of the universe. There are people that claim to know. There are people that don’t know, but concentrate on trying to discover earlier states feeling that will get them closer to an answer (in cosmology and quantum physics). I’m not working in cosmology, I’m not working in quantum physics, I don’t claim to know, I’m working my way through other type of knowledge.

If I were to have an infinite amount of time and resources my approach would differ.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus was said to be executed. He was said to be entombed afterwards. I’ve come across debate on that but sticking with the primary narrative let’s say he was entombed. A few days after his execution and entombment there are a couple of stories about how the tomb was found empty and Jesus was out and about. Mary M and the disciples were able to see him(minus Judas, which if memory serves me correct is said to have hung him self from a tree and/or became disemboweled in a field).

Just curious–why did you add silver text?

He’s said to have provided evidence to Thomas that he was really crucified. He tells them to make disciples of all people and baptize them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost/spirit. Oh yeah, and since this is a Catholic forum it’s relevant that Jesus is said to have told Peter to tend to his sheep. 40 days after rising up from his execution he is said to have been “received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.”

Saul is said to have seen and heard from Jesus too in a divine experience. After his experience he changes his disposition from believing he is helping God by persecuting Christians to believing he has been acting as an enemy of God before. In correcting his actions he becomes a missionary for Christianity and known by the name Paul.

Ok.

So is this all a lie? None of it happened? Some of it happened? If so, which parts, and how do you know?

I’ve run into people that have told me that they are messengers of God.

I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in this situation.

An account of someone’s experience just doesn’t have the same impact on me as having the experience myself

Of course.

Am I persuaded to take action because of these narratives? Nope.

Well, you ought to be persuaded to take action, if you want to live a life consonant with truth, if you want to live a life that is based in reality.

Again, this double standard is amusing and bemusing to me. “I want to pursue truth and be a person who lives in truth, except when it comes to the possibility of the numinous”.

Why is that, I wonder…

I’m generally fine with people that are convinced.

That’s an odd paradigm. Truth isn’t really of great import here? If your adult daughter were convinced that Santa Claus actually existed, you’d be “generally fine” with this?

(And please note: I am speaking of a jolly old elf who lives in the North Pole.)

At least until it starts having certain impacts, like the time that neighbor locked us out of our own house because (according to her) God said there was a demon in the house. I wasn’t okay with that.

That’s gaga!

I can see this leading to a reoccurring question that has come up in these forums from a certain person about “supernatural epistemology.” What methods are there for evaluating propositions about the supernatural? How can someone explore the supernatural and discover certain information on their own?

I think seeking succor in philosophical arguments is a great way to apprehend such information.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. It previously seemed to me that you had felt otherwise. My apologies for my misunderstanding.

I was quite clear. Of that, I am certain.

It can be. But consider that my pursuits in life do not include working out earlier states of the universe. I’ve read the works of those that work on it but my understanding is limited. I earlier mentioned some areas of specialization for people that are pursuing that information. None of us pursue all the knowledge that we don’t have. The quest for knowledge is multidimensional. People that are trying to work out the question of earlier states of the universe might not be going after other information, such as better ways to treat cancers.

It can be. In my earlier example I proposed asking scientist for the answers to questions to unrelated fields. One could also receive “I don’t know, why don’t you ask the scientist concentrating in that area over there. They might have worked on that.” With my “couldn’t tell you” I also mentioned areas of speciality in which people are said to be taking various approaches motivated by that question.

Your entire argument seems to be: this isn’t my field.

The origin of the universe, of life, of how we got here, why there is something rather than nothing is the “field” of everyone. (Here, the universe of discourse, of course, is every thinking individual who can access his intellect).

And, those who come to a Catholic forum to discuss such matters–in multiple threads, over years and years, with numerous posts-- have an even greater investment in the question.

So it seems odd, again, to see the meme be: I don’t know and I’m fine with that because it’s not my field.

Clearly, there is an investment by you in this.

But, peculiarly, when the answer to the question leads, incontrovertibly, to the religious, the quest stops.

#sopeculiar.

 

[pocaracas]

But, peculiarly, when the answer to the question leads, incontrovertibly, to the religious, the quest stops.

#sopeculiar.

Any answer is better than none, for you, huh?
And, if it’s an answer that resounds with the God you were taught to believe in, then so much the better, huh?

You appreciate truth, I guess. Why make a special case, here?
Why allow yourself to persist in what is probably a deception?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Just curious–why did you add silver text?

It meant for it to be gray and not silver. The motivation being to de-emphasize the text.

So is this all a lie? None of it happened? Some of it happened? If so, which parts, and how do you know?

I’ve got no way of testing the validity of the narrative.

Well, you ought to be persuaded to take action, if you want to live a life consonant with truth, if you want to live a life that is based in reality.

If I were convinced by the narrative I would agree with you. But as of yet I haven’t been convinced that this (or the main messages of many other religions) are true.

Again, this double standard is amusing and bemusing to me. “I want to pursue truth and be a person who lives in truth, except when it comes to the possibility of the numinous”.

I acknowledge the possibility. I have before and probably will again.

That’s an odd paradigm. Truth isn’t really of great import here? If your adult daughter were convinced that Santa Claus actually existed, you’d be “generally fine” with this?

I’d have concerns if my daughter though there was some guy monitoring her from afar and periodically sneaking into her house. Beyond that when I think of the scenario I think of some situations that could lead up to such a belief, most of which are concerning. I do have a friend that believes that she is watched over by her father in heaven. And no, I am not talking about God. I am talking about her biological father that passed aware a few years ago. She’s told me of her experiences of interacting with him and when he’s acted to protect her. I don’t believe her father is interacting with her, but I have no intention of challenging that belief.

For most of the people that I interact with their practice of their present day practice of their religions seem to be rather innocuous. If a person chooses to pray over their food I don’t see any harm. If the person wants to commune with other groups of people a few times a week that’s fine. When the person runs into trouble the general response might include prayer, but usually includes action to resolve the problem. This is what I generally encounter, and with this I have no trouble. When one of the followers of an eastern religion makes reference to some aspect of their religion I find it interesting like many other expressions of the cultures in which they were raised. At present I couldn’t tell you if the people I see regularly are religious or not. If they practice religion it is invisible to me. The closest thing I’ve ever heard come up that almost sounded religion was a conversation on someone not liking the Microsoft Developer Evangelists, feeling that their approach to their job felt too religious.

There do exists people for which I have different feelings about their practice of religion. But these people are not part of my general experience, so I’m generally okay with the religious practices of others. Put me in a different environment in which the practice of religions are different and my expression here would probably change to reflect this new environment.

Your entire argument seems to be: this isn’t my field.

That’s part of it.

There are a lot of questions for which I won’t be the one to give someone an answer because they are outside my specialty. If someone ask me a question that is based on law, mental health, medicine, so on I may tell the person to seek assistance of a legal professional, psychologist, doctor, so on. If someone ask some other mundane question for which I don’t know the answer I might refer the person to something else (dictionary, Google, so on). If a person ask a question for which much effort would be needed to answer and if I feel the person isn’t deeply interested in an answer then I might not make any effort at all to answer their question. If answering a question requires more resources than I have access to or more than I can budget I might not engage in trying to find the answer. If I think someone else can provide a better or faster answer than I can then I may refer to that person. If the answer to a question is going to be devastating I might want to play no role in the discovery of the answer, or I might be the one to try to answer it.

That’s not to say that I stay only within my field of specialty. I’ve got other topics that interest me, most of which are never discussed here, on which I spend time effort and money. There are areas for which I have curiosity but don’t delve into deeply so that I can concentrate on other areas. If only I had unlimited time and unlimited resources I would explore a much wider range of topics.

I could go down some other factors that influence whether or not I might not answer a question or pass it to someone else (ex: motivation theory) but in the interest of keeping things shorter I’ll stop here.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve got no way of testing the validity of the narrative.

So why not presume that it’s true, in the absence of evidence that it’s not?

I’d have concerns if my daughter though there was some guy monitoring her from afar and periodically sneaking into her house.

Egg-zactly.

Even if this belief made her good, and made her happy.

Why would you be concerned if she was a good person because of this belief and it made her sublimely happy?

Because, of course, truth is of profound and supreme import, and trumps her happiness.

 

[PRmerger]

There do exists people for which I have different feelings about their practice of religion. But these people are not part of my general experience, so I’m generally okay with the religious practices of others.

Me, too.

However, I think we would be agreed that a society that lives a life consonant with truth is better than a society that lives a life that is divorced from truth.

So, if God exists, then it is better for society to believe he exists than not to believe in his existence, right?

That’s part of it.

Well, then, I think that’s an affectation you’ve assumed for some reason.

But we all know that anyone who comes to this forum, talks about stuff like this, over and over and over again, really doesn’t believe that “it’s not my field”.

Clearly, there is an interest in it.

But, again, it’s dumbfounding to me to see the nonchalance of “I don’t really know”.

Actually, dumbfounding isn’t exactly the right word.

I think perhaps I should use “telling”.

Because it does indeed speak of a desire to pursue truth, except if it means one has to embrace a religious answer.

 

[Bradski]

So why not presume that it’s true, in the absence of evidence that it’s not?

What should both of us say to a Hindu who says the same?

 

[PRmerger]

What should both of us say to a Hindu who says the same?

This presupposes that all evidence for all religions has equal evidentiary value.

It does not.

 

[Bradski]

This presupposes that all evidence for all religions has equal evidentiary value.

It does not.

We’re not looking at the evidence FOR any religion. You wanted to know why you shouldn’t accept something if there was no evidence that it was false.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re not looking at the evidence FOR any religion. You wanted to know why you shouldn’t accept something if there was no evidence that it was false.

But there is evidence that Hinduism is false.

That’s why I’m not Hindu.

There is evidence that BaHai is false.

That’s why I’m not BaHai.

There’s evidence that the Celestial Teapot is false.

That’s why I’m not a …mentally disturbed person.

 

[Bradski]

But there is evidence that Hinduism is false.

That’s why I’m not Hindu.

Well, you know the next question. And a supplementary one…surely umpteen millions of Himdus who have studied their religion for many years can’t be wrong.

And to be honest, if you had been born in Kolcatta it would be close to a certainty that you would have been a Hindu and found the evidence compelling.

 

[You]

Well, you know the next question. And a supplementary one…surely umpteen millions of Himdus who have studied their religion for many years can’t be wrong.

And to be honest, if you had been born in Kolcatta it would be close to a certainty that you would have been a Hindu and found the evidence compelling.

i wouldn’t think of it as a new argument. St. Paul going into the city told them “i see from all your pagan temples that you are a very religious people, i saw one temple to the ‘unknown god’, that is the one i am here to tell you about.” [para]

and christ himself said to the Samaritan that they worship what they do not know but the Jews worship what they do know.

i think the point is that people sense the divine in life and that wonder is expressed in some religion, but of course there can only be one truth in life not many contradictory truths. so the pagans were doing all they could by responding to their unknown god.

 

[benhur]

He’s probably referencing physicist Lawrence Krauss’ "A Universe from Nothing’.

Krauss claims to have created “something” from “nothing”.

Except what he does is re-define “nothing”.

He starts with a low low level quantum energy field.

So he starts with “something” and then from that comes “something”.

Not that surprising.

But let’s see him actually start with NOTHING, and see if something comes from that.

#cantbedone

PR. Once again you simply amaze me. Thanks for the informative reply.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

What does “seeing spiritually” mean?
That you thought about it? You dreamed about it?

I suppose one could say seeing is as ‘understanding’. I was speaking then about understanding the spiritual realm. Of course it entails all that I am, mind, body, soul and spirit. So yes I can dream have visions,think, and feel about spiritual things.

I understand your denial of the spiritual realm. I suppose that is like me not ‘seeing’ , understanding Darwinian, naturalistic philosophy. Yes,there is a lack of knowledge, even experience,on my part in mostly due to me not believing it. That is what I was trying to say earlier, that if you don’t believe , you probably won’t understand or seek to understand the matter( though the potential and need be there). Hence the true saying, "My people perish for the lack of knowledge’’. That could be implied to mean in the natural world (it’s knowledge and its death). However it was explicitly written to mean spiritual knowledge (of God) and physical and spiritual death (lack of spiritual vision).

I see your rock as being a ripple of a bigger rock: human curiosity, meshed with human imagination, bounded by lack of knowledge.

Indeed, it seems then we are both told we have at least lack of knowledge, due to a lack of vision, even faith. me of your naturalistic philosophy and you of the spiritual realm.

How would you know that there are forces beyond human at work?
How would anyone know?

Gotta have the tools, even senses for it, just like in your paradigm. And of course the desire, and faith for it.

And, if there are false religions, there may very well be no true religion.

Absolutely logical in your paradigm of no spiritual realm.

I don’t know how this addresses what I said…

Could be a freebie. I think it does apply to your question, “is it likely that humans got it right with Jesus Christ? Or is he just another figure preying on that gullibility?”. I would think in determining that one would examine whom Jesus is, and have to come to a conclusion.

That is a possibility (that Jesus the man never existed in history- as temporarily once believed by Ben Hur), although not one supported by most experts of the subject, even the non-believers .

Shows me how closely intertwined my faith and knowledge are, or how little I was equipped to naturally “see” the spiritual, or how deluded was not to see it.

And perhaps there’s no such thing as a God and that capability and enlightening are not infused at all. They’re just inherent to our level of reasoning.

Of course, that is the nature of your paradigm. Some call it delusional ‘thinking’. Man is certainly capable of that. Understand, thank you.

You’ve been taking notes from Pascal, I see…

Not really, but your analogy begged for such rationale. I feel we do have free will, can decide for one paradigm or the other. But I would add all have already decided. The decision to re decide in favor of God is only possible thru Him enabling it. And of course gambling is a no no. He calls to faith, to know, hence not a "gamble’’. He even says be ye convinced, one way or the other, be hot or cold not lukewarm, or disconnected, as a gambler is.

I agree, there are many positive things.
But are they worth living a potential lie?
Could you not get to them through some other means, thus avoiding such a lie?

Agree. Like the above, do it cause your are fully in. I mean do it, believe it, not so much because of what we get out of it, but because it is right, truthful, factual etc.

If, after death, all we have is more of what we had before life, then there’s some assurance and peace in there, too…

OK .Took me a minute but is that like saying we did not exist before we were born, so what is the big deal of going back to non existence? Actually for some, even many, that would be desirable, due to difficult life circumstances, and events, and conditions. So if you are correct, sure, that could “peaceful”, free from life problems. I do not think there is one human being that at some point didn’t just want to cease from being, escaping a ‘momentary’ pain, humiliation etc…Like the airline commercial,“ever just want to get away?”

But Jesus even says it would be better if some had not been born, stressing that there is an afterlife, and apparently it can be better or worse than life on Earth. So everybody operates on some kind of faith as to what happens after we die, accompanied by assurances,peace etc… Just that both views can’t be right. Just that one is a false assurance a false peace. As we have mentioned, for many understandable yet perplexing reasons, a human can be quite "deluded’’, to use a word that has been applied to theists.

Blessings