Belief... or lack thereof

[PRmerger]

I engage people in discussion as though the narrative is true or the narrative is false.

As I have already stated, we are way past your conceding things as provisionally true.

Either the kerygma is true or it is false.

Any man who is embracing the intellectual life needs to make a decision about this.

Especially if he spends so much time on a Catholic forum.

I don’t know. It’s the beginning of a journey. I think the ship in the other dock has set its sails for that destination. This ship has a different itinerary. If we happen upon that destination I’ll let you know. But it’s not part of our plan.
The end result of which may still be speculation.

Well, friend, that’s how you live almost the entirety of your life, isn’t it?

You speculated when you asked your wife to marry you*.
You speculate that the cashier is going to actually give you the change that’s owed you.
You speculate that the pilot has actually passed her exam and not cheated on it.
You speculate that the food you eat isn’t tainted with Hepatitis A.

So I’m not sure why you would expect something greater for the religious?

*this is rhetorical. If you’re not married, or have a husband, not a wife, apply the concept in the abstract.

 

[benhur]

When I read this I think about the University that I attended. Many of the higher sciences were taught by teachers not from the west and many of my classmates also came from eastern continents (I remember one class where there was a Power Point presentation in Chinese because all but 2 people in the class could read it). I wonder what it would be like to incorporate one of the eastern creation stories into our science class.

"In the beginning there was a boundless, shapeless, chaotic mass. From this mass the three gods of creation were formed. Over eon’s the earth eventually formed from this mass and two more gods were formed from the reeds that shot up on the earth. Now let’s turn to chapter three and read on how Big Bang Nucleosynthesis might explain how the first 3 gods were born from this chaotic mass. "

Interesting. Much like the Biblical stating that on day one God created 'light" for day and night yet on day four He created the lights of the firmament, including the sun and moon. I jokingly refer to the first light as His ‘shop light’ , used only temporarily while He worked out creation. Certainly an apparent conundrum. Yet, I do not discard the written words, for the answer may lie in better understanding of them, and or a better understanding of the science behind them. The door is ‘ajar’, per RF’s wording.

Blessings

 

[ThinkingSapien]

well… You don’t know that they weren’t.
You don’t know what the first three gods represent, gluons, imagination, creativity?

The various deities are said to have names, some of them are rather descriptive, some of them no so.

My general approach to knowledge is close to a semantic map. That might be a little too esoteric for these forums, but in general (leaving out nuances here) information that isn’t consistent with and supported by at-least some other set of trusted information is set aside or not asserted as true.

Considering your hypothetical if you want to hypothesize that gluons are the embodiment of Sarutahiko Okami (choosing one of their names at random) have at it. As you are able to show how this is consistent with other accepted knowledge your chances of getting it integrated into one’s knowledge map and other material on the topic go up. If you can show it as being more accurate or having more utility than certain other information (ex: The Bohr model of the atom isnt’t considered correct, but still has utility) than some of that other information might get removed and from one’s knowledge map if there’s a convincing case that a better explanation includes Sarutahiko Okami . Until then it is possible that you’ve come up with a hypothesis that is entirely true. But without anyway of showing that it might be true it’s possible that your true proposition may never be treated as such and never adopted into the knowledge maps of others.

I’ve seen some science books that have attempted to include a god. Are you familiar with “Of Pandas and People…?” I’ve got one of the printed versions in my collection. I think forum rules might prohibit discussing some parts of it though.

You speculate that the pilot has actually passed her exam and not cheated on it.

This one has always caught my attention. I usually see you give a variation of this example in discussions about “Faith” and how someone needs it to get on a plane. A few years back I got on a plane. Before getting on a plane I watched a video that explicitly stated that I could die as a result. I could die because of a mechanical failure, because of some atmospheric phenomenon, by some mistake of the pilot, and a number of other causes. Before I got on the plane I signed a paper acknowledging that I could die. Before getting on the plane I let a family member know where to find information that would be needed in the event of my death and let them know that if I make it to the ground safely I would contact them back. Long story short I found that the belief that things will be okay wasn’t really needed to get on a plane. The only thing that was needed was for me to walk through the door way and take my seat. Off topic, I know. But the remark came to mind.

Back on topic though.

As I have already stated, we are way past your conceding things as provisionally true.

Cool.

So I’m not sure why you would expect something greater for the religious?

I had asking you if you would prefer unfounded speculation (#962) in the absence of any knowledge on some matter. While you shared that you would prefer an answer to be produced by thought and reason you didn’t answer the question of how you felt about unfounded speculation. But in either case I’m without any speculation on events not involving existing matter and energy. All of my recollections seem to be limited to being in this space in which I’m surrounded by the stuff. If you’ve got something to share about events in a complete absence of matter and energy feel free to share it even if it is speculation. But if you are waiting for me to share something about that state of affairs without matter of energy I don’t have anything to share at this time. Check back with me later.

 

[PRmerger]

Now let’s turn to chapter three and read on how Big Bang Nucleosynthesis might explain how the first 3 gods were born from this chaotic mass. "

Gods being born?

If this were in the textbook I would know that they’re not discussing God but rather some beings that are superheroes, only more awesome.

For God, by definition, cannot be born.

 

[PRmerger]

This one has always caught my attention. I usually see you give a variation of this example in discussions about “Faith” and how someone needs it to get on a plane. A few years back I got on a plane. Before getting on a plane I watched a video that explicitly stated that I could die as a result. I could die because of a mechanical failure, because of some atmospheric phenomenon, by some mistake of the pilot, and a number of other causes. Before I got on the plane I signed a paper acknowledging that I could die. Before getting on the plane I let a family member know where to find information that would be needed in the event of my death and let them know that if I make it to the ground safely I would contact them back. Long story short I found that the belief that things will be okay wasn’t really needed to get on a plane. The only thing that was needed was for me to walk through the door way and take my seat. Off topic, I know. But the remark came to mind.

Not sure what your point is here, TS?

You’re talking legally, it appears? “The only thing that was need” was for you to sign a paper?

No belief or faith was required that the aircraft was going to get you there safely? That the pilot actually knows what she’s doing? That the pilot isn’t incapacitated by mental illness, grief, chemotherapuetic agents, microbes?

 

[PRmerger]

I had asking you if you would prefer unfounded speculation (#962) in the absence of any knowledge on some matter. While you shared that you would prefer an answer to be produced by thought and reason you didn’t answer the question of how you felt about unfounded speculation.

I think unfounded speculation should be pretty much avoided at all times.

But in either case I’m without any speculation on events not involving existing matter and energy.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by all of your posts here.

You seem to have great interest in the metaphysical.

Heck, you’re on the philosophy forum, which is all about things that are NOT of matter and energy.

All of my recollections seem to be limited to being in this space in which I’m surrounded by the stuff. If you’ve got something to share about events in a complete absence of matter and energy feel free to share it even if it is speculation. But if you are waiting for me to share something about that state of affairs without matter of energy I don’t have anything to share at this time. Check back with me later.

This is a very fundamentalist approach to knowledge, TS.

“I will think about matter and energy ONLY”.

I have found that most heresies (and here, I am using the word loosely) are borne from a person, peculiarly, using an ONLY where none is warranted.

We must pray in Latin ONLY.
We must speak English ONLY.
We must use Science ONLY.
We must use the Bible ONLY.
We must have Fatih ONLY.
We must receive communion in the hand ONLY.
There is the material world ONLY.
Jesus is man ONLY.

The proverbial Catholic both/and applies so often and is what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.

NB: let me pre-empty anyone who wants to assert, “Hey, you Catholics say we are saved by Jesus ONLY. And men ONLY can be ordained. And it is the Catholic Church ONLY by which you are saved…so you guys do ONLYs as well”…

to which I respond: you are being fundamentalist here again. We reject “You should use both/ands ONLY”.

 

[benhur]

This one has always caught my attention. I usually see you give a variation of this example in discussions about “Faith” and how someone needs it to get on a plane. A few years back I got on a plane. Before getting on a plane I watched a video that explicitly stated that I could die as a result. I could die because of a mechanical failure, because of some atmospheric phenomenon, by some mistake of the pilot, and a number of other causes. Before I got on the plane I signed a paper acknowledging that I could die. Before getting on the plane I let a family member know where to find information that would be needed in the event of my death and let them know that if I make it to the ground safely I would contact them back. Long story short I found that the belief that things will be okay wasn’t really needed to get on a plane. The only thing that was needed was for me to walk through the door way and take my seat. Off topic, I know. But the remark came to mind.

Well you ‘speculated’ as you say , that the probability of death was low I would think. That is you believed the plane to be safe. You believed the data that suggests the safety record of flying. I mean this was no sort of ‘maiden flight’. You did not have a Lynyrd Skynryd warning.

Blessings

 

[You]

The various deities are said to have names, some of them are rather descriptive, some of them no so.

My general approach to knowledge is close to a semantic map. That might be a little too esoteric for these forums, but in general (leaving out nuances here) information that isn’t consistent with and supported by at-least some other set of trusted information is set aside or not asserted as true.

Considering your hypothetical if you want to hypothesize that gluons are the embodiment of Sarutahiko Okami (choosing one of their names at random) have at it. As you are able to show how this is consistent with other accepted knowledge your chances of getting it integrated into one’s knowledge map and other material on the topic go up. If you can show it as being more accurate or having more utility than certain other information (ex: The Bohr model of the atom isnt’t considered correct, but still has utility) than some of that other information might get removed and from one’s knowledge map if there’s a convincing case that a better explanation includes Sarutahiko Okami . Until then it is possible that you’ve come up with a hypothesis that is entirely true. But without anyway of showing that it might be true it’s possible that your true proposition may never be treated as such and never adopted into the knowledge maps of others.

I’ve seen some science books that have attempted to include a god. Are you familiar with “Of Pandas and People…?” I’ve got one of the printed versions in my collection. I think forum rules might prohibit discussing some parts of it though.

…

acupuncture, i think was taught in an odd way, sort of mystical maybe with power thingies. but i have read that it works. does something to the nerves.
so different languages are trying to understand and explain things that are noticed. if you don’t understand the language that does not mean it does not work, it only means that your particular culture views others as primitive or somesuch, just because you have a different language to them.

 

[benhur]

But in either case I’m without any speculation on events not involving existing matter and energy. All of my recollections seem to be limited to being in this space in which I’m surrounded by the stuff.

Can one not have speculation on answering a question ? You did not speculate when first asked, “Is there a God?” ? The only way it is not speculation is if you have knowledge that there is no God. Having knowledge of only the natural does not qualify as knowledge about no supernatural.

Your recollections are limited due to speculation.

Blessings

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Gods being born?

Yep. There exists people whose god-concepts include gods that experience birth. Some are against the inclusion of theological views in some classes because they don’t feel the class on some specific topic is the place to resolve these differences.

Not sure what your point is here, TS?

It’s a bit off topic, so don’t worry about it.

Can one not have speculation on answering a question ?

Sure. I usually prefix my speculations with the phrase “I speculate” and usually add information that motivated the speculation. Example form the other day: “I speculate the person struck by the vehicle may have been trying to cross the middle of the road. I often see people cross at this point to get to the bus stop on the other side.”

I don’t have speculations on creatio ex nihilo though.

but i have read that it works. does something to the nerves.
so different languages are trying to understand and explain things that are noticed…]

A coworker (had his masters in Philosophy) and I had a related conversation one day. There have been people that have come up with hypothesis that have been helpful while still having a misunderstanding of what was occurring. One example that came up was someone that didn’t know about germ theory that thought that people could have the “essence of death” on their hands. This essence could be rinsed off. It was a perspective that was helpful and one that could probably be backed by numbers. It’s a perspective that was later modified by the discovery of microbes and infections of them.

I think unfounded speculation should be pretty much avoided at all times.

I’m with you, and I have nothing on which to build speculation about creatio ex nihilo.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by all of your posts here.

I browsed through my post from the past year. I see many of them have to do with etymology, semantics, pointing out when people are applying different definitions to some shared phrase (somethings the parties in a discussion don’t realize this on their own). I see that I’ve been active in threads where someone has a question on why a person is motivated to do something without belief of a god (such as helping those in need). I’ve been active in threads that deal with issues of laws, race, flag burning (US flag and Confederate), reactions to LGBTQ issues (ex: boycotting a bank that supports LGBTQ rights or working with an LGBTQ friendly employer), questions on quality of life, questions from math. Motivation theory comes up frequently too (though not necessarily called by that name).

 

[PRmerger]

Yep.

Nope.

Then it is not God that’s being described.

What’s being described are superheroes only more awesome, and giving them the title “gods”.

God is that which nothing greater can be imagined.

If an entity was created/born (different, BTW, than incarnated, but that is fodder for a different thread), then something greater can be imagined–an entity which did not need to be created.

And* that* entity is God.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m with you, and I have nothing on which to build speculation about creatio ex nihilo.

Well, you have science and philosophy.

Not sure why you would want to dismiss these biggies.

 

[PRmerger]

I browsed through my post from the past year. I see many of them have to do with etymology, semantics, pointing out when people are applying different definitions to some shared phrase (somethings the parties in a discussion don’t realize this on their own). I see that I’ve been active in threads where someone has a question on why a person is motivated to do something without belief of a god (such as helping those in need). I’ve been active in threads that deal with issues of laws, race, flag burning (US flag and Confederate), reactions to LGBTQ issues (ex: boycotting a bank that supports LGBTQ rights or working with an LGBTQ friendly employer), questions on quality of life, questions from math. Motivation theory comes up frequently too (though not necessarily called by that name).

Yeah.

So thanks for making my point.

You don’t just stick with software engineering.

You do speculate quite a bit on “unrelated fields”. Quite a bit.

“It isn’t my field” doesn’t seem to be a barrier for you.

Except…
except for some times.

It’s like the folks here who, when pushed into a corner and would have to concede defeat in their argument, suddenly say, “Well, it’s off topic so I’m not going to address that.”

Okey-dokey.

But you (rhetorical you, here) seem quite liberal with your off topic posts in other areas.

One has to wonder why, suddenly, you feel the need to be such an extremist about on topic rules.

 

[Bradski]

Your house tries to answer theological, philosophical questions also (sounds like what we do in our house also).

By my house I assume you mean the scientific one. If so , I disagree with you. Science is not interested per se in theology or philosophy. There may be things discovered using the scientific method that impact on the other two, but that then is something with which they have to deal ( a quick example: we were all formed as we are 6,000 years ago).

 

[pocaracas]

God is that which nothing greater can be imagined.

I’m sure I said it before, but it’s always worth repeating.
I find this definition amusing… It’s just hinting you in the right direction… but then you (rhetorical you) ignore it.

 

[benhur]

By my house I assume you mean the scientific one. If so , I disagree with you. Science is not interested per se in theology or philosophy. There may be things discovered using the scientific method that impact on the other two, but that then is something with which they have to deal ( a quick example: we were all formed as we are 6,000 years ago).

Yes that is what I meant , the scientific house. I would agree that ‘religion’ per say is not primarily meant to be scientific (though I would prefer for her not to be unscientific). Yet the three (science, religion, philosophy) are intertwined, and not “divorced”, part of one household, one not shutting the other out, there doors being ‘ajar’.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I’m sure I said it before, but it’s always worth repeating.
I find this definition amusing… It’s just hinting you in the right direction… but then you (rhetorical you) ignore it.

Well that definition can go both ways. One could think religion is all delusion, and the "imagination’’ playing into that. Or God is above or beyond total comprehension, and " who can know all His ways " hence more than a human can imagine. Also He must be spiritually perceived, known.

Blessings

 

[You]

…

A coworker (had his masters in Philosophy) and I had a related conversation one day. There have been people that have come up with hypothesis that have been helpful while still having a misunderstanding of what was occurring. One example that came up was someone that didn’t know about germ theory that thought that people could have the “essence of death” on their hands. This essence could be rinsed off. It was a perspective that was helpful and one that could probably be backed by numbers. It’s a perspective that was later modified by the discovery of microbes and infections of them. …

reminds me of a conversation somebody posted about Pasteur, he was on a train and a passenger was going on about science to him, he asked them what this thing called science was…

considering that you are alive but do not know how or why you are alive raises interesting question about what life is, life, love, loss, not ions.

 

[Bradski]

Well that definition can go both ways (God is that which nothing greater can be conceived). One could think religion is all delusion, and the "imagination’’ playing into that. Or God is above or beyond total comprehension, and " who can know all His ways " hence more than a human can imagine.

I see Pocaracas mentioned this as I was about to comment, but I’ll post it anyway.

This definition always seems to be reminiscent of schoolyard arguments. My dad can do anything. Oh yeah? Well my dad can do this! And do on until one of the kids says: Well my dad is better at anything that you can possibly imagine. To which the response is likely to be: Well, my Dad is better than even that.

But of course, the first kid got in first so he has an easy response. It doesn’t necessarily have to be true. He just needs to get the statement in before anyone else so he can claim it. He can summarily dismiss any other claim for supremacy.

This also applies to God. Except there are conditions laid down which if accepted makes it impossible to refute. He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent etc. Why? Because He is that which no greater can be conceived. But why is He that which no greater can be conceived? Well (rolling eyes), because he is omnipotent, omniscient etc.

And no-one can see a problem with this?

 

[PRmerger]

I He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent etc. Why? Because He is that which no greater can be conceived. But why is He that which no greater can be conceived? Well (rolling eyes), because he is omnipotent, omniscient etc

Er, no.

Why is He that which no greater can be conceived?
Because if there is something greater than what your conception is, then that something is God.

“My god can create a whole universe from a cumin seed!”

Well, if there’s an entity that can create a whole universe from a speck of dust, then the first guy can’t be god, right?

So any entity that can be bested can’t be God.

“My god can has 12 eyes that can see behind, above and around you! But he’s a little deaf, but so what!”

If there’s an entity that can see behind, above and round you AND has pitch perfect hearing, then this means the other guy ain’t god, right?

That seems to be common sense, no?