[leelover]

That was very well said
I agree with the concepts you have stated, I believe they are true!

I would like to see you expound on the last sentance.
How, and about what do you think that most people delude themselves?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

That was very well said
I agree with the concepts you have stated, I believe they are true!

I would like to see you expound on the last sentance.
How, and about what do you think that most people delude themselves?

I suppose, to sort of dodge your question, I could say that most people delude themselves most of the time, about most things, because they are not mindful about to what they assign the value "truth." That answers the first part of your question, the how.

However, because you deserve a fuller answer, I shall cosider the what, and post again in a few minutes.

[analogbear]

Some men and women have faith in their love for a spouse, and faith in the institution of marriage as the best environment for raising kids; yet, are willing to cheat, lie, carry on years-long affairs, and ultimately divorce...If they really had faith, or of the there was "truth" in their belief or faith, their behavior might be different.

Without trying to be too controversial, or ridicule many reasonable spiritual persons:

Most people who are supposedly "faith" oriented, or more precisely, those persons who are so devout as to regard their spirituality as the only "right" one (I look to islamic Jihadists, evangelical Christians who say everyone but them is hell-bound, Jehova's Witnesses, or any of the religious fundamentalists world-wide) are deluding themselves. Why?

Because:

The "attachment" problem rears its ugly head...How can a mere person comprehend the depths of an unfathomably complex supreme being?

(This is not to say that there is no supreme being...That is a somewhat pointless debate, especially here, as there is no real "proof" for either position...There can be attempts at justification, but on the pro-side, there is only the historical perspective and personal experience as related by other people; and, on the con side there seems only an appeal to reason and an appeal to science. The problem with the scientific issue is a problem with reason...With logic: The mere existence of one justified truth or scientific fact does not preclude the existence of another. There might be more than one truth or fact to describe the universe.)

By refusing to admit the fallability of man's interpretation of god, even granting the existence of god, moves the issue from faith in a supreme being to faith in the "infallability of Man's interpretation." This position makes two critical errors:

1-Faith in Man's infallability.
2-Faith in the interpretation.

Both must be independently proven or justified in order to accept the whole.

Well, man is clearly fallable, so much so that it might be factual rather than truthful, so that pretty much kills the whole thing...But look to the other:

The interpretations of the nature of God vary as widely as do the natures of the people who make them. If anything, this is a justification for having faith in the incompleteness or incorrectness of any single interpretation.

To the religious fundamentalist, only their path is the true path...They are so emotionally invested in their spirituality, that when challenged, they react so violently or so aggressively-verbal when stating you are challenging their faith, that their faith must not be so strong. Why is it not strong? They have no "justification" for that faith, and are merely using the word "faith" as intellectual shorthand for: "I prefer not to understand the nature of the world around me," or "I prefer to not to think about how people ought to be treated," or "I will allow someone else to determine what I should think and do, whom I shoud marry, and how I should raise my children."

That is the first price of faith without justification, and the second price is 1500 years of senseless violence.

They call it faith...I call it hubris.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Some men and women have faith in their love for a spouse, and faith in the institution of marriage as the best environment for raising kids; yet, are willing to cheat, lie, carry on years-long affairs, and ultimately divorce...If they really had faith, or of the there was "truth" in their belief or faith, their behavior might be different.

Yes, I would call that faith without works.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Without trying to be too controversial, or ridicule many reasonable spiritual persons:.

Interesting how this keeps coming back to the spiritual...

Originally Posted by analogbear

Most people who are supposedly "faith" oriented, or more precisely, those persons who are so devout as to regard their spirituality as the only "right" one (I look to islamic Jihadists, evangelical Christians who say everyone but them is hell-bound, Jehova's Witnesses, or any of the religious fundamentalists world-wide) are deluding themselves. Why?

Because:

The "attachment" problem rears its ugly head...How can a mere person comprehend the depths of an unfathomably complex supreme being?

I think that this is impossible for mere humans to comprehend an unfathomably complex supreme being. But if an instruction book existed it would make a monumental difference, providing it was read.

Originally Posted by analogbear

(This is not to say that there is no supreme being...That is a somewhat pointless debate, especially here, as there is no real "proof" for either position...There can be attempts at justification, but on the pro-side, there is only the historical perspective and personal experience as related by other people; and, on the con side there seems only an appeal to reason and an appeal to science. The problem with the scientific issue is a problem with reason...With logic: The mere existence of one justified truth or scientific fact does not preclude the existence of another. There might be more than one truth or fact to describe the universe.)

Accepted

Originally Posted by analogbear

By refusing to admit the fallibility of man's interpretation of god, even granting the existence of god, moves the issue from faith in a supreme being to faith in the "infallibility of Man's interpretation." This position makes two critical errors:

1-Faith in Man's infallibility.
2-Faith in the interpretation.

Both must be independently proven or justified in order to accept the whole.

Well, man is clearly fallible, so much so that it might be factual rather than truthful, so that pretty much kills the whole thing...But look to the other:

The interpretations of the nature of God vary as widely as do the natures of the people who make them. If anything, this is a justification for having faith in the incompleteness or incorrectness of any single interpretation.

There is a third element there. If there is a supreme being, and He did wish to leave a record that would help to understand His nature, would He not understand the fallibility of man and still be able to bring this work through the rigors of time and translation?
As far as the interpretation, the requirement would have to be that that work would be read and studied for it's own relevance and congruity, as well as it's general intent.

Originally Posted by analogbear

To the religious fundamentalist, only their path is the true path...They are so emotionally invested in their spirituality, that when challenged, they react so violently or so aggressively-verbal when stating you are challenging their faith, that their faith must not be so strong. Why is it not strong? They have no "justification" for that faith, and are merely using the word "faith" as intellectual shorthand for: "I prefer not to understand the nature of the world around me," or "I prefer to not to think about how people ought to be treated," or "I will allow someone else to determine what I should think and do, whom I shoud marry, and how I should raise my children."

Anyone who reacts this way, or thinks in the manor of your quotes, is not following what the Bible teaches. Maybe some other book. Or, more probably, they are content to take someone else's word instead of putting forth the effort to find out what it says themselves.
The Bible encourages you to think, use common sense, follow rules that benefit you and keep you out of trouble. It also shows the nature of God beyond what we are able to see and touch here on earth.

Originally Posted by analogbear

That is the first price of faith without justification, and the second price is 1500 years of senseless violence.

They call it faith...I call it hubris.

What you are describing is the price of ignorance. And that breeds hubris.

[leelover]

The other issue I did not touch on is the assumption that you can not experiance any evidence or justification as far as what you believe concerning "the supreme being".
You seem to be saying that "believers" simply believe, with no personal evidence or justification.
I don't think that is so.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Interesting how this keeps coming back to the spiritual...

This is the religion forum, dude...

Originally Posted by leelover

There is a third element there. If there is a supreme being, and He did wish to leave a record that would help to understand His nature, would He not understand the fallibility of man and still be able to bring this work through the rigors of time and translation?

There you go, trying to understand the unfathomable again ...You presume:
that there is a supreme being, that there was an attempt to leave a record, and that he was able to not only know that interpretations (I was not only referring to the bible, torah, bhagavad gita, etc...Most early spirituality -several tens of thousands of years worth- was oral...) of all of the peoples was going to vary both amongst and between, but also that he was willing to abridge freewill, the hallmark of most interpretations of a monothiestic diety [edit: he abridged when, preventing the natural evolution of the original, he controlled the modern product through the ages] and declare the "rules" or his nature from some "tome." I would argue, that if all of this was so, there would have only been one rulebook. Otherwise, he is either monumentally naive, or not as smart and powerful as everyone seems to suggest.

Regardless, your third element has too many ands in it, and is actually covered in whole by the following proposition:

There was a record to interpret.

The problem with this, is even easier to dispense with that the others, although to stretch it, number two could apply...

In order to have a record, it must be recognized as a record by man...The fallability of whom is already clearly established. So, in order to accept that there was a record left behind to interpret, one must accept that any such record was first interpreted and understood to BE a record...To justify faith in this element requires faith in another element..An element that itself requires justification. This is a "Truth" no-no, remember? No justifications relying on another justification? Both of these (all three now) require independant justification. You cannot justify faith in the idea that god left a record behind for man to interpret unless you can rely on man's interpretation of the text, signs, portents, parables, miracles, etc. as a record from god to man...There is no need to delve into the quagmire of what the interpretations produce...Endless conflict, war, hatred, etc.

Originally Posted by leelover

Anyone who reacts this way, or thinks in the manor [manner] of your quotes, is not following what the Bible teaches. Maybe some other book. Or, more probably, they are content to take someone else's word instead of putting forth the effort to find out what it says themselves.

The bible is not the only textual -or otherwise relateable- alleged record of god, and to think it (or any other single perspective or text) is the only right one really is the essence of the fundamentalist problem.

You bring up personal interpretation, which is great, as long as you keep it in the personal sphere, and out of the public sphere...No evangelical stuff, thank you...Because that is disrespectful to another's personal interpretation. Forums where all members agree to disagree, as it were (like the dot org here) are private in nature, so debate and evangelical stuff is ok.

Just don't forget such freedom for personal interpretation is a new thing. Prior to Martin Luther and the Reformation (and the printing press with moveable type, of course), the sole authority for interpretation of both the nature and will of god, in Christianity (which I will limit myself to here, now, because of your comment...But I recognize this is a contrivance, at it is not the most popular -and so not the most accurate- interpretation given statistics and probabilities), was the Clergy. To this day, certain very popular orthodox orders read mass from the area behind the altar, facing away from the worshippers, in latin or greek...

Originally Posted by leelover

The Bible encourages you to think, use common sense, follow rules that benefit you and keep you out of trouble. It also shows the nature of God beyond what we are able to see and touch here on earth.

Maybe the good news bible does, or some "buddy christ" interpretation...But, I have seen , read, and translated from German (from some grad work in Philosophy) several passages from the bible (requiring a very close read, with lots of translations, resources, and expert mentoring), and there was no room for personal interpretation, very little practical guidance, and nothing substantive about the nature of god...And that was just 3 other languages (German, Latin, and English)...Imagine the differences possible between the dozens of languages.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

The other issue I did not touch on is the assumption that you can not experiance any evidence or justification as far as what you believe concerning "the supreme being".
You seem to be saying that "believers" simply believe, with no personal evidence or justification.
I don't think that is so.

Cool.

Prove it.

I don't think you can, and I think most justifications or arguments for god are either weak or fallacious.

There is no such thing as "personal proof" or Personal Justification" because the whole point is relatability...If you cannot explain it, prove it, or understand the nature of it, and then be able to relate such to a third party, you do not have faith. You are merely emoting, which requires no justification...Feel what you want. But, if you choose to speak, and want others to respect what you are saying or take you seriously, there needs to be justification.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some athieism-nazi...I just recognize the irrationality of my faith, and do not delude myself into faith in any knowledge that I am actually right, justified, or accurate in my path to the exclusion of others, or that god REALLY exists. There is value, practical, real value in both faith and ritual. This is without dispute...What is in dispute is the source of the benefit. Is it god, or the mere faith that is beneficial? Pragmatically speaking, who gives a poop?

I would argue that, if there exists definitive proof of god, this would top american idol, 24, watergate, the paris hilton sex tapes, and white house fellatio in international news importance...Just like proof of aliens, werewolves, and vampires, etc...

Because most "personal" experiences can be debunked as random chance, psychological bias one way or the other, repressed memories (god didn't do it, I just remembered where I left my keys), or some several other natural phenomena, until the various premises upon which the argument for the actual existence and nature of god rests are proven or justified, I will have to say that personal faith unproven or unjustified as alluded to in this thread, is not faith at all...It is mere emoting.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Yes, I would call that faith without works.
What you are describing is the price of ignorance. And that breeds hubris.

I am not sure I totally agree. Most religious funadamentalists are not ignorant about their sect, texts, or given perspective. In fact, they are usually fairly adept at discussing their perspective with even marginally like-minded folks. I think the source of their hubris really comes from faith in their CORRECTNESS to the EXCLUSION of other paths. They know their path, they know the other paths...They are not ignorant, then; But, they are so sure, without the all important justification, that they and only they are RIGHT. That is the hallmark hubris of the religious fundamentalist to whom I referred.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

This is the religion forum, dude...

yes, I know that. I am the one who posted it here. I was remarking on the fact that even if you try to remove the spiritual component and be purely "rational", it still comes back to spiritual.

Originally Posted by analogbear

There you go, trying to understand the unfathomable again ...You presume:
that there is a supreme being, that there was an attempt to leave a record, and that he was able to not only know that interpretations (I was not only referring to the bible, Torah, bhagavad gita, etc...Most early spirituality -several tens of thousands of years worth- was oral...) of all of the peoples was going to vary both amongst and between, but also that he was willing to abridge freewill, the hallmark of most interpretations of a monotheistic Deity [edit: he abridged when, preventing the natural evolution of the original, he controlled the modern product through the ages] and declare the "rules" or his nature from some "tome." I would argue, that if all of this was so, there would have only been one rulebook. Otherwise, he is either monumentally naive, or not as smart and powerful as everyone seems to suggest.

Regardless, your third element has too many ands in it, and is actually covered in whole by the following proposition:

There was a record to interpret.

The problem with this, is even easier to dispense with that the others, although to stretch it, number two could apply...

In order to have a record, it must be recognized as a record by man...The fallibility of whom is already clearly established. So, in order to accept that there was a record left behind to interpret, one must accept that any such record was first interpreted and understood to BE a record...To justify faith in this element requires faith in another element..An element that itself requires justification. This is a "Truth" no-no, remember? No justifications relying on another justification? Both of these (all three now) require independent justification. You cannot justify faith in the idea that god left a record behind for man to interpret unless you can rely on man's interpretation of the text, signs, portents, parables, miracles, etc. as a record from god to man...There is no need to delve into the quagmire of what the interpretations produce...Endless conflict, war, hatred, etc.

These are your OPINIONS, based on you belief systems, or those of other FALLIBLE men. If you wish to believe in this, it is your right, but it is not proven fact.

Originally Posted by analogbear

You bring up personal interpretation, which is great, as long as you keep it in the personal sphere, and out of the public sphere...No evangelical stuff, thank you...Because that is disrespectful to another's personal interpretation. Forums where all members agree to disagree, as it were (like the dot org here) are private in nature, so debate and evangelical stuff is ok.

So I can't share my beliefs publically because they are "disrespectful to another's personal interpretation"? Once again YOUR opinion. If we all did that no debate would happen, no growth would take place, people would never consider anything but whatever comfortable paradigm they personally owned.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Just don't forget such freedom for personal interpretation is a new thing. Prior to Martin Luther and the Reformation (and the printing press with movable type, of course), the sole authority for interpretation of both the nature and will of god, in Christianity (which I will limit myself to here, now, because of your comment...But I recognize this is a contrivance, at it is not the most popular -and so not the most accurate- interpretation given statistics and probabilities), was the Clergy. To this day, certain very popular orthodox orders read mass from the area behind the altar, facing away from the worshipers, in Latin or greek...

A point I have made over and over is that it is not acceptable for someone to simply take the Clergy's word for what any "record of god" says.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Maybe the good news bible does, or some "buddy christ" interpretation...But, I have seen , read, and translated from German (from some grad work in Philosophy) several passages from the bible (requiring a very close read, with lots of translations, resources, and expert mentoring), and there was no room for personal interpretation, very little practical guidance, and nothing substantive about the nature of god...And that was just 3 other languages (German, Latin, and English)...Imagine the differences possible between the dozens of languages.

Let me get this straight; are you saying that what you believe about what the Bible says is based on your experience of translating "several passages" from German? Have you read the Bible, you know, just the plain old KJV you can find in any hotel dresser drawer?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Cool.

Prove it.

I don't think you can, and I think most justifications or arguments for god are either weak or fallacious...(I see no need to drag all content of the above quote down here)...It is mere emoting.

OK, full circle, I guess.
The whole point of this thread (stated in my beginning post) is that it can't be proven! You still keep trying to put beliefs, and opinions into play here.
For everything you say regarding my, or anyone's, opinions being weak or fallacious, or that evidence behind belief in miracles, or experiences of God are mere emoting, the point can be made that you are working with only the limited knowledge and experience of mortal fallible man.
We could go back and forth here forever with out concluding anything concrete.
Except this I think: Once we have reached the limit of "provability" (?), we have to BELIEVE something. It can be Based on many things that will change in importance according to who is doing the believing. No one can place their values into another who is unwilling to accept them, but those values can and should be shared and evaluated for worth personally. Because what is then happening is that the involved party is staking their belief on those values.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am not sure I totally agree. Most religious funadamentalists are not ignorant about their sect, texts, or given perspective. In fact, they are usually fairly adept at discussing their perspective with even marginally like-minded folks. I think the source of their hubris really comes from faith in their CORRECTNESS to the EXCLUSION of other paths. They know their path, they know the other paths...They are not ignorant, then; But, they are so sure, without the all important justification, that they and only they are RIGHT. That is the hallmark hubris of the religious fundamentalist to whom I referred.

For the sake of accuracy I need to point out that you have edited two of my statements that were addressing different comments into one quote.

But, in answer to the point I think you are making in this post...
Are you saying that when it comes to God, everyone is right?
One belief cannot be right if it doesn't accept the rightness of every other?
Does that kind of thinking work out in ANY other area of life?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

yes, I know that. I am the one who posted it here. I was remarking on the fact that even if you try to remove the spiritual component and be purely "rational", it still comes back to spiritual.

These are your OPINIONS, based on you belief systems, or those of other FALLIBLE men. If you wish to believe in this, it is your right, but it is not proven fact.

So I can't share my beliefs publically because they are "disrespectful to another's personal interpretation"? Once again YOUR opinion. If we all did that no debate would happen, no growth would take place, people would never consider anything but whatever comfortable paradigm they personally owned.


A point I have made over and over is that it is not acceptable for someone to simply take the Clergy's word for what any "record of god" says.


Let me get this straight; are you saying that what you believe about what the Bible says is based on your experience of translating "several passages" from German? Have you read the Bible, you know, just the plain old KJV you can find in any hotel dresser drawer?

Look, you kept bringing it back to god. I tried to get rid of that component as pointless to the question of ascertaining truth and fact through reason or application of a series of rules. We must do this to have debate. Debate is not your opinion versus my opinion. That is worse than masturbation without the money-shot.

Please re-read the post I made, without any bias; and, please read every word. I cannot respond to all of your comments in this post, because most of the answers are in the post itself. I feel very disrespected, as you clearly did not read the words fully. I am not trying to be an asshole, nor do I have any agenda. What I am saying is not opinion, but application of the rules you agreed to earlier, or pointing out a historical perspective that undercuts a little bit of your set of assertions. If you don't like it, please reexamine YOUR position. I merely applied the agreed upon rules. Also, I didn't make any anti-religion statements or forbid sharing of perspectives or paths. For example, I didn't say you couldn't share your faith, I just said it should not be shared in the public sphere with any sense of exclusive conviction. What we are doing here is fine, as it is in the private sphere. Please feel free to have all the private conversations about god that you want. Also, to argue that god left a record, and planned ahead for people to self-interpret accepts an unjustified premise, and denies the history of scripture, and even more so disrespects religions that pre-date Christianity. My OPINION is that you, me, and everyone else can only emote about the existence and nature of god; and to SAY that they are true, facts, or reality is an error. To believe without justification (not fact-proof, but an understanding of and explainability about) is not, according to the "rules of knowledge" as delineated by the great thinkers throughout history (and agreed to by you in an earlier post), truth or knowable. That is mere emoting. I admit I cannot know, I argue you cannot know, I argue further that nobody can know, and that therefore, nobody can be either "right or wrong." That is why I said it was pointless. Conflicting faiths without justification produces the following converstion: "I'm right!" "No I'm Right!" "Fu*k You!" Again, pointless. So I tried to keep the conversation on applying the rules of knowledge to the exisistence and nature of god question, rather than on any specific conflicting perspectives.

A proposition or assertion made by me is not an opinion. It may be the premise of an argument, or it bight be a corollary, or it might be a conclusion. Most often, I indicate my opinions by saying explicitly that they are opinions. I agree with the common-sense phrase that opinions are like assholes, that everyone has them and they all stink. I choose to limit my relating of my opinions to the bare minimum...Mine are worse than most, because I actually think about them very deeply, bringing together a great deal of formal training as a philosopher and lawyer, which allows my deep biases to come in to the exclusion of reason sometimes, whereas most folks just knee-jerk their opinions based on family history, friends, religion, etc. That allows their opinions to be a bit more mainstream even if opposite, and therefore tolerable.

Yeah, I have read the bible, the plain old English translation. However, I am not so arrogant in my own western Christian/Catholic/Methodist/Jewish (don't ask...Yeah, I got heaps of baggage) upbringing that I can have unjustified faith that my path(s) is the only right one.

You know what? I am done. This no longer holds any interest. I have wasted life on this that I will never get back. My only point is against fundamentalism:

NOBODY CAN REALLY KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT, SO NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE ELSE THEY ARE WRONG!

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

For the sake of accuracy I need to point out that you have edited two of my statements that were addressing different comments into one quote.

But, in answer to the point I think you are making in this post...
Are you saying that when it comes to God, everyone is right?
One belief cannot be right if it doesn't accept the rightness of every other?
Does that kind of thinking work out in ANY other area of life?

Dude, other areas of life can be proven or justified, so in those areas that cannot proven or justified it is imperative that the exclusivity principle be removed. It is not that everyone is right or wrong. Nobody is right or wrong, but has submitted to an unjustified or unproveable path that is neither more nor less right that any other person's. That is perfectly fine.
However, to allege that someone is right requires someone else, with a different perspective, to be wrong. To try to apply that level of zero-sum rigor to an area dominated by irrational and emotional faith is pointless...Unless you can justify the faith as I did earlier with my father/son example. My argument is that you cannot do it, according to the rules of knowledge, with god...So why bother? Believe what you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking you are right (in religious path, not argument). You cannot be, for a whole host (no pun intended) of reasons, not the least of which is you cannot justify it.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

OK, full circle, I guess.
The whole point of this thread (stated in my beginning post) is that it can't be proven! You still keep trying to put beliefs, and opinions into play here.
For everything you say regarding my, or anyone's, opinions being weak or fallacious, or that evidence behind belief in miracles, or experiences of God are mere emoting, the point can be made that you are working with only the limited knowledge and experience of mortal fallible man.
We could go back and forth here forever with out concluding anything concrete.
Except this I think: Once we have reached the limit of "provability" (?), we have to BELIEVE something. It can be Based on many things that will change in importance according to who is doing the believing. No one can place their values into another who is unwilling to accept them, but those values can and should be shared and evaluated for worth personally. Because what is then happening is that the involved party is staking their belief on those values.

I am not sure we do have to believe in something, to the exclusion of proveability or justification. You do realize that these are different, right? Proof is for facts mirrored in nature, or scientific fact/proof. Justification is for beliefs, faiths, and those things that we cannot prove.

But, then what you really are talking about is ethics. Social ethics, some kind of applied morality, not a belief in god. If you justify behavior, without an irrational appeal, then you are good to go. If however, your ultimate proof or authority is "god said so" you have ended all real debate with an irrational appeal.

[analogbear]

I was thinking about your comment about the growth obtained by sharing. I think the reality (and, this is my opinion, but I am pretty sure I could find both historical proof and a modern justification for the position) is more that growth is defined by participant "A" in the conversation as having convinced participant "B" that "B is wrong, and "A" is right. That is the purpose of evangelism...Conversion, rather than the Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis of true growth.

This makes evangelicals fundamentalists. Boo.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by seamus

Epistemologists are experts at wordsmithing an answer so you get no answer.
Epistemologists definitions of knowledge and information were simply circular definitions using the words to define themselves.

Analogbear I do think it is "true" that you have proven out this statement.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by leelover

At some point almost everything (other than finite physical stuff you can tangibly analyze) reaches a point were hard "scientific" proof falters and we must employ faith. Of course this is my belief.

Even though you have raised the level of information with an abundance of words, examples, conclusions, accusations, and opinion, all I believe you have really accomplished is to illuminate the point where proveability ends.

My statement above stands, and you can't prove it wrong!