Spirituality
14 Jun 14
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat are you refuting? Or what has been refuted?
So (basically) nothing new.
Just the same old tired tripe of crap...
which has all been refuted repeatedly.
Some things never change, it appears.
I am not making any doctrinal claims, or trying to "convert" anyone, I was just prepared to share my own views and experiences. There is nothing to refute.
No big deal.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's agree to differ on CS Lewis. I also disagree with some things that he writes, but this particular portion isn't one of them.
My experience of C.S. Lewis is he seems to be a pathetic apologist....
I think you do have a major theological problem to deal with. For some reason you seem to think God is good.....
My own feeling is that I do not have a permanent ESSENCE.
What about you, what attachment do you feel towards your ESSENCE?
Also, you believe that IF there were a god, which you say there isn't, he would be not-good, because of your evaluation and yardstick. Well, that is not at all an unusual opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is the one that CSL tried to address in my quote, but we have been over that.
Lastly, I cannot explain ESSENCE any better than i have tried to, so far unsuccessfully, to do. Yes, i am intrinsically attached to it, and try to "detach" myself from identification with my body and thoughts. But let's leave that subject also, I don't think there is any merit of thrashing that to death.
Remember, the purpose of this thread was NEVER to convince anybody, or (perish the thought) to "convert" you to my kind of thinking!
I believe i have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction, then at least to the best of my ability. Time to move on.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloHi LJ,
(1) Do you take it to be the case that your particular theistic belief is rationally justified?
(2) If the answer to (1) is no, then do you think this belief of yours is justified in some other way (e.g., pragmatically)? If the answer to (1) is yes, then what constitutes/confers the rational justification?
For my part, I hold the belief that your Go ...[text shortened]... lations of the evidential problem of evil; the Euthyphro dilemma; the problem of ignorance, etc.
You have formulated your question very clearly, and I will give it the attention that it deserves.
I have some difficulty in differentiating between what is "rational" and what is "pragmatic" when it comes to belief. Let me try to explain:
If I walk in the dark and hit my head against a wall, I say that I hit my head against a wall and it hurts like hell. But when i try to explain to others where exactly that wall is/was, then I have a problem. Nobody else can find it! They say i am stupid and claim that I must have been in a fight and want to hide that fact (or other similar accusations).
Now am i being pragmatic, or rational, or neither, or both, when i claim to have run into that wall at night?
As to your first question, I would submit that NOBODY would hold a belief that they themselves would declare to be irrational. To themselves, everything would make perfect sense.
Of course, when one then tries to explain it to others who DON''T hold similar views, you run into problems, because THEY would have a rational explanation for their own, contrary, views.
On the other hand, when you talk about the value of Experiences, (as I do) then you run into the problem that people have different, and conflicting, experiences. For example, my son who was raised in the Christian tradition, is now an ardent Buddhist, and he relates many weird and wonderful experiences. Nevertheless, we still have a wonderful loving relationship grounded in mutual respect.
So the bottom line (for me) is not to argue with somebody else's experiences or rationality, but to extend grace, understanding and acceptance.
Only in this way would we come closer together and (heaven forbid!) maybe learn from each other.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustI am fine with that if you so wish.
Let's agree to differ on CS Lewis.
I also disagree with some things that he writes, but this particular portion isn't one of them.
I would be interested in an explanation/clarification if you are prepared to go into it. I am not criticizing him on principle, I genuinely think he does not have a point, so if I am missing something that you see, then I would love to know what it is.
Also, you believe that IF there were a god, which you say there isn't, he would be not-good, because of your evaluation and yardstick.
Its more a cases of 'what I observe clashes with the existence of a good God that has the ability to answer prayer'. I don't think it has anything much to do with evaluation or my yard stick. I think you should make the same evaluation and come to the same conclusion with your yard stick. I fully concede that I do not know the full story, and there may be considerations that make a good God possible, but I am suggesting that you too are not privy to these considerations either, so I am questioning the rationality of the conclusion that a good God exists. I think it should at a minimum give you pause for thought over your conclusion that your prayers being answered indicates the existence of God. The fact that some people are suffering and not having their prayers being answered should, by the same logic, suggest that a good God does not exist.
Yes, i am intrinsically attached to it, and try to "detach" myself from identification with my body and thoughts.
Any particular reason why you do this?
But let's leave that subject also, I don't think there is any merit of thrashing that to death.
It doesn't have to be 'thrashed to death'. Surely it is an interesting topic worth discussing? Why shy away from it?
Remember, the purpose of this thread was NEVER to convince anybody, or (perish the thought) to "convert" you to my kind of thinking!
I understand that, and I too am not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I am merely exchanging views.
I am both presenting my own views on the issues you mention as well as asking further questions about things that don't appear to make sense to me. Don't take them to be criticism but rather further enquiry for better understanding.
I am also happy to try and answer any questions you have of me.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustI actually don't think this is the case. I know for a fact that I often do not behave rationally, but rather based on emotion. I think my beliefs are largely rational, but I have talked to many people that do not seem to consider their own beliefs to be rational. I often hear phrases like "I wouldn't believe in a God that ....". I think a fairly high percentage of theists lean on the agnostic side of theism but feel an emotional need for religion and fully recognise that much of their beliefs are emotional rather than rational. For this reason there is often a fairly big disconnect between what they say they believe and the way they behave.
As to your first question, I would submit that NOBODY would hold a belief that they themselves would declare to be irrational. To themselves, everything would make perfect sense.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me tackle this one first and then maybe get back to your other points.
. I think a fairly high percentage of theists lean on the agnostic side of theism but feel an emotional need for religion and fully recognise that much of their beliefs are emotional rather than rational. For this reason there is often a fairly big disconnect between what they say they believe and the way they behave.
Yes, i totally agree that there are many Christians who profess a belief in one thing (for cultural, social or whatever reasons) and then certainly not act on thos beliefs. This is a well documented fact. There was a study done which i read in a HR textbook many years ago, where a survey company did a survey in a US Bible belt town. They asked questions such as: Do you believe in God? Do you think you will go to Heaven? Which is more important - money or your soul? (Or similar, more eloquently expressed questions with a Christian theme).
The answers were entirely predictable - holy people, everyone.
Then they did another survey, under another name, with the same sample group, asking questins like: What is the most important thing in your life? Who do you think gets ahead in business quicker - the "turn-the-other-cheek" person, or the agressive go-getter.
Again, the answers were predictable, but from a totally opposite viewpoint!
The purpose of the study, and the conclusion of the writers, was: HR manager, be aware that if you have a lot of Christians in your work place, many if not most of them will be schizophrenic: they will claim to believe something, but will act in a totally different way!
My reason for mentioning this, is NOT that these Christians had an irrational belief, BUT that the REAL belief which they had (which is "how-the-world-really- works", and which was the one that determined their behaviour) was their Rational belief in the secular system.
What you REALLY believe in, and what directs your life (whether you are a Christian or a serial killer) will always appear rational to you.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, let's tackle just this one issue for now. Maybe some of the others later. Limited time!
I am fine with that if you so wish.
[b]I also disagree with some things that he writes, but this particular portion isn't one of them.
I would be interested in an explanation/clarification if you are prepared to go into it. I am not criticizing him on principle, I genuinely think he does not have a point, so if I am missing something that you see, then I would love to know what it is.
Imagine you are playing a chess game. But this game is the game of your Life, you against Fate. And in this game, the normal rules of chess apply.
Now there will often be situations were you are in trouble. Things aren't going yr way. An accident, an illness, death. The "other side" seems to be winning.
Let us postulate into this scenario a Great Grandmaster in the Sky, who has the authority and the ability to change the laws of chess, temporarily, in your favour. For example, at your request he could give you an extra Queen!
With this extra Queen (Hallelujah!) you are now winning, and very happily to boot.
Now consider this: if EVERY time you are in trouble and call out, and EVERY time get bailed out, what's the point of the game? Who will play such a silly kind of chess?
The point I am making is that ALL of us are in such a game, and ALL of us are mostly in trouble. As Scott-peck writes in The Road Less Travelled: Life is difficult! And as I said elsewhere, all problems are relative; how we compare ourselves with others and with the past, etc.
But SOMETIMES, on rare and special occasions, the GGMitS will bail you out.
Let me end by quoting the Dalai Lama, who was asked by a reporter: But are you HAPPY? And he answered: Extremely happy, but also extremely sad.
How can we fail to be sad at the suffering we see around us? Even, and especially, the suffering we as humans inflict on our fellow humans. The greed that causes poverty, the selfishness that causes sickness, the lovelessness that causes loneliness.
The cowards way out is to blame God, as being "unloving".
Much, if not most, of what Jesus taught was to encourage us to help the poor. Why not just rain dollars on them? I think you know the reason yourself - it is a blessing to give, to help, to care.
Did you know that the US spends more on pet food than what would be needed to eradicate hunger in the world? And is this God's fault?
What have YOU done lately to help the plight of the poor, that you think a Good God should be doing?
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustAgain, I think I have to disagree. I don't think you can necessarily pin down REAL belief. I think the same Christians you mentioned will in some circumstances follow their professed beliefs in opposition to the secular system. And it is quite likely they have not thought about or rationalised their reasons for behaving one way in one circumstance and another in a different circumstance.
What you REALLY believe in, and what directs your life (whether you are a Christian or a serial killer) will always appear rational to you.
I know that when I was younger, and in love, I behaved very irrationally, and knew at the time that I was behaving irrationally. I think you will find many people do the same with religion - and are quite happy to admit it.
On the other hand, I think we often see theists on this forum running into trouble in debates because their real reason for believing something is an emotional one, but they feel they have to rationalize it somehow, so they make up a reason that they cannot actually support in a debate, and they run into trouble. I think that some of the time, they refuse to admit to themselves that their beliefs are emotional rather than rational and so cling on to the rationalization even more. I don't think it is always merely an attempt to rationalize it to other posters, but is a genuine internal conflict.
There are also several posters who specifically claim that religion by its very nature is not subject to rationalization and they try to separate religion into a domain of its own where rationality does not exist. I think you will see some of this come up in recent threads about logic.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustLet me equally ask, who will play if they know the opponent is cheating? Also, why would you cheat if you think the aim of the game is to enjoy playing the game?
Now consider this: if EVERY time you are in trouble and call out, and EVERY time get bailed out, what's the point of the game? Who will play such a silly kind of chess?
The analogy simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The point I am making is that ALL of us are in such a game, and ALL of us are mostly in trouble.
But then you are saying being in trouble is a good thing. Then why do you pray to get out of trouble? Why when God gets you out of trouble, are you happy about it, and why do you think God is good for getting you out of trouble. Surely a truly good God, would leave you in trouble since that is what life is all about?
Put another way, in your game of life, there is no good or bad.
But SOMETIMES, on rare and special occasions, the GGMitS will bail you out.
Or put you in deeper trouble, surely? Or does he only push in one direction? If so, why?
How can we fail to be sad at the suffering we see around us?
Why, if it is a good thing?
The cowards way out is to blame God, as being "unloving".
I don't think anyone is doing any blaming here. I am merely asking whether a God that allows suffering is loving. Or more to the point, why you would think a god that allows suffering is good.
Much, if not most, of what Jesus taught was to encourage us to help the poor.
But why? Just a moment ago you said being poor was the whole point of the game. It is good to be poor and we should help those poor to cheat. Let them enjoy the game.
Why not just rain dollars on them? I think you know the reason yourself - it is a blessing to give, to help, to care.
Actually I support raining dollars on them. Don't you?
Did you know that the US spends more on pet food than what would be needed to eradicate hunger in the world? And is this God's fault?
I don't think what the US spends on pet food is Gods fault. I do think that if God exists, he is not good if he continues to allow this situation. I also think those pet loving americans are not good either.
What have YOU done lately to help the plight of the poor, that you think a Good God should be doing?
I am not sure how this is relevant. It sounds a little like Jesus' throw the first stone argument. But that makes God the prostitute.
I am not perfectly morally good, and fully admit it, but that doesn't affect my ability to realise that someone who fails to help the poor when they can, is also not morally perfect.
If God is not helping the poor because he would rather spend the money on his sons school fees, then I actually understand his situation. He cannot however claim to be perfectly morally good. He also can't claim to have infinite wealth as that would destroy his excuse.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustSo how many summers have you seen? I am working on 74 of those suckers myself🙂
Let's agree to differ on CS Lewis. I also disagree with some things that he writes, but this particular portion isn't one of them.
Also, you believe that IF there were a god, which you say there isn't, he would be not-good, because of your evaluation and yardstick. Well, that is not at all an unusual opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is the one that ...[text shortened]... question, if not to your satisfaction, then at least to the best of my ability. Time to move on.
BTW, when they chose the books of the bible, that was the council of Nicea in the year 325. Revelations was a strange one to include because it originally was an anti-Roman tract, where Rome was the beast, etc., but now it is supposed to be a tract on the future or whatever.
Have you heard of the prayer studies? Where they tried to show whether prayer has any effect on healing the sick.
The studies showed no effect or negative effect. I think the negative effect was probably just statistical errors but the main gist was no effect.
Of course apologists could say, like the apologists for paranormal effects, that the people doing the checks were somehow spoiling the results, but if anything, it might show, IF prayer does work and it didn't in the test, that IF there is a god, it might be said god would know the artificiality of said test.
My stance is there is no such thing as the bible god, which is not the same thing as saying there is no god.
I don't think in our present state of development as a civilization and any personal development, one could state as a matter of truth that there is NO god or gods around.
It could be there are god/s but they don't give a crap about humans or it could be the universe has no need for god/s and we are all here by chance, or something like chance, where chemical reactions are likely to produce life from non-life, which seems more and more likely as we learn more and more about the prebiotic conditions and what could be happening when energy sources (think those ocean floor vents spewing out a lot of chemicals at hundreds of degrees and we see life living up a storm around them) and other studies of clay for instance that has the ability to mimic cell membranes and this can allow for more and more complex molecules leading up to RNA and such and then life forming and making its own membranes.
It seems possible but creationists go you can't get life from non-life because (pick your argument here, too complicated, can't happen by chance, etc.)
This argument has valid points sort of for now but the more we learn about organic chemistry and such, the weaker the creationist stance.
So what do you think about all that?
BTW, I had a similar upbringing, not Calvinist but Pentacostal mixed with Lutherans, went to a Lutheran school for grade 1 to 8 and had a Pentacostal grandmother who claimed I would be damned in hell forever if I didn't get baptized in the PENTACOSTAL way, total dunking, as opposed to the Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist and such sprinkling of water on brow method.
I was eternally grateful to my grandma for pointing this out for I saw, even at the age of 8, there was something seriously wrong with this religion thing and opted out of the whole thing. Of course I didn't spew my views on Grandma she would probably still be trying to pray away the stain on my religious life🙂.
So the more I looked, the more silly some of the stories of the bible, especially the OT and in the NT, Revelation, like the world wide flood thing, where a god, supposedly omniscient, all good and such, would kill ALL the land animals on Earth to off some nasty human tribes said god didn't like when all it had to do was wave its rhetorical hand and poof, said bad people would be gone.
To make such a huge deal out of it like RJ Hinds to me borders on insanity.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. What say you, old friend?
17 Jun 14
Just thought I would butt in and mention how much I am enjoying this thread. Everyone seems to be treating it much in the spirit in which the OP was intended. I do think I detect maybe an element of attack on the part of my crowd which I think we need to be careful of though.
--- Penguin.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know from some of your other posts that you are not dense. So I must assume that you only ACT dense to annoy and try to provoke me! 😕
Let me equally ask, who will play if they know the opponent is cheating? Also, why would you cheat if you think the aim of the game is to enjoy playing the game?
But then you are saying being in trouble is a good thing.
But why? Just a moment ago you said being poor was the whole point of the game. It is good to be poor and we should help those poor to cheat. Let them enjoy the game.
How can you deduce from what I wrote that I think it is a good thing to be poor, or sick or hurting?? That I think being poor is the point of the game??
Every one of us will try to avoid pain. Yet, it is also a known fact, that we experience growth in adversity, and that sometimes we say after such an accident: That was the best thing that ever happened to me!
This does in no way mean that we seek out calamities! C'mon, I know that you like arguments for arguments sake, but seriously, even you must know this. So don't try to make me look ridiculous, I can mange that quite well on my own, thank you very much.
In my analogy there is no cheating. Remember, I said the rules are suspended hypothetically for a moment, and both sides accept that. Please don't sink my analogy on details! The KEY POINT is that life is a challenge, we make choices, we win some and lose some. But we really want to win!
And (as they say so eloquently) when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. And there is such a thing as answered prayer.
I think the problem with these kinds of discussion is that some spiritual truths can take years to be understood and grasped, after much reading and searching.
Yet you want your instant answers to glib questions and you will push me into a corner until I concede that, yes, I am irrational, I am stupid and I really have no reason to believe whatever it is that I believe.
Gimme a break!
17 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustThis is an interesting choice of example.
I have some difficulty in differentiating between what is "rational" and what is "pragmatic" when it comes to belief. Let me try to explain:
If I walk in the dark and hit my head against a wall, I say that I hit my head against a wall and it hurts like hell. But when i try to explain to others where exactly that wall is/was, then I have a problem. Nobody ...[text shortened]... g pragmatic, or rational, or neither, or both, when i claim to have run into that wall at night?
When one runs into a wall in the dark, how do they know it's a wall?
Perhaps they know the layout of the room from when the room was lit previously. Or, after impact, they extend their hands and probe around to determine what they may have hit their head on. They determine it is indeed a vertical plane of sheetrock or other 'wall' type material by touch.
At that point, they should have no trouble taking an observer to the precise location of the wall.
What would be crazy talk is one claiming they hit their head on a wall and yet they did nothing to determine whether it was a wall or other object - yet they were insistent that it must have been a wall, and no other object.
If they had tried to determine what the object was, and could not for some reason, they would tell others, "I hit my head on SOMETHING." That's the rational thing to say.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseHi sonhouse,
My stance is there is no such thing as the bible god, which is not the same thing as saying there is no god.
I don't think in our present state of development as a civilization and any personal development, one could state as a matter of truth that there is NO god or gods around.
BTW, I had a similar upbringing, not Calvinist but Pentacostal mixed wi ...[text shortened]... n on my religious life🙂.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. What say you, old friend?
Thanks for this post, it raised quite a few chuckles! OK, I'll own up - I'm in my 74th summer myself.
Strange, how we grow and change. Also, interesting to me how our journeys seem to have been similar, yet different.
Pentecostal, hey? I could tell you some stories that would make you scream. Yet my journey through Pentacostalism was not without its contradictions. On the one hand the fakeness, and the putting on stuff, yet on the other hand when I could not stop talking in tongues, and I was lead gently out of the room - that was something else.
As far as what you call the "bible god" is concerned, I would put the emphasis more on how this god, that is recorded in Bible stories, is portrayed today. And each group portrays him differently. We tend to create gods after our image.
As an afterthought to what I wrote to twhitehead and LemonJello, I would say that if I had a Rational belief about god, it would involve the issue of life. You mention that the time will come when we have figured it all out. But in the fifties, when those guys synthesised the amino acids, they thought it would be a decade, two tops, before they got to the proteins. But it has been six decades, and we are no nearer to creating life. Here my thoughts are very similar to Francis Collins - god used evolution, but it had to be kick-started by his spark.
So long now - take care
CJ
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf anything qualifies as lacking in contribution, it is your lame attempts of scholarly-sounding so-called arguments.
Again: go read the old threads that deal with this, if you want to. Please stop hijacking this particular thread. CalJust has made an offer, and I am taking him up on it. CalJust appears to be very sincere in his approach here, and that's a lot more than I could say for either you or FreakyKBH. I am genuinely interested in how CalJust will respond to my questions. For you and FreakyKBH, take your non-contributions elsewhere, if you please.
They are offered as problems and they remain as such, at your animated insistence, only when one turns a blind eye to all of the information available.
Your tortured telling of it requires God to cease being God... in order for you to rightfully claim that God isn't God.
If it was not so sad, it would be downright hilarious.