"Do you recognize all three as operative?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Again, I would urge that you take a look at bbarr's breakdown and maybe it will give you some ideas for how to characterize your 'faith'. I don't think the definition you gave on the preceding page is going to fly here." (LemonJello)

What will "fly here" or not fly here is at best an inconsequential consideration; at worst, malignant intrusion on th issue is nothing less than the eternal destiny of gb and LemonJello's immortal souls.

I thought the crux issue here surrounds 'faith perception' and how it fits into the empiricism vs rationalism debate.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that you and I have immortal souls. So, regarding "the eternal destiny" of such things, I do not consider that an issue at all, let alone a crux issue.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I thought the crux issue here surrounds 'faith perception' and how it fits into the empiricism vs rationalism debate.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that you and I have immortal souls. So, regarding "the eternal destiny" of such things, I do not consider that an issue at all, let alone a crux issue.

"So, regarding "the eternal destiny" of such things, I do not consider that an issue at all, let alone a crux issue." (LemonJello)

May I ask what you personally regard as "crux issues"? (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"So, regarding "the eternal destiny" of such things, I do not consider that an issue at all, let alone a crux issue." (LemonJello)

May I ask what you personally regard as "crux issues"? (gb)

May I ask what you personally regard as "crux issues"? (gb)

But why would you want to ask that, Bobby, since it would seem to not have much directly to do with the subject of your own thread? It was my understanding that you started this thread to usher in discussion about empiricism, rationalism, and something you call 'faith perception'. I've tried to stay on topic, by linking to some background on empiricism and rationalism and by asking questions about 'faith perception' for the express purpose of clarification. You, on the other hand, seem intent on deflecting my requests for clarification and instead hijacking your own thread, which is bizarre.

I don't think this 'faith perception' is serving you particularly well, especially if all it has given you is some dubious supernatural agency attribution in explanation of natural phenomena and the self-delusion that you are not going to really die when you really die.

To answer your question (off-topic as I think it is), again I'm not committed to the idea that we are eternal or immortal beings; in fact, I'm pretty sure we're mortal. So I would consider it a waste of my time and energies trying to shore up some eternal future that has no chance of actualizing. I instead try to pour my energies into the present moment, which is always actual whether we like it or not. I prefer to understand the world for what it actually is, warts and all. I'm not interested in giving life to self-delusions, based on cravings for the world to be something other than what it is or for me to be something other than what I am. I'd rather stand firm in that which I am, whatever that happens to be. (Of course, I believe in reforming that which we can, to the extent that we should do so and to the extent that we can.)

Since I'm not committed to the eternal as it relates to virtually anything; since I think our lives are both worthy and yet fleeting; I think vigilance is more the order of the day. So I would take "crux issues" to be more along the lines of questions like what sort of persons should we strive to be; what sort of things should we consider worth our energy and time; how best to maximize the time we do have; etc. None of these questions hinge on whether we are immortal, which again I take to be an implausible suggestion. I'm not too sure we have good or satisfactory answers to all these questions, but I think that's okay.

I think your 'faith perception' plays some strong narrative function for you, espeically in your quest for personal meaning and in tying up otherwise loose ends. That's fine with me. But speaking for myself, I'm not interested in some cookie-cutter answer for a question like what is the meaning to our lives. I think meaning is inherently subjective and there are too many viable trajectories to generalize it and whittle it down. And anyway, I think one doesn't get told what his meaning is, it's not handed down to him. Meaning can only grow endogenously from within, as one's understanding of the details of the world weave themselves together into a larger coherent picture. As I understand it, your 'faith perception' plays a role in resonating deep within you to bring up a larger picture that accords more fully with your hopes. That's fine, but I am not interested in that. I don't think 'hope' is a particularly good or valuable thing. In fact, I think it's a primary vehicle for suffering, in regards to facts that trouble us and yet are outside of our reform. (I think Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, has some writings that speak well on the dangers of hope.) Again, I'm interested in trying to understand things as they are, to the extent that I can. Again, I'm also interested in reforming the world to the extent we can and should; but there are many facts outside our influence and control, and hoping on these is a waste of time. For instance, I think you, Bobby, are mortal and no amount of hoping during your lifetime is going to change that.

So, based on this, I really don't think your 'faith perception' will be of any use to me. This is based what I can gather from your examples (which just seem to show your faith in action as it relates to willy-nilly supernatural agency attribution to explain natural phenomena that presumably have plausible natural explanations; or as it relates to a vehicle for self-delusions that pander to your ego-driven hopes for immortality).

Originally posted by LemonJello

May I ask what you personally regard as "crux issues"? (gb)

But why would you want to ask that, Bobby, since it would seem to not have much directly to do with the subject of your own thread? It was my understanding that you started this thread to usher in discussion about empiricism, rationalism, and something you call 'faith perceptio ...[text shortened]... ns that pander to your ego-driven hopes for immortality).

One thing's for sure: we really don't know how much we don't know. Our minds compensate by assembling bits and pieces of sophisticated trivia to create the illusion of knowledge and insight. Why? Our emotional well being is at risk. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
One thing's for sure: we really don't know how much we don't know. Our minds compensate by assembling bits and pieces of sophisticated trivia to create the illusion of knowledge and insight. Why? Our emotional well being is at risk. (gb)

I can see why you would think you need faith in immortality and life after death in order to preserve your emotional well-being, but that thought is tragically wrong: again, your deepest hopes can be, somewhat ironically, just a vehicle for suffering. This is one area in which your particular religion is tragically flawed, in its demands for metaphysical commitment. While some other religions get this point right, yours gets it spectacularly wrong. (For more insight into this, see The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow ).

Originally posted by LemonJello
I can see why you would think you need faith in immortality and life after death in order to preserve your emotional well-being, but that thought is tragically wrong: again, your deepest hopes can be, somewhat ironically, just a vehicle for suffering. This is one area in which your particular religion is tragically flawed, in its demands for metaphysical ...[text shortened]... ectacularly wrong. (For more insight into this, see The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow ).

LemonJello, this time you've got the gear shift of this long conversation in reverse.

Emotions have zero capacity for rational thought. They're designed to appreciate (and to provide an outlet for righteous indignation). God didn't design disposable souls for each individual human being, though our magnificent bodies are temporary tents. Like it or not, all of us will reside at one of two permanent addresses forever. That's a fact. Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
LemonJello, this time you've got the gear shift of this long conversation in reverse.

Emotions have zero capacity for rational thought. They're designed to appreciate (and to provide an outlet for righteous indignation). God didn't design disposable souls for each individual human being, though our magnificent bodies are temporary tents. Like it or not, all of us will reside at one of two permanent addresses forever. That's a fact. Bob

You can keep on telling yourself that, Bobby, in some regimen of ego-driven delusional reinforcement. But, again, I think it would serve you better to come to some healthy grip with the fact that your existence is impermanent; and this would feed naturally into a healthy motivation to be vigilant in the here and now.

I don't really know what you mean by "emotions have zero capacity for rational thought". But, clearly based on your own examples, your articles of 'faith perception' have conative/affective/emotional dimension. After all, you stated you basically "choose" them based on what options appear "better" to you. Again, I would urge you to consider bbarr's breakdown of potential takes on 'faith', since I think it would help ground a discussion concerning what sort of animal your 'faith perception' actually is. So far, it reminds me of delusional wishful thinking.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You can keep on telling yourself that, Bobby, in some regimen of ego-driven delusional reinforcement. But, again, I think it would serve you better to come to some healthy grip with the fact that your existence is impermanent; and this would feed naturally into a healthy motivation to be vigilant in the here and now.

I don't really know what you mean ...[text shortened]... th perception' actually is. So far, it reminds me of delusional wishful thinking.

Thank you.