|
...Ok what you are alluding to courtfool is called a comprehensive worldview . It is a basic founding principle of the human psyche, it is literally how you view and interpret the world. It is formed when you are very young, and one is unlikely to stray to far from their "pre-set" parental worldview at least not to far from it. Years ago the catholic church said "Give me a child til the age of 7 and they will be a catholic for life." And they weren't far off you totally formed that childs view of the world and short of major psychological trauma they are unlikely to ever change it, hence indoctrination. In fact this very example is why many child welfare agencies are starting to enforce non-indoctrination clauses into their forms of child abuse. Basically it may soon in some countries be considered abuse to indoctrinate children, for example in Canada if your a foster parent, or an adoptive parent you cannot force a child to go to church, if child welfare finds out goodbye kiddo. So basically this fundamental principle shows whyI apologize for the spam of posts. I am rather meditative today.
Something else occurred to me. I know this will sound obvious, but bare with me. Believers start with the assumption there is a god and non-believers with the assumption there is no god. Now something 'miraculous' happens in their lives and the believer attributes this to god. This now becomes proof of god, but is really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The non-believer does not attribute this to god. I am not sure that this stands as proof for or against the existence of god unless the event is somehow explained. An explained event would certainly lend evidence supporting the non-existence of god while an unexplained event would seem proof neutral for the non-believer.
So is belief or non-belief just self-fulfilling prophecy? Do we just rationalize our currently held beliefs to fit our experiences?
Those who suffer a trauma psycholgically (may simply where am I going with my life or otherwise) can alter their worldview, anything that would cause a mental crisis, can shift ones worldview. And again a mental trauma need not be as severe as a family member dying, it just needs to be enough that it deeply affects the person in question deep seeded or repressed feelings can be enough to do so.
In response to your "logic" comment -- truthfully, discussing "logic" with "religion" doesn't often work. There is just far too much with "religion" or especially "faith" that really isn't "logical".
Just don't go too far...
Correct. Usually I can stay away, but then someone throws out something that would make Spock's head explode, and I get sucked in. You'd think I'd learn...
In any case, carry on. :)
|
|
...Ok what you are alluding to courtfool is called a comprehensive worldview . It is a basic founding principle of the human psyche, it is literally how you view and interpret the world. It is formed when you are very young, and one is unlikely to stray to far from their "pre-set" parental worldview at least not to far from it. Years ago the catholic church said "Give me a child til the age of 7 and they will be a catholic for life." And they weren't far off you totally formed that childs view of the world and short of major psychological trauma they are unlikely to ever change it, hence indoctrination. In fact this very example is why many child welfare agencies are starting to enforce non-indoctrination clauses into their forms of child abuse. Basically it may soon in some countries be considered abuse to indoctrinate children, for example in Canada if your a foster parent, or an adoptive parent you cannot force a child to go to church, if child welfare finds out goodbye kiddo. So basically thisI apologize for the spam of posts. I am rather meditative today.
Something else occurred to me. I know this will sound obvious, but bare with me. Believers start with the assumption there is a god and non-believers with the assumption there is no god. Now something 'miraculous' happens in their lives and the believer attributes this to god. This now becomes proof of god, but is really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The non-believer does not attribute this to god. I am not sure that this stands as proof for or against the existence of god unless the event is somehow explained. An explained event would certainly lend evidence supporting the non-existence of god while an unexplained event would seem proof neutral for the non-believer.
So is belief or non-belief just self-fulfilling prophecy? Do we just rationalize our currently held beliefs to fit our experiences?
You never heard the quote "Every convert has a testimony" ?
Some may give this qualities to the Lord others however merely state that what we know of G~d comes from revelation which mainly in the form of the Bible.
But that's knowledge, again. If God is unknowable, then a rock with no brain is as informed about him as the authors of the Bible. That's as informed as they can ever be. If they knew about him, then he's knowable. If they wrote it down, it's knowable to the rest of us too.
I don't think there's a religion on earth that really believes in an unknowable God, but there are plenty that are eager to claim one to get them out of uncomfortable questions.
Do we just rationalize our currently held beliefs to fit our experiences?
Of course we do. Everybody does that. It's why, when I've undertaken to develop protocols to evaluate supernatural claims, I'm always big on getting lots and lots of expert eyeballs and instrumentation on it to remove every doubt of willful delusion, fraud, and the like. It's absolutely vital. This is apparently what convinced Marcus Aurelius that my mind was unchangeable. I wanted to minimize the possibility that I was deluding myself. He wanted to maximize it.
I don't think there's a religion on earth that really believes in an unknowable God, but there are plenty that are eager to claim one to get them out of uncomfortable questions.Does it have to be an "all or nothing" deal?
I don't see how it's logically otherwise. Either something is unknowable and we can say nothing about it, or it is knowable and we can. Even if something isn't completely knowable, it's still partially knowable and thus it's not really accurate to call it unknowable.
I don't know any religion that wants to say nothing about gods and the supernatural. I do know many that want to say all kinds of things, but then don't want to take responsibility for those claims when they present difficulties.
|
Of course we do. Everybody does that. It's why, when I've undertaken to develop protocols to evaluate supernatural claims, I'm always big on getting lots and lots of expert eyeballs and instrumentation on it to remove every doubt of willful delusion, fraud, and the like. It's absolutely vital. This is apparently what convinced Marcus Aurelius that my mind was unchangeable. I wanted to minimize the possibility that I was deluding myself. He wanted to maximize it.
Do we just rationalize our currently held beliefs to fit our experiences?
So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.
So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable?
For me, anything inexplicable would have to be either (a) explained or (b) regrettably put into the list of things that have yet to be explained. I'm a scientist -- explaining things is what we do! Ignoring them is totally against the grain, and declaring things "unexplainable" feels like a cop-out.
On the other hand, what you're declaring is that there are "things" that we cannot detect, sense, become aware of, deduce, or in any other way gain any hint of their existence. One cannot "ignore" things that, for all intents and purposes, aren't there -- even after bending every effort to finding a trace of them. So then the question then comes back: how do you know there's something to ignore? The answer is that you choose to. How can I possibly know there's anything there to ignore? Because all the cool kids say there is? But as for more popular ideas being more likely to be correct, that's been shown not to work any number of times. More popular ideas are more likely to have more people accept them, that's all. Their veracity has nothing at all to do with their popularity.
This isn't meant as an attack; only as clear an explanation as I can provide as to why someone would provisionally disbelieve something that others have invested in. Any hint of a divine being or whatever -- the slightest trace that doesn't turn out to be better explained by something else entirely, and I'd revise that stance.
So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.
*cough* 'cuse me.
Anyway, as Kirth pointed out, scientists aren't trying to ignore "the inexplicable." They're trying to explain it, rather than just, you know, making stuff up...
So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.Of course we do. Everybody does that. It's why, when I've undertaken to develop protocols to evaluate supernatural claims, I'm always big on getting lots and lots of expert eyeballs and instrumentation on it to remove every doubt of willful delusion, fraud, and the like. It's absolutely vital. This is apparently what convinced Marcus Aurelius that my mind was unchangeable. I wanted to minimize the possibility that I was deluding myself. He wanted to maximize it.
Do we just rationalize our currently held beliefs to fit our experiences?
Did you miss a few sentences there, CJ? That's the stuff I do to guard against the natural impulse to declare myself infallible and insist reality is whatever I previously decided, facts be damned.
|
|
So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.*cough* 'cuse me.
Anyway, as Kirth pointed out, scientists aren't trying to ignore "the inexplicable." They're trying to explain it, rather than just, you know, making stuff up...
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.*cough* 'cuse me.
Anyway, as Kirth pointed out, scientists aren't trying to ignore "the inexplicable." They're trying to explain it, rather than just, you know, making stuff up...
Uh-oh. *builds shelter while waiting for the wrath of Hurricane Kirth*
|
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.*cough* 'cuse me.
Anyway, as Kirth pointed out, scientists aren't trying to ignore "the inexplicable." They're trying to explain it, rather than just, you know, making stuff up...
Examples, please? Things don't tend to go far in science without something to base them on. Even the bizarreness of quantum theory has evidential basis.
|
|
Examples, please? Things don't tend to go far in science without something to base them on. Even the bizarreness of quantum theory has evidential basis.And yet at times that is what happens anyway....So would it also be maybe you are maybe rationalizing to ignore anything you might find inexplicable? Therefor outright ignoring any possibility you may in fact be wrong as opposed to say most of the planet? Even if the rest of us just do not agree.*cough* 'cuse me.
Anyway, as Kirth pointed out, scientists aren't trying to ignore "the inexplicable." They're trying to explain it, rather than just, you know, making stuff up...
Most of them do now but this was not always the case. Aether is but one outmoded example as well as some of the more extreme examples and suggestions of eugenics. Not to mention mental health issues. The one advantage I will not take away from science is its ability to easily get rid of out dated theories and ideas. This is not always the case for some extreme beliefs in religion. But don't think for a moment that they have not had scientific extremes. Just because it is now pseudo science does not mean it is not real or that it is excepted does not mean it is.
Let the Kirth blast begin :)
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....
Yup. At times. Rare times, and only because the process isn't followed. Whereas, in religion, making shit up is the process. They simply aren't on equal footing, though I can see why trying to paint them as such is so appealing.
I doubt you have much to fear from Kirth. He's gone down this road on this thread so many times he probably won't bother to do it again.
|
|
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....Yup. At times. Rare times, and only because the process isn't followed. Whereas, in religion, making s~@# up is the process. They simply aren't on equal footing, though I can see why trying to paint them as such is so appealing.
I doubt you have much to fear from Kirth. He's gone down this road on this thread so many times he probably won't bother to do it again.
No it is not, that is merely your belief and opinion. They are on different paths. each one valid. Just because you are not able to walk the path, there is not one reason to ridicule or berate those who are able to do so.
This is a thread about religion, not science anyway, why we keep having that particular debate is silly.
|
|
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....Yup. At times. Rare times, and only because the process isn't followed. Whereas, in religion, making s~@# up is the process. They simply aren't on equal footing, though I can see why trying to paint them as such is so appealing.
I doubt you have much to fear from Kirth. He's gone down this road on this thread so many times he probably won't bother to do it again.
No it is not, that is merely your belief and opinion. They are on different paths. each one valid. Just because you are not able to walk the path, there is not one reason to ridicule or berate those who are able to do so.
This is a thread about religion, not science anyway, why we keep having that particular debate is silly.
We keep having it because some people on the side of religion keep bringing up scientific fallacies to somehow bolster their case and because some on the science side insist everything has to fit into a reductionist science perspectvie even when it's inappropriate.
And yet at times that is what happens anyway....Yup. At times. Rare times, and only because the process isn't followed. Whereas, in religion, making s~@# up is the process. They simply aren't on equal footing, though I can see why trying to paint them as such is so appealing.
I doubt you have much to fear from Kirth. He's gone down this road on this thread so many times he probably won't bother to do it again.
No it is not, that is merely your belief and opinion. They are on different paths. each one valid. Just because you are not able to walk the path, there is not one reason to ridicule or berate those who are able to do so.
This is a thread about religion, not science anyway, why we keep having that particular debate is silly.
*sigh*
Science has accumulated a literal mountain of evidence. I guess it's my opinion that evidence matters.
And we keep going down this road because people keep trying to assert that religion and science are "separate but equal" to lend their belief system unwarranted credibility. Stop doing that, and we can stop doing this dance.
|
|
We keep having it because some people on the side of religion keep bringing up scientific fallacies to somehow bolster their case and because some on the science side insist everything has to fit into a reductionist science perspective even when it's inappropriate.
Your quite right.
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.
|
|
*sigh*
Science has accumulated a literal mountain of evidence. I guess it's my opinion that evidence matters.
And we keep going down this road because people keep trying to assert that religion and science are "separate but equal" to lend their belief system unwarranted credibility. Stop doing that, and we can stop doing this dance.
All the evidence in the world still does not prevent someone from being wrong. The old adage BS in equals BS out.
I never said separate but equal, just different.
You seem to be dancing, I am trying to see the path to walk upon.
Apologetics Press - The Claim of Inspiration
Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?
It seems to me that even if a religious text does not explicitly claim to be divinely inspired, it is certainly strongly implied.
I like how they say:
There is only seven documents in the whole world which claim divine inspiration... but the bible is the only one you need to know about.|
|
Apologetics Press - The Claim of Inspiration
Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?
It seems to me that even if a religious text does not explicitly claim to be divinely inspired, it is certainly strongly implied.
I like how they say:
There is only seven documents in the whole world which claim divine inspiration... but the bible is the only one you need to know about.
One thing to keep in mind. Not that it changes a whole lot here. The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books.
You seem to be dancing, I am trying to see the path to walk upon.
Whatever, Morpheus. ;-)
One thing to keep in mind. Not that it changes a whole lot here. The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books.Apologetics Press - The Claim of Inspiration
Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?
It seems to me that even if a religious text does not explicitly claim to be divinely inspired, it is certainly strongly implied.
I like how they say:
There is only seven documents in the whole world which claim divine inspiration... but the bible is the only one you need to know about.
On that note what do you think about the "forgotten" bible books?
|
|
One thing to keep in mind. Not that it changes a whole lot here. The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books.Apologetics Press - The Claim of Inspiration
Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?
It seems to me that even if a religious text does not explicitly claim to be divinely inspired, it is certainly strongly implied.
I like how they say:
There is only seven documents in the whole world which claim divine inspiration... but the bible is the only one you need to know about.On that note what do you think about the "forgotten" bible books?
I own copies and find them interesting reads. Some I find it easy to see why they were rejected, others it is much more difficult to see the exact reasons why they were "forgotten."
The Gospel of Thomas is an excellent example. Just a collections of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, in most cases almost word for word the same as the synoptic Gospels. And yet, they are not the same. Redacted, more likely then not.
In fact many of the saying bare much closer resemblance to sayings of Siddhartha then what is normally attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Yet this also makes some sense if looked at right, for Cesarea was a cross roads of civilization in the area and just down the road from Nazareth.
You've been playing with courtfool I see. :)
TAKE THAT BACK! There's no need to go calling me a filthy Hero player. That's over the line, buddy. ;-)
|
|
Normally, so do I. However, since I'm orignally from the Gulf Coast region, his declaration caught my interest.I don't know, I just tend to ignore posts like that one.Mr. Updike's post. I was just wondering which field that came out of....What are you speaking to exactly?
Baton Rouge is my birth place you know. Sigh now I have to read this out of context and wrong threaded post. :P~~~~ to you AZ
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.
You confuse lack of effort with evaluation and consequent dismissal.
|
Dude I am Cajun through and through. :)Baton Rouge is my birth place you know. Sigh now I have to read this out of context and wrong threaded post. :P~~~~ to you AZDude! I didn't realize you were born in Louisiana! And only a year or 2 behind me! Sweet! No wonder we both kick ass!
We need to get together and have a crawfish boil!
|
|
We need to get together and have a crawfish boil!Dude I am Cajun through and through. :)Baton Rouge is my birth place you know. Sigh now I have to read this out of context and wrong threaded post. :P~~~~ to you AZDude! I didn't realize you were born in Louisiana! And only a year or 2 behind me! Sweet! No wonder we both kick ass!
Its a long drive I live up here with these yankees in Kansas. Daigle has suggested doing a crawfish boil as well but he is stuck in west TX.
|
|
Its a long drive I live up here with these yankees in Kansas. Daigle has suggested doing a crawfish boil as well but he is stuck in west TX.
Hmmm...you're in Kansas! Only thing I can think of, we both move to Houston, then spend the rest of our lives gaming with HoustonDerek, my younger brother, Wolfthulu, and Tordek Rumnaheim!
Seems to be very little evaluation and a whole lot of easy dismissal.You confuse lack of effort with evaluation and consequent dismissal.
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.
I refer you once again to these sentences:
[W]hen I've undertaken to develop protocols to evaluate supernatural claims, I'm always big on getting lots and lots of expert eyeballs and instrumentation on it to remove every doubt of willful delusion, fraud, and the like. It's absolutely vital.
Evaluation. Furthermore I'm prepared to revisit that evaluation at a moment's notice if you can put up a supernatural claim that meets decent scrutiny.
But nobody ever has one. Even Marcus, who sort of tried, acted like I asked if I could skin his children when I requested hard evidence. Which more or less reconfirmed (I stopped counting how many times this has happened years ago.) my opinion that the faith mindset is pretty much just believing in stuff for no good reason and calling it a virtue.
|
|
Its a long drive I live up here with these yankees in Kansas. Daigle has suggested doing a crawfish boil as well but he is stuck in west TX.Hmmm...you're in Kansas! Only thing I can think of, we both move to Houston, then spend the rest of our lives gaming with HoustonDerek, my younger brother, Wolfthulu, and Tordek Rumnaheim!
LMAO if only I could talk my wife into it.
|
|
Seems to be very little evaluation and a whole lot of easy dismissal.You confuse lack of effort with evaluation and consequent dismissal.
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.I refer you once again to these sentences:
[W]hen I've undertaken to develop protocols to evaluate supernatural claims, I'm always big on getting lots and lots of expert eyeballs and instrumentation on it to remove every doubt of willful delusion, fraud, and the like. It's absolutely vital.Evaluation. Furthermore I'm prepared to revisit that evaluation at a moment's notice if you can put up a supernatural claim that meets decent scrutiny.
But nobody ever has one. Even Marcus, who sort of tried, acted like I asked if I could skin his children when I requested hard evidence. Which more or less reconfirmed (I stopped counting how many times this has happened years ago.) my opinion that the faith mindset is pretty much just believing in stuff for no good reason and calling it a virtue.
So I just want to make sure...the only evidence you consider correct is hard evidence. Am I right? Not just hard evidence but ones you yourself can investigate?
|
|
LMAO if only I could talk my wife into it.Its a long drive I live up here with these yankees in Kansas. Daigle has suggested doing a crawfish boil as well but he is stuck in west TX.Hmmm...you're in Kansas! Only thing I can think of, we both move to Houston, then spend the rest of our lives gaming with HoustonDerek, my younger brother, Wolfthulu, and Tordek Rumnaheim!
Sad thing is, I know I could talk my wife in to it. Right now, though, we've got really good jobs here in Philly. And, during a bad economy, that's gold...