Faith

The nice thing is, we don't have to proceed in ignorance unless we choose. We are offered many opportunities every day to learn and grow as a person. I think life is about living it to the fullest. Experimenting, searching out, and thinking outside of the box. Just my opinion though. Smile

0 Replies

to me proof of Gods existence comes through religious experience. one who has not had a RE needs faith in order to find proof of Gods existence.

0 Replies

I wrote this on a similar thread:

"The deeper issue here which escapes superficial categorization like "guesswork" is that "self" "reality" and "social convention" are inextricably linked within their own semantic network. Since "social convention" has historically been founded on a religious base it is practically impossible for some people to have any concept of "self identity" without it. This is why when such a person says "I know God exists" that "I" has no choice ! Note the expression "born again" implying that some sort of "new I" has emerged."

i.e. I am saying that "faith" is not something "held" by an individual....it is part of that individual's identity.

0 Replies

Well fresco, while that sounds all well and good I think I need to disagree here.

Quote:

"The deeper issue here which escapes superficial categorization like "guesswork" is that "self" "reality" and "social convention" are inextricably linked within their own semantic network.

First off "guesswork" is not a superficial categorization. It's a part of life. Everyone's life. Because someone drives to work every day, has not been in an accident in 10 years, is a safe driver, it is a pretty safe "guess" that they will not get in an accident. However, there is no guarantee that they won't because they don't control the world around them. Really, some idiot in a hurry could run a red light and hit them. So it's just a "guess" that they won't get in an accident based on previous experience...

Quote:

Since "social convention" has historically been founded on a religious base it is practically impossible for some people to have any concept of "self identity" without it. This is why when such a person says "I know God exists" that "I" has no choice! Note the expression "born again" implying that some sort of "new I" has emerged."

i.e. I am saying that "faith" is not something "held" by an individual....it is part of that individual's identity.

I can see where you are coming from on this. So let me ask you this then: Why would it be practically impossible for some and not others? Because they are not "swayed" by religion? Well I know plenty of people that are "swayed" by science. Don't you think that effects their identity as well? I rather say that everyone is "swayed" by something. It just happens that "religion" tends to be a lot more condemning that other things that "sway" people so it catches all the flack for it, and for the most part is made out to be the problem with our society rather than the solution to fix the problems. So where does your identity come from fresco?

0 Replies

I don't seem to have a "single identity". Part of me is atheistic because I recognize the evil of organized religion, yet I temper this with a tolerance of "spirituality". Part of me feels "British" especially when on foreign soil, yet I hold the view that nationalism is probably as pernicious as religion.
I believe this "committee nature of self" is present in all of us but most fail to recognize the contradictions and "believe" they ARE the particular persona of the moment. Such is the nature of "sway".

The point I am making about "guesswork" is on several levels.
At the lowest level it is a rejection of the tedium of Frank's posts which merely demonstrate his vested interest in bringing up the word "guess" ad nauseam. At another level it is to point out that "knowing" is not a simplistic analysis in terms of the lay-concept of "truth". There are many aspects to epistemology which cannot be divorced from linguistic and social considerations. "Guess" is to epistemology as spade is to surgery! At the highest level not only do we need to focus on the different origins of our "expectancies",but to understand what positive and negative functions such expectancies have
at different levels of "systems" (biological.psychological, social etc).

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I wrote this on a similar thread:

"The deeper issue here which escapes superficial categorization like "guesswork" is that "self" "reality" and "social convention" are inextricably linked within their own semantic network. Since "social convention" has historically been founded on a religious base it is practically impossible for some people to have any concept of "self identity" without it. This is why when such a person says "I know God exists" that "I" has no choice ! Note the expression "born again" implying that some sort of "new I" has emerged."

i.e. I am saying that "faith" is not something "held" by an individual....it is part of that individual's identity.

!! Makes sense to 'me' . Smile

Also explains the sense of being 'destroyed' and having no ground to stand upon when some event has crushed the former religious teachings in a person.

It can be traumatic, almost. Leaving a person without identity. A clean slate easily 'molded' and led astray again.

....Very interesting, fresco.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I don't seem to have a "single identity". Part of me is atheistic because I recognize the evil of organized religion, yet I temper this with a tolerance of "spirituality". Part of me feels "British" especially when on foreign soil, yet I hold the view that nationalism is probably as pernicious as religion.
I believe this "committee nature of self" is present in all of us but most fail to recognize the contradictions and "believe" they ARE the particular persona of the moment. Such is the nature of "sway".

The point I am making about "guesswork" is on several levels.
At the lowest level it is a rejection of the tedium of Frank's posts which merely demonstrate his vested interest in bringing up the word "guess" ad nauseam. At another level it is to point out that "knowing" is not a simplistic analysis in terms of the lay-concept of "truth". There are many aspects to epistemology which cannot be divorced from linguistic and social considerations. "Guess" is to epistemology as spade is to surgery! At the highest level not only do we need to focus on the different origins of our "expectancies",but to understand what positive and negative functions such expectancies have
at different levels of "systems" (biological.psychological, social etc).

You are a fascinating individual. Really.

There is no way a person like you came about from chance. lol

"We must never undervalue any person. The workman loves not that his work should be despised in his presence. Now God is present everywhere, and every person is His work."

Saint Francis de Sales

0 Replies

Flush'd and Bartikus,

Part of "me" is pleased (even flattered) if the above was meaningful to you. Another part is aware that such ideas can be found elsewhere, particularly in the writings of Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti, (both of whom were no "angel").

I think the ground for reception of such ideas has to come from recognition of ones own "fragmentation". From there you can either "live with it" (it has a therapeutic dimension for guilt complexes !) or you can attempt to transcend it by looking for some "higher level of consciousness, bearing in mind that "effort" in this direction can be counter productive because such effort comes from it. As it says in the literature..... first observe the nature of "self" without judgement.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I don't seem to have a "single identity". Part of me is atheistic because I recognize the evil of organized religion, yet I temper this with a tolerance of "spirituality". Part of me feels "British" especially when on foreign soil, yet I hold the view that nationalism is probably as pernicious as religion.
I believe this "committee nature of self" is present in all of us but most fail to recognize the contradictions and "believe" they ARE the particular persona of the moment. Such is the nature of "sway".

The point I am making about "guesswork" is on several levels.
At the lowest level it is a rejection of the tedium of Frank's posts which merely demonstrate his vested interest in bringing up the word "guess" ad nauseam. At another level it is to point out that "knowing" is not a simplistic analysis in terms of the lay-concept of "truth". There are many aspects to epistemology which cannot be divorced from linguistic and social considerations. "Guess" is to epistemology as spade is to surgery! At the highest level not only do we need to focus on the different origins of our "expectancies",but to understand what positive and negative functions such expectancies have
at different levels of "systems" (biological.psychological, social etc).

Wow... that was excellent fresco. Thank you for explaining that. Let me ask you this though... Out of curiosity I looked up the definition of epistemology because to be quite honest I had never heard that term before. Now, I'm sure my definition is different from most as usual... Yet it says:

the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

So how then does that not involve "guesswork" considering that a theory is generally something they don't have the answer for just yet. However, they think they will find it and they think this theory will be the answer?

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

So how then does that not involve "guesswork" considering that a theory is generally something they don't have the answer for just yet. However, they think they will find it and they think this theory will be the answer?

Actually, your premise is incorrect at its core; a theory is very, very far from a guess. More correctly, a theory is a working analytic model, a fact-based framework for the description of the observed and confirmed existence of and interaction among a set of phenomena. A theory is developed through, supported by, and adjusted, if and as necessary, in accordance with both observational and experimental evidence. A theory must be objective, logical, consistent with all observation, be not inconsistent with known established, principles, and be testable in that when applied to a set of observations pertaining to the subject of the theory at discussion the conclusion derived thereby be consistent both with the theory and with confirmed observation.

By its very nature, the matter of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural is inconsistent with theoretical analysis; whether or not there be a god, gods, or anything of the like, perforce is a matter purely of conjecture and speculation, an intellectual excersize incapable of rising to the level of theory, mere guesswork.

0 Replies

hephzibah,
(POSTED WITHOUT SEEING ALTERNATIVE REPLY ABOVE)
Scientific theories are not discrete entities. They are interlinked to other theories and mathematical frameworks which combine to "indicate" what observations are likely to occur. For example, gaps in the periodic table of elements indicated the "existence" of as yet unknown elements which were later "found". So theories direct active observation. This is very different from assuming there is an external world "waiting to be discovered". It means that "knowledge" is a process of interaction between observer and observed which rolls along nicely until some counter-example to the "expected" is encountered. When this occurs a total shift in scientific paradigm may gradually result which can delimit what was up to then considered to be "knowledge". But a scientific revolution, like Einstein's relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics, does not arise merely over a concept of "truthful prediction" it arises over "elegance" and "greater range of prediction". Newton's mechanics is still "true" in as much that it "works" in a limited range of situations.

So to sum up "scientific theories" are not "guesses" which come out of the blue...they evolve .....they have a social dimension involving the "scientific community" which can resist change.... but in general they are prone to constant revision. This is a major difference with "religious faith" which tends to totally resist any revision because it purports to be based on "ultimate truth" as opposed to science which in essence confines itself to "functional truth".

0 Replies

Edit: Aaaah, I just read fresco's response as well.

Cool... I learned something new today. I better understand why it is that the supernatural is thought of in the way it is, as well as better understanding what a theory represents. My perspective has always been that it too was a "guesswork" of sorts. However it is also said that theory's can and have been presented purely for the sake of argument with no basis and or proof to substantiate them. Which is primarily what my perspective was formed out of. Thanks Timber. Thanks fresco. Smile

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

... But a scientific revolution, like Einstein's relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics ...

Gotta take issue with that characterization. Einsteinian Relativity, leading to Quantum Mechanics, does not replace Newtonian Mechanics, it expands upon, further describes, and more concretely confirms the Newtonian Model; it is a development which affords greater precision, and there is no reason to expect future developments will not further enhance precision. That's the way science works; it builds on itself.

0 Replies

Timber is correct -- Newton, for instance, knew gravity existed as a force but could not explain it's existence, even after years of becoming an alchemist, of all things, to explore origins of this force based on the elements, specifically kinds of metals. Einstein basically has explained what gravity actually consists of and scientists (too numerous to mention but I bet Timber can spill out a short list) have confirmed and expanded on what causes gravity to work.

0 Replies

No argument you guys, "replacement" was a bit too strong ..."delimit" would have been better.

Hephzibah, on your "understanding course" you might still need to do a little reading on "proof". Science is about "potential falsifiabilty" not "proof".(Popper's principle).

0 Replies

Fresco, really there's not an ounce of difference between prooving something right or proving something false. Only difference is your wording. :wink:

And no matter how you word it fresco... science still has holes in it.

0 Replies

Hephzibah,

I rarely use the word "wrong" but this time I'm afraid you qualify
Straight logic tells us that no amount of positive observations with "prove" a theory but it may only take one counter-example to "disprove" it. For example. no amount of dawns will "prove" that the sun will appear again in twenty four hours. We can never be 100% certain of anything but we operate in terms of high probabilities.

0 Replies

I can agree with that fresco. Yet, probabilities do not always qualify as strait answers to most, myself included. Science seems to function within the boundaries of a lot of "probabilities" without being able to turn them into actualities. So what it is then that makes the "probabilities" of science more acceptable than the "probabilities" of the supernatural?

0 Replies

....because the "probabilities" of science are founded on a consensus of public observation. The prefix "super" in "supernatural" immediately implies the rarity of such evidence.

In essence, what we call "knowledge" is about successful "prediction and control". From this evolves a network of expectancies which we call "reality". On the other hand What "faith" is about is a set of expectancies unsupported by public evidence...(note the expression "blind faith").....It functions as though we could predict and control hypothetical events such as "survival after death".

0 Replies

Consensus of public observation? Come on fresco... You make it sound like you all are a bunch of "groupies" following around these scientific theory's and because you all have decided that's the right way, you are therefore right. Sounds rather "cultish" to me... So tell me then why does faith need public "evidence" while science merely needs public "observation"?

So what I'm getting from this is exactly what I thought I might. It boils down to one simple factor. Prediction and control. Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God. Yep, makes sense to me.

Blind Faith? Hmm... Well I'm not a big fan of "blind faith". I've walked that road, been burned several times, and IMO "blind faith" as defined by the church is nothing more than the simple way of saying, "Look, I know you don't understand what I want you to do (ie: giving $1000 to my church), but you don't need to "understand it" to have faith. Just trust "God" that He's going to work it all out." Actually when you think about it it's more along the lines of what you were saying with the whole science thing. Except it's people using the method to control people. That's just my opinion though. Might not be worth much... Razz

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know