Which came First, Faith or ?

timber-

You know very well timber that I have already differentiated religion and superstition. They may have overlapping frontiers to the unobservant but they are not the same.They can be said to be opposites in a lot of cases.
Self as object would be superstion. Other, the not self, as object is religious.

I agree that some religious practice would come under the definition of superstition and possibly a great deal in some heretical positions. But to continue conflating the two is obstinate and can only be to shore up previous error.

I too depart from timber's notion of "absolute reality". The argument against "naive realism" is that perception is active not passive. Or as Heisenberg said "We never observe "the world" only the results of our observation activities" (paraphrase). It follows that "absolute reality" is a metaphysical abstraction. What we have instead are highly subscribed functional versions of "current reality" from "science", and hotly disputed different versons of a mythical "absolute reality" from religionists which have a limited local function of providing a psychological insurance policy against the fears of a meaningless existence or anticipated mortality.

Sorry, partner, its your error - reality is subject to no qualifier, it simply is, it cannot be "false" - the very concept of "false reality" is absurd, an oxymoron, irresolvable, a paradox, an irresolvable conundrum, self cancelling, meaningless.

Here you illustrate the absurdity of your proposition. The "faith" to which you allude in your examples is based on reasonable expectation of future events conforming to observed and verified prior practice. That is rational assumptive projection deriving from concrete, independently verifiable, readilly duplicable, multiply cross-corroboratable experience. No such concretely experiential basis pertains to religious faith, which by definition perforce is irrational as ultimately foundational to religious faith is the supernatural, a thing, condition, or state of being never observed, beyond observation, unsupported by any evidence.

Now mind you, that is not to say there is no such thing as the supernatural, nor is it to say there may be no god or gods, it simply is to say there is no evidence of such, no rational, objective, evidence-supported, independently verifiable, reproducible, cross-corroborative basis from which to assert there may be.

I submit that religious faith and superstition cannot be differentiated from one another in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner. That is not a belief, it is not an assumption, not a preference, nor a projection, it is a fact, based on observation, not faith. It is real.

timberlandko wrote:

Here you illustrate the absurdity of your proposition. The "faith" to which you allude in your examples is based on reasonable expectation of future events conforming to observed and verified prior practice. That is rational assumptive projection deriving from concrete, independently verifiable, readilly duplicable, multiply cross-corroboratable experience. No such concretely experiential basis pertains to religious faith, which by definition perforce is irrational as ultimately foundational to religious faith is the supernatural, a thing, condition, or state of being never observed, beyond observation, unsupported by any evidence.

What is absurd? The faith that we allude to is the faith that the Bible solicits.

You have been congregating too long with this generation of Christians who reject evidence while blindly embracing foolish doctrines and assumptions. God never asks anyone to follow blindly. Some may choose to, but that is their choice. Leaders are the ones who ask the masses to follow without any evidence. And those who follow blindly are mostly superficial practitioners of the faith.

timberlandko wrote:

Now mind you, that is not to say there is no such thing as the supernatural, nor is it to say there may be no god or gods, it simply is to say there is no evidence of such, no rational, objective, evidence-supported, independently verifiable, reproducible, cross-corroborative basis from which to assert there may be.

Just because you are unable to decipher or understand the evidence does not mean that there is none. You are surrounded by evidence and you are not even aware of it.

timberlandko wrote:

I submit that religious faith and superstition cannot be differentiated from one another in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner. That is not a belief, it is not an assumption, not a preference, nor a projection, it is a fact, based on observation, not faith. It is real.

Quote:

Well we submit that your are wrong and soon enough you will be proven so.

OK - that works for me; that's about as absurd as it gets.

Another absurdity - you have no basis to offer any assessment of with whom I've been "congregating" ... nor even any basis to assume that I have "congregated". I can understand your confusion, though - assimilated as you are into the hive mind of your particular "faith", you have no option; independent thought, objective appraisal, and critical analysis are foreign concepts ... as must they be for the function, preservation and perpetuation of the hive mind.

You also invite the question: just what are these "...foolish doctrines and assumptions..." to which tou refer, and on what basis do you determine them to be invalid, what doctrines and assumptions do you consider to be not foolish, and why?

Fine. Trot it out - bring on the evidence. Prove the claim which is the Bible and all that descends from it be other than an unsubstantiated claim.

I submit there is no evidence whatsoever in support of your proposition, let alone proof of any sort. You present a claim. Fine - you have a claim. Now, support it. Demonstrate, in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith and superstition may be differentiated.

timberlandko wrote:

OK - that works for me; that's about as absurd as it gets.

Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

timberlandko wrote:

Another absurdity - you have no basis to offer any assessment of with whom I've been "congregating" ... nor even any basis to assume that I have "congregated". I can understand your confusion, though - assimilated as you are into the hive mind of your particular "faith", you have no option; independent thought, objective appraisal, and critical analysis are foreign concepts ... as must they be for the function, preservation and perpetuation of the hive mind.

Question: Do you not congregate with professed Christians on this board?

No One has a hive mind. If you have read any of our postings then you will see that all of our thoughts are objective. We wish we could say the same for you.

timberlandko wrote:

You also invite the question: just what are these "...foolish doctrines and assumptions..." to which tou refer, and on what basis do you determine them to be invalid, what doctrines and assumptions do you consider to be not foolish, and why?

1. The doctrine that there is no evolution is foolish
2. The doctrine of the rapture is foolish
3. The doctrine that salvation is free is foolish
4. The doctrine that heaven is in the sky somewhere is foolish etc...

timberlandko wrote:

Fine. Trot it out - bring on the evidence. Prove the claim which is the Bible and all that descends from it be other than an unsubstantiated claim.

Be patient, the evidence is coming

timberlandko wrote:

I submit there is no evidence whatsoever in support of your proposition, let alone proof of any sort. You present a claim. Fine - you have a claim. Now, support it. Demonstrate, in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith and superstition may be differentiated.

Once again, be patient. If you are still present to see it, the evidence will be presented shortly. You especially will see it.

Caught that typo, didjya - you're quick - I was on it as soon as I saw it, but you busted me

Oh, and I agree about the verifiablity thing - still, a good sophist is a convincing sophist, and the better religionist apologistists are among the best sophists to be found - compelling is not the same as convincing by a longshot. I've seen some very good, truly powerful arguments for a number of religionist propositions, various interpretations of Christianity among them. Ain't seen a convincing argument, though.


Now, that Steen guy, down at the corner pub - well, no argument there

FORASMUCH as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to receive unto himself the soul of this dear child here departed: we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our mortal body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

We should examine Spendi's comment with respect to this:

Quote:

FORASMUCH as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to receive unto himself the soul of this dear child here departed: we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our mortal body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

from the Christian Burial Service

If this isn't an attempt to evoke a "reality"...and presumably a successful one for millions....what is it ?

Don't you think that "professed faith" can create reality.

You almost nail it; it is a presumption, an arrogant presumption at that, founded not in observed, evidenced, verifiable fact but in superstition and flight from the fear of the unknown. It is an absurd attempt to create a preferred reality through establishing an arbitrary -and fanciful - definition of reality congruent with desired comforts. Reality itself is reality itself, apart from and unaffected by any other consideration, like it or not. Accept it, reject it, redefine it, embrace it, fear it, explore it, deny it it, twist it, understamd it - all no matter; reality is reality - some folks deal with it, some folks don't. None of that has any bearing on reality.