@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Quote:Being an engineer is unrelated to having interest in the universe at large.
I disagree. In the simplest terms, engineers and those who would choose engineering as a course of study are probably inherently more interested in the physical formation of just about anything...including the universe.
This discussion is growing further and further from the practical way this whole thing plays out.
The way this actually plays out in life; the moment when a quest for faith comes in conflict with a quest to understand nature is usually when faith asks the individual to stop. Stop asking questions. Accept the world as created by a god. And when even a person who has invested a great deal of time in faith has questions about that, they answers from faith are that they simply must believe, while otherwise they are free to explore and challenge new ideas. Some old new ideas include the world being round, the earth being very very very old, and that all creatures share a common ancestor. When the person who has studied nature is interested in what faith has to offer, they are asked to forget what they have learned about the universe and simply have faith.
This has nothing to do with being an engineer. I could be a preacher, and if I had questions about the universe pursuing those questions are not welcome in a faith.
aidan wrote:
I definitely think that may be one reason you find it such a fascinating subject while someone like me, with my particular set of skills and interests and aptitudes might find other facets of looking at and/or thinking about the world more fascinating and interesting. I mean, I've read the information, but do I study it and study it and study it - no - until there's new and breakthrough information- okay...I got it for right now.
I think in your last statement here I see best illustrated my point. You've got it for now? Got what? What stability lies in knowing so much of your faith is directly contradicted by so much science? What does your faith say to it's own deficit? to believe? Believe in what? That what we know in science is wrong? This is the exact complacency that troubles me about those of devout faith.
aidan wrote:
But I wouldn't automatically assign 'boring' to either someone who does or doesn't have an interest in studying the origins of the universe. There are a whole lot of other criteria to consider in my mind before I can assign that label.
Origins of the universe are but one way to study nature. As stated before how does this play out in practicality?
How it usually plays out for me is that someone says something from a learned faith, and I go to correct them with what we know from science. They will respond with interest in understanding what I'm telling them and it's implications to their faith, or they will become defensive of their faith.
Hmm. Perhaps I'll change my wording. It is not that a disinterest in understanding nature makes a person boring, but rather a non-interest in knowing the implications of nature on man and its creations that make a person intellectually neutered. It's not boring I guess because I have to admit the psychology of denial is fascinating.
aidan wrote:
Quote:I never said that people can't be interested in multiple topics or that even an understanding of the universe is the most enlightened thing one can try to understand.
But you did say it was more enlightened than pursuing any sort of faith in anything, no matter how long lasting or meaningful that faith is to someone.
That is correct.
How does a faith being long lasting give it value if it is wrong?
How can a faith be "meaningful" if it is factually wrong?
aidan wrote:
I'm just trying to point out that other people who are interested in faith, instead of putting together the minutia of the origins of the universe, can be just as enlightened.
Not if they reject science and logic in the name of protecting their faith. Absolutely not.
aidan wrote:
Quote:Funny you mention it. Yeah, I'm bored by many people
Interesting. I'm almost never bored by people. I find them fascinating - even if I just ask them questions to learn about where they grew up - what do they think about this or that. Only child or siblings....whatever...
But again, maybe that just highlights why other things are more occupying of my thoughts than the origins of the universe.
Ack! More origins of the universe! The topic is much more diverse than just that.
aidan wrote:
Quote:However, the Literary, artistic, and musical types I've met have typically cared about understanding the universe.
Well yeah, I didn't say none of these people cared - but how many of them do you sit around with and say, "Put down you guitar and stop singing and let's talk about (once again- and knowing we can only go back over what we already know and have no definitive final answer) the origins of the universe...and if you bring up god or faith I'll tell you you're irrational and believe in leprachauns....' That's what would be boring to me.
What makes you think we can have no definitive answer? Is this what faith says? Is this what you believe of science? I'm just curious. Are you under some assumption that intellectually religion has science at a stalemate?
I'm not telling people to put down their guitars at the open mic night. I'm not telling them to huddle up so we can talk about the origins of the universe. I'm saying that to reject science and logic for faith is intellectually shallow.
Perhaps their not boring, but I want to give them my time, like I want to waste my time arguing with someone that the sky is blue.
"The sky is blue."
"Is not.
"It is. Look up."
"I don't need to look up to know it's not blue."
<night falls, person looks up>
"See, I told you it isn't blue!"
"Yeah, well it was, and it will be again. You wait."
"We'll see about that."
<sunrise>
"Okay, look now. The sky is blue."
"You had your chance."
"Just look up."
<man looks up>
"Well? I told you it was blue!"
"Yeah, well, you can't ever prove it was blue yesterday! I knew it was going to be blue today."
aidan wrote:
Quote:You introduced the topic of caring for those around you. I stated clearly how that is unrelated to a pursuit of faith. I'm not sure how the above is relevant to either.
No, it's not unrelated at all. The object and purpose of my quest for faith has to do in a direct way with how I view and care for the people around me.
You believe it may be irrelevant because its not a relevant issue for you.
But it is relevent to me, although I can admit it seems irrelevant to other people of faith.
But everyone's faith has a different objective and in fact, directive.
Your motive for pursuing faith and the pursuit to understand people are not one and the same. They are two different quests, and even they can conflict much like science and faith can conflict.
Faith will tell a Christian that homosexuality is a sin/amoral . A quest to understand people has lead great minds in psychology to think that homosexuality has natural origins; that it is not a choice. If it is not a choice, how can it be sin? If it is natural, and yet still a sin somehow to choose to live as a homosexual, then the person is defying the nature that god gave them. Again, faith conflicts. In this case it conflicts internally with it's own logic.
aidan wrote:
Quote:Maybe? Yes or no. It's simple. You will or won't die. If you die it was a need.
I don't know what would happen to me without it. I've never not had it. I might be a very different and more conflicted person without it. I might be depressive and less hopeful-which is very different than how I am and have been my whole life with it.
I'd much rather give up other aspects of who I am than that one.
You not knowing how you would be, means that you must additionally admit that you might be better off. Thats for you to sort out, but I don't expect you to challenge your current comfort zone.
What other aspects of who you are would you give up? How far would you take this? At what point would you draw the line? At what point would you be satisfied in knowing that holding on it faith and letting other things go in your life that you valued was NOT worth it?
aidan wrote:
I reference drugs because I think its indicative of the lack of something in our society, that many, many people need to access mood elevators to even make it through the day. I think that may be due to a lack of faith in anything, and a generalized feeling of malaise and boredom toward life, as well as a somewhat overwhelming aura of emptiness.
This would make for an interesting thread by itself. The psychology of people who use addictive substances is very diverse. Certainly some abuse drugs because of a perceived emptiness. That emptiness can be present in devout people of faith too though.
Of course then there is science that chimes in for a quick note that for whatever reason that people start abusing, a large (perhaps largest) factor in continuing is chemical addiction.
aidan wrote:
I don't feel that way - I don't need to take drugs. But I don't know if I would feel that way if I didn't have and nurture my faith in something.
I do think it's incredibly important to my happiness.
If I was to be fired from my job tomorrow, I might feel empty too. Lots of things can make us feel incomplete. I see no reason to treat faith as being exceptional in this manner.
aidan wrote:
Quote:I think it's interesting that given the removal of faith, you'd fill the hole with drugs. It speaks to the nature of both.
I don't think I would fill the hole with drugs - for me it'd be food before drugs...I'd get fat (on hot fudge sundaes to be specific).
No, actually I'd probably just drift around the world and travel- looking for something-but not knowing what.
Interesting about the fudge sundaes. I think that may be more telling than the drug references. LOL. I know what you mean though. If I was to get kicked off of my soccer team, I'd probably stop running too. Again, I don't see faith as being exceptional in any way.
I think that change more than the absence of loss is what scares you here. As you said yourself, you've always had faith, you've never known living without it.
I'll ask you a personal question. If it's too personal, I understand.
Have you ever lost your mother or father?
I have only known a world with both of them. I cannot imagine my world without them. If either or both was gone, I would feel a certain emptiness. I would feel much like you've expressed what your loss of faith would (as you imagine at least) feeling like. In the face of all of that, I know that day will come. I know there will be a day that I will have to know a world without them. I fully admit that I am not prepared for that day, but I am forced to accept that come that day or some day to follow it, I will and must survive. More than survive, I will need to thrive.
I cannot understand how the absence of faith could ever compare to a loss such as this, and how if we can live and thrive even after such a loss as that, how it can even be entertained that a loss of faith would be something that we could not only get over, but thrive in spite of.
aidan wrote:
Yes, I made the reference to drugs as a substitute for faith because I know that that's what nonbelievers reference faith for the faithful -as a drug.
Horse before the cart. You're stealing my lines. LOL.
Aside from the joke, do you disagree with this statement?
aidan wrote:
What I was asking is, why do the unfaithful care? Would they rather a person achieve happiness in some other way?
I care only because the faithful make themselves an obstacle in the quest to understand nature and universe. I'm all about free will, so if people of faith want to powwow about how they disagree about evolution, fine. Just stop screwing up the science standards in our schools.
aidan wrote:
Quote:It's a green peg. The red, blue, yellow... peg fit just as well.
Obviously not for me. Why should I have to take a peg that fits me out and substitute another one. Because you don't like my green peg and you want me to have a red, yellow or blue one?
Leave your green peg in aidan. I'm glad it works for you, just don't claim it's the only one that fits. I'm not telling you to put it out and put a different one in. I'm saying that come the day that your green peg breaks, just know that there are others that fit too.
aidan wrote:
Quote:Unless you can answer why others can function just fine without faith,
Because they're not me. What they need is different than what I need.
This is the logical equivalent of saying that you NEED your M&Ms or else you'll get hurt. When asked how you'll get hurt, you reply: "Because I'll cut myself if you do!" It's self fulfilling circular logic.
You can't say that others can live without their M&Ms because they have different needs than you. It is your desire for M&Ms, not your needs that you protect.
aidan wrote:
Quote:you have failed to establish faith as a need. Faith is a want.
Says you, who doesn't think its as important as other things in your life.
Even "importance" is measured different with needs versus wants. With needs, importance is boolean in nature. It is or it is not a need. With wants importance can be qualified and measured.
aidan wrote:
Quote:Our needs are the same.
No. Even the fact that you're a man and I'm a woman, make our needs different.
And if you don't know this - you should learn this before you embark on a relationship of any substance with a woman.
Again, I think you primarily think of 'needs' in the physical realm.
I KNOW that my needs- what I know I NEED- extend beyond the physical.
Touche to the point about men and women. But that difference does not resolve why your claim to "need" faith while others (namely me) do not.
I'm not saying a discussion of feelings/emotions is off limits here aidan. But lets be clear, those things are wants. I would never say wants are trivial or that they aren't important, but even importance is a subjective measure.
aidan wrote:
I would never believe I knew what your needs are unless you told me what they were.
I promise you that I could never tell you or another person what they were, and you could figure it out.
T
K
O
