helene_t Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 then is your belief in its truthfulness irrational, or is this one of the rational ones? if so, is one to subjectively choose those beliefs to be termed rational and those to be termed irrational? Lol, if I have to default to intuition when judging the rationality of a theory, I'm on deep water. Maybe I should stop posting about knowledge in the abstract and stick to my own field. No, seriously, when I wrote this I was more concerned with the reason somebody has to accept ("believe" is a too strong word for me) some idea. Consider1) "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I consider it the most plausible explanation for my personal spiritual experience"2) "I don't believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster because my science teacher says He doesn't exist and I have to believe my science teacher to get good marks". I have more sympathy for 1). Maybe "rational" is the wrong word, not sure ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 I often found myself regretting that I was unable to believe in God, since a religion might have filled up the slot in my mind that unfortunately became infected with the Marxist mind-virus. It has cost me a long struggle to get rid of that mind-virus. I have deep empathy for what you went through as a child, Helene. It is unfortunate that mankind is so fallible and often children are raised by those trying to do the right thing by continuation of their instilled beliefs - a continuum of terror. I have strong beliefs that there is a massive distinction between religion and spirituality. Everyone has the ability to be spiritual - religion is a manmade productreflecting heirarchy and thus limited to those who are willing to conform to that structure. Had you had early religious training, one mind-virus would have been replaced by another type is all that would have occured - or maybe it's a pathogenic bacteria. ;) A recovered, seiriously hopeless alcoholic wrote an interesting book on the subject of spirituality entitled: A New Pair of Glasses. A lot of my beliefs came from that book. In it is this key phrase: the only thing that stands between you and me and me and god is ego. The point being that he believed that god was part of everyone, as natural as our lungs and liver, and the only thing that kept the body and spirit apart was self, or micromanaging every aspect of our lives - being our own god. In this theory, all you have to do is pretend to accept the concept of a power greater than yourself, act on that pretense, and then get self out of the way and let this pretend concept solve the big problems - it requires no faith but action. It requires no belief. His contention was once you get self out of the way, even a little bit by pretense, then the vacated area will be filled by god who was there all the time. And the god who fills that space is your own perception of what god should be - not what someone else teaches about god. Whether you believe your mind can create god or god changes to accomodate your image is irrelevant - the only relevant issue is to stop self from blocking the god you would like to have there. The book's title: A New Pair of Glasses, came from this man's personal experience with his homosexual son - for years they had clashed and argued, the father not accepting his son as he was and constantly trying to change his son's behavior. And then one day he saw his son is a new light, just another human being who like himself had his own foibles, frailities, and problems - and he realized in that instant of acceptance of his son that all that had changed was his own perception - his son was the same person. Point being that no one has any control over anything other than their perceptions - and when you percieve yourself to be in need of a higher power and get self out of the way, you find that the higher power had been a part of you the whole time, and it had only been your perception of self-importance that had kept you in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 >as for 'millions upon millions', it is my belief that all have been given internal and >external proofs of God's existence, and all who truly seek him will find him >yes, it is necessary to believe that Jesus took our place... that he paid our debt... >in this sense he is my (our) personal saviour... it has to do with the nature >of sin, and the fact that no amount of work can absolve it What if we conducted the following experiment: We take 100 new born babies. We raise them in a completely controlled environment and create a brand new society out on a deserted island somewhere. We ensure that there is absolutely no contamination with any information related to Jesus, Christianity, what have you. We allow this society to grow and flourish for 100 years. At the end of 100 years, we conduct extensive interviews with all the inhabitants and poll them to determine whether they have independently developed the concept of a personal saviour who died for our sins. I would argue that if the society spontaneously developed something resembling the Nicene creed this would be powerful evidence that something is going on. However, if the society did not develop these concepts, I'd argue that either 1. God doesn't exist2. If God does exist, he's not especially benevolent (after all, he's letting a whole bunch of innocent babies burn through no fault of their own) Needless to say, we can't conduct these types of experiments on new born babies. At the same time, we do have historical records about the belief systems that existed all across the world before the Christianity reached them... Guess what they looked like (More accurately, guess what they didn't look like) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 My understanding is that Einstein believed in some form of afterlife because he accepted that the human body contained energy, energy cannot be destroyed, hence that energy must continue in some form after the death of the mortal body. I hope I am not misrepresenting him as I claim this by memory only - and mine is certainly fallible. ;) Nope. Einstein was an atheist and he did not believe in an afterlife, see e.g. Carl Sagan. You find energy everywhere, in fact everything is energy. Preservation of energy has nothing to do with preservation of life, let alone with the preservation of the "soul".Yes, that I knew - but I thought his thinking was that the energy of body could not be destroyed so must continue after life ends - not that he believed in any type of christian afterlife, as such. Just that energy continues after death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf I didn't find his arguments convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 then is your belief in its truthfulness irrational, or is this one of the rational ones? if so, is one to subjectively choose those beliefs to be termed rational and those to be termed irrational? Lol, if I have to default to intuition when judging the rationality of a theory, I'm on deep water. Maybe I should stop posting about knowledge in the abstract and stick to my own field. No, seriously, when I wrote this I was more concerned with the reason somebody has to accept ("believe" is a too strong word for me) some idea. Consider1) "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I consider it the most plausible explanation for my personal spiritual experience"2) "I don't believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster because my science teacher says He doesn't exist and I have to believe my science teacher to get good marks". I have more sympathy for 1). Maybe "rational" is the wrong word, not sure ..... ok... what do you think of plantinga's definition of knowledge? it concerns proper function, warrant, and true belief... iow, knowledge is a warranted true belief from a properly functioning mind (i have *vastly* understated his views)... he is a highly respected philosopher who happens to be a christian... he has spent decades in his field, and he is not underestimated by his ideological foes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf I didn't find his arguments convincing. why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 ok... what do you think of plantinga's definition of knowledge? I'm not familiar with it. The fact that he's an Intelligen Design proponent doesn't serve as a recomendation but of course he could be OK in other fields. Anyway, as a scientist my immediate association with the word "knowledge" is either scientific knowledge, or knowledge as a psychological phenomena. I don't know what the word "knowledge" usually means in a theological context so I guess I wouldn't have a qualified opinion about Plantinga's knowledge concept, which seems to be a theological one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf I didn't find his arguments convincing. why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared) Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth, followed by dinner at Redbones. I'll try to provide a more detailed response later on. However, to me, it boils down to the following: The core of Craig's presentation is based on discussion of "4 Historical Facts" 1. Jesus was buried2. The Discovery of the Empty Tomb3. His post-mortem appearance4. The origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection I don't think that Craig was able to establish that these facts were true. I felt that Ehrlich constructed (plausible) alternative explanations with better explantory power. To make a gross oversimplification, Ehrlich argues that the Gospels are largely inaccurate. I felt that Ehrlich's concluding paragraph on page 29 particularly convincing. (It starts with the words "Let me conclude by telling you what I really do think about Jesus' ressurection" and ends with the start of the Q+A session) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth" When you come back, did you like it? I thought it was great. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 yes, it is necessary to believe that Jesus took our place... that he paid our debt... in this sense he is my (our) personal saviour... it has to do with the nature of sin, and the fact that no amount of work can absolve it anyone who sincerely calls on God for salvation will be saved... this is my belief, and it has nothing to do with time or space or nationality or anything else These two statements seem paradoxical. Are you claiming a corollary to: I and the Father are One? Belief in god automatically includes belief in jesus, even if you don't know it or acknowledge it? possibly it is harder to change if one's indoctrination occurred at an early age.. i was 9 years old when i first went to church... so it could be different for me... in any case, i'd hesitate to say it's impossible to change... i don't think anyone can make that statement with anywhere near to certainty QUOTE Psychologists have confirmed this to me. One told me that this is religious abuse and is as damaging to the young as sexual abuse or physical abuse. and of course it's better to put our trust in psychologists? i will agree with you (and them) that such a thing as religious abuse exists, and even that it's quite possibly as damaging as sexual abuse... but in all of this discussion i'm speaking of christianity the way i view it... i fail to see the abuse involved in what i teach Yes, the earlier ages are more critical in establishing world view - ages 2, 3, 4, 5.Perceptions, reactions, and base instictual causations instilled at these ages are impossible to change - they can be overcome, but not changed. To overcome them, you have to recognize their existence and understand your own reactions to certain events - then cognitively, you can chose to ignore these base feelings. Yes, I put more faith in psychologists to understand psychology, as I place more faith in a nuclear scientist to understand nuclear fusion. I did not say you abused. But if to instill a belief system a person uses terror of retribution on a child of 2, 3, 4, and 5 then that is abuse. it isn't hard to understand... but is it hard to understand that your interpretation might be incorrect? This is the point, is it not - why would I need an interpretation of a straightforward phrase? Wasn't this the reason Martin Luther posted the bible for all to read? Is it possible you are "forced" into making an interpretation because otherwise the statement does not adhere to your views? I think it is pretty clear cut. Mustard seeds are incapable of faith. But if you believe faith a necessary ingredient of salvation, then you would have to interpret this phrase to fit that view. It seems to me yours the more convoluted effort, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth" When you come back, did you like it? I thought it was great. Peter Great Movie Hmm I thought Luther posted some 95 things on some door in Wittenberg or something? What did Guttenburg(sp) publish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Hmm I thought Luther posted some 95 things on some door in Wittenberg or something? :) Brain gets ahead of fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth" When you come back, did you like it? I thought it was great. Peter I saw it last week and thought it was pretty good, but nothing to rave about. BTW, while we are on the topic of movies that deal with faith, what do people things about the following: 1) The Ninth Configuration: I thought it was very good, but the last 2 minutes ruined it for me (may be absent from some versions) 2) Breaking the Waves 3) Babette's feast Also, what do people think about "Au hasard Balthazar"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Guttenburg used the first movable type press to print the bible. Luther posted his 90 Theses on a church door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Guttenburg used the first movable type press to print the bible. Luther posted his 90 Theses on a church door.I thought Luther discovered the location of Superman's Fortress of Solitude - but memory fails me - it might have been Gutenberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth" When you come back, did you like it? I thought it was great. Peter I saw it last week and thought it was pretty good, but nothing to rave about. BTW, while we are on the topic of movies that deal with faith, what do people things about the following: 1) The Ninth Configuration: I thought it was very good, but the last 2 minutes ruined it for me (may be absent from some versions) 2) Breaking the Waves 3) Babette's feast Also, what do people think about "Au hasard Balthazar"? My fav is Constantine. Best for religion is that one with Affleck and Damon with Alanis Morrisette as God..... :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Constantine was a hoot. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Constantine was a hoot. PeterConfucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... " or "Whew". Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 "Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... " or "Whew". Peter I thought it was hoo-hoo, like the Japanese band in Kill Bill - Volume 2 and the Vontage commercials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 These two statements seem paradoxical. Are you claiming a corollary to: I and the Father are One? Belief in god automatically includes belief in jesus, even if you don't know it or acknowledge it? what i'm saying is that anyone who sincerely desires salvation will be saved by calling on God to save him... the rest is up to Godit isn't hard to understand... but is it hard to understand that your interpretation might be incorrect? This is the point, is it not - why would I need an interpretation of a straightforward phrase? Wasn't this the reason Martin Luther posted the bible for all to read? it's just that you are the only person i've ever heard who says Jesus was talking about the faith a mustard seed has rather than faith the size of a mustard seed... Is it possible you are "forced" into making an interpretation because otherwise the statement does not adhere to your views?no... the views aren't only mine... are your views only yours?I think it is pretty clear cut. Mustard seeds are incapable of faith. But if you believe faith a necessary ingredient of salvation, then you would have to interpret this phrase to fit that view. It seems to me yours the more convoluted effort, IMHO.again, were you taught that Jesus was speaking of the faith a mustard seed has in God or Jesus or anything else, rather than faith the size of the seed? i'd really be interested to read more on this, if you can point me in that directionI'm not familiar with it. The fact that he's an Intelligen Design proponent doesn't serve as a recomendation but of course he could be OK in other fields. Anyway, as a scientist my immediate association with the word "knowledge" is either scientific knowledge, or knowledge as a psychological phenomena. I don't know what the word "knowledge" usually means in a theological context so I guess I wouldn't have a qualified opinion about Plantinga's knowledge concept, which seems to be a theological one. i don't think it's quite fair to let plantinga's belief in creation enter into the validity of other subjects he's written on, but that's just me... i wouldn't simply dismiss big bang simply because hawkin is an atheist plantinga is a philosopher, and has a reputation among his friends and enemies alike of a man of great intellect... his theory of knowledge is that 'true belief' is a necessary part (which seems to go against what you are saying)... it isn't the only part, the whole concept of 'warrant' comes into it, and he has written extensively on that subject... but since you and i were discussing rationality, i thought you might find this article interesting... as i've said numerous times, we tend to view things from our own presuppositions, and it's not easy doing otherwise... but i ask you to *try* to read this (if you have time and of a mind to do so) as a fellow (to plantina) scientist http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html to richard re: william lane craig... i was more interested in your views of his articles concering the transworldly damned (molina) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Like in Constantine, our god (of the 7 lesser gods) is the best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 The Rapture is the most overt religious movie that sticks with me. A little seen movie that got mediocre reviews. The Rapture, Job, the ultimate sacrifice, and being angry, furious at God all issues in one movie, wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 what i'm saying is that anyone who sincerely desires salvation will be saved by calling on God to save him... the rest is up to God I don't see us as that far apart here - I happen to see it as two things, a corollary of I and the father are one and the possibilty that this could occur on a universal timetable 1000 years after physical death. it's just that you are the only person i've ever heard who says Jesus was talking about the faith a mustard seed has rather than faith the size of a mustard seed... This is no surprise - it is a conclusion I came to by myself. Some guy named Mike Luther posted it on the door of the church so I read it and figured out for myself what it meant. :D no... the views aren't only mine... are your views only yours? I'll rephrase, you honor. Is it possible that whomever originated this interpretation did so because the meaning of the words themselves did not fit with his or her theology? Are my views only mine - I certainly hope so because my spirituality is on a personal level and not intended to be the answer for you. again, were you taught that Jesus was speaking of the faith a mustard seed has in God or Jesus or anything else, rather than faith the size of the seed? i'd really be interested to read more on this, if you can point me in that direction Hmmm. This is a good question...was I taught. It is hard to say. I was never taught this exact thought exactly, however my quest for spirituality led me to read many thoughts that coincided with this thinking - so in a sense I was taught but also IMO learned. The closest book that might better convey this concept is: A New Pair of Glasses.Another book I read I cannot remember the title but it was written by an Episcopal priest - in it he said something I will never forget: "Love is not an emotion. Love is a decision and a commitment." It was very telling, in that he expressed that you do not have to feel love but act with love. This fit in nicely with what I had been taught through al-anon that feelings were unimportant, that only actions had any meaning. So I guess the bottom line is that I did in fact learn this thinking, and that is why I say faith is unimportant - it is the actions that are meaningful. What good is it to claim faith if your actions do not substantiate that faith? If anything, it is the actions that bring about faith, not the other way round. Have you ever heard, feelings follow actions, act enthusiastic and you'll be enthusiastic, or interest follows actions? This is why I say that a mustard seed requires no faith - and neither do we - because it is action that will bring about faith. In fact I would say there is no such thing as faith without action. If you had faith in the driver of the car hurtling down the road at 30mph to stop and did not step off the curb in front of it you are not exhibiting faith, but ideology. It is only when you blindly step into the street and the car stops that faith in the driver is rewarded. To use the car analogy again:A spiritual person steps off the curbA religious person claims he believes the car will stop, but doesn't act.An atheist waits for the car to pass.An agnostic says, "What car?" :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.