Rational Vs. Rationalized Faith

[Roadtoad]

(Since this is my 1000th post, I thought I'd open up something different....)

I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.

Permit me to suggest the following:

Scripture has proven to be a significant source of information for the field of Archaeology. Much of what has been written about can be traced back, and the ruins of ancient civilizations located. Volumes have been written in regards to Biblical finds.

That said, we're also learning a great deal about our world through Genetics, Biology, Physics, and the like. We are not at the center of the Universe, nor were we ever. As a planet, and, in fact, as a species, we're pretty insignificant. Further, it forces a reevaluation of ourselves in light of both Scripture and Science.

I would suggest that Rational Faith bases a great deal on Scripture, in regards to man's relationship to God, (and no, I don't think the Earth was made Just For Man; don't be so damned arrogant, folks), but REQUIRES of me, as a believer, to seek out greater information, through the Scientific Approach. It is a mechanistic response, but we're dwelling in a mechanistic world. If things are on Earth as they are in Heaven, I have an obligation to understand the Earth as it is, not as I want it to be.

I may not like the fact that my earliest ancestor had a small brain, and that he/she spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten, but that's what the facts say happened.

Why would God choose to do this? If I think of it when I meet Him, I'll ask. But for now, it's more important that I know this is what happened. Since greater wisdom is what made it possible for Man to survive as a species, it makes perfect sense for me to take the time to understand, to learn, to (dare I say this) evolve to higher state. This requires a RATIONAL response, rather than a RATIONALIZED one.

When we listen to Falwell/Robertson/Roberts/etc. claiming that evolution is a chimera, a lie promulgated by atheists, we're watching Rationalized Faith in action. The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth. (You can't interpret the Book in a vacuum.) If, as we claim, we serve a living God, you must interpret the Book in light of God's actions. Those actions are the primary revelation, and the only one of irrefutable value.

I may not like the law of Gravity, (given my weight, and my increasing fight with arthritis), but it's still there. If the Bible were to say I can fly, I would need to interpret this in light of Fact. This is Rational Faith. (Yes, I can fly, with the use of fixed or rotary wings. This is evolution in action. I see, I think, I plan, I do.) Rationalized Faith would have me standing on a cliff flapping my arms.

I'd like to hear what others have to say, especially atheists and agnostics.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadtoad


The latest archaeological finds suggest the 'taking' of Canaan by Joshua was a lot tamer than suggested in the bible. It appears they just kind of - moved in peacefully and settled down.

[b]I may not like the fact that my earliest ancestor had a small brain, and that he/she spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten, but that's what the facts say happened.

How does this jive with Adam and Eve? If there was no Adam there doesn't have to be a Jesus.

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book,

I disagree

and one with value for generations,

I hope not

but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth. (You can't interpret the Book in a vacuum.) If, as we claim, we serve a living God, you must interpret the Book in light of God's actions. Those actions are the primary revelation, and the only one of irrefutable value.

God's actions in the bible are so disjointed, how can you identify what kind of god he is?

If the Bible were to say I can fly, I would need to interpret this in light of Fact.

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

The crux of this question is the bible. Whether rational or rationalized - belief in a pseudo-historical, mythological text is ridiculous for an intelligent 21st century man or woman.
You must be asked the question. And boil it down carefully: What in the bible is true to you? If there is no historical fact, then Aesops fables would be a much better teacher of morals.

[Roadtoad]

The latest archaeological finds suggest the 'taking' of Canaan by Joshua was a lot tamer than suggested in the bible. It appears they just kind of - moved in peacefully and settled down.

I don't remember the Bible saying that the years it took to take Canaan was one long drawn out conflict. I could be wrong. (Considering I've been wrong about lots of things, this is nothing new.)

How does this jive with Adam and Eve? If there was no Adam there doesn't have to be a Jesus.

Or, "Adam" could easily have been a metaphor for the first Homo Sapiens.

There would have to be a historic Jesus who physically rose from the dead in order for Christianity to hold water in the first place. If not, faith is in vain, as Paul said.

Also, you disagree with the Bible being divinely inspired. No surprise, given your theology. (No, this is not a slam. It's a simple statement of fact. If there is no God, the Bible has no inspiration at all.)

You hope it has no value. Given what you've seen of Christianity, if that were what it was truly about, then, yes, I would have to agree. (But I think you knew that. :D )

God's actions in the bible are so disjointed, how can you identify what kind of god he is?

Well, so are mine, until you consider them in the context of the time. If you, simply for the hell of it, slugged me, I'd knock your ass out. If you bumped into me accidentally, I'd accept your apology, and we'd move on. Two different actions, in two different situations. In character, actually. (An oversimplification, I know, but perhaps that was an error on my part at the start of the thread.)

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

It's accurate as people understood thing at the time. What other evidence did they have?

The crux of this question is the bible. Whether rational or rationalized - belief in a pseudo-historical, mythological text is ridiculous for an intelligent 21st century man or woman.
You must be asked the question. And boil it down carefully: What in the bible is true to you? If there is no historical fact, then Aesops fables would be a much better teacher of morals.

I'd say reconsider the Bible in the light of what we know now, and review it carefully. Aesop was a fine teacher, and should be regarded as a wise man, with an intuitive eye. He understood people as they were.

So, too, did Isaiah, Joshua, Ezekiel, and their bretheren. Just because God through Samuel told Israel to annihilate the Amelekites down to the last stone sitting on stone doesn't mean this was the best choice, or even God's primary desired choice. (Remember, God originally wanted to dwell among the Israelites, who instead, chose to live by the Law.) You're dealing with a legalistic answer to sin, which is not what God originally wanted according to the Bible. Believe me, that's NOT what I want. I'd have been stoned, burned, and buried far more times than I want to admit.

(Which is one of the points of Paul's statement that ALL have fallen short. How dare I point out that you've made mistakes when I have, too.)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

So you will admit the bible is wrong in several instances (bat is a bird, insects with four legs, earth is flat, the moon is a light, PI = 3, etc, etc).

It's accurate as people understood thing at the time. What other evidence did they have?

So you acknowledge that the bible was written by people, and not by God?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

So you acknowledge that the bible was written by people, and not by God?

People who were prone to mistakes, yes. Divinely inspired does not mean God took pen to paper himself. Truth to tell, I'm still confused about what "divinely inspired" means myself. After hearing so much prattle on the subject, from different schools of thought, I'm not sure anyone can give a definitive example. If I had to point to anything today which would fall into that category, I'd have to say Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's the best we have at the moment. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong.

People are prone to mistakes. Just as they still are. You go back, reread, and try to figure out what was said in the first place. Sometimes you can fit it together, sometimes you can't. You do the best you can with what you have at any given moment. If Moses called a bat a bird, it was because he knew nothing about bats, that they had hairy bodies, that the mother's used mammary glands to nurse their young, and that their young were born alive. His first goal was to keep people from eating them, getting sick, and dying. (Having seen the little suckers up close, I don't blame him. Ick...)

I put forth an idea, looking to hear what others have to say. I might be right, I could be wrong, but I'm also not going to claim knowledge I don't have. That's all. I'm willing to ask the tough questions, and willing to listen to what others have to say. I don't do well with hit and run posting.

No, I'm not trying to convince you to change your views, Penguin. I'm trying to hear what you have to say. We will probably disagree, but I don't think I'd have much respect for you if we were in complete agreement. You might have a stronger grasp of some things than I do. What value is communication if we cannot use it to learn from one another, and in turn, grow, evolve, and mature? (Just had a thought: Isn't that the goal of "divine inspiration" in the first place? I would hope.)

Your thoughts, amigo...?

[Fun2BFree]

Rational implies that reason, logic, evidence . in other words proof, exists to support a certain approach.

Faith by Webster (and by Paul and by Kant it should also be understood to mean) "firm belief in something for which there is no proof "

Roadtoad wrote:
"The Bible is a divinely inspired Book"

There is no proof for such a statement. The proof that Roadtoad has misunderstood the meaning of Rational and shown the oxymoronic quality of the notion of Rational Faith is in the earlier statement:
"I would suggest that Rational Faith bases a great deal on Scripture"

Basing it on Scripture is to believe that Scripture is truth-or reveals the truth-- (something you have already said you do not believe)--and believing in something that is unproven as true, accurate or even relevant beyond the needs of woman-hating, power-seeking men of the past and small minded power-seeking men of the present.

So where is the rationality? Don't go looking for it. Truth is found by following logic, proof, evidence, not Scripture.
There can be no rational faith. If you seek to convince people by reason you are implying that reason is the way to truth. You believe it is or you would not come on here arguing by reason for one view or another...you just fail to realize how any faith cannot be supported by such a logical process. Faith is irrational.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadtoad
If I had to point to anything today which would fall into that category, I'd have to say Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's the best we have at the moment.


If Moses called a bat a bird, it was because he knew nothing about bats, that they had hairy bodies, that the mother's used mammary glands to nurse their young, and that their young were born alive.

RoadT,

You're freaking me out! You mention Hawkings as someone you admire ...and yet you think Moses (who I don't think existed) wrote the first five books of the OT. It is obvious (even in English) that there are several authors in these books.

[Ladewig]

I understand your explanation of rationalized faith, but I am still unclear on rational faith. You say it is based on facts. Many people I meet say that their faith is based in facts and then they divide up the Bible by saying these parts are facts and those parts are misunderstandings, outdated, poetic license, mistranslations, mysteries, sybolism, confusion, or superseded by later verses.

Can you elaborate on the rational faith side of it?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I understand your explanation of rationalized faith, but I am still unclear on rational faith. You say it is based on facts. Many people I meet say that their faith is based in facts and then they divide up the Bible by saying these parts are facts and those parts are misunderstandings, outdated, poetic license, mistranslations, mysteries, sybolism, confusion, or superseded by later verses.

Can you elaborate on the rational faith side of it?

I'm still working on it. It's not perfect, but I'm trying.

I'll put it like this: If I read a verse that makes sense, in light of what I've learned from other sources, then that's something I consider "rational." If archaeological evidence says there was a Jericho, and that certain events happened at that site, then, when I read through the Bible, that which jibes with what evidence has revealed is what I hold to. The rest of it, you lay aside.

When I first logged in here, one of the first things I said was that I was here to learn. I'm no teacher. I don't have any earthshaking revelations for anyone. I don't have any special insights. I'm just one grumpy trucker who's trying to make some sense of what I see. Sometimes, it works. Other times, it doesn't.

I don't sleep well, so I read a lot. Usually things about current events, sometimes about politics, lots of theology and philosophy, and sometimes, fiction. In light of what I read, some of what I read in Scripture makes a weird sort of sense. (Read Family of Spies and Confessions of a Spy by Pete Earley, and then read about Absalom's betrayal of his father, King David, and you get some interesting perspectives about what happened.) Add to this something else I've said before: when I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.

It's easy for me to ask another believer who shares a similar view of what I believe to tell me why things work out. The problem with this is that I'm getting the answer I expect, and it's usually the same pat answer that I've gotten in the past.

But this is not why I'm here. If I wanted pat answers, I'd have stayed clear of someplace that would have challenged me. The pat answers don't work. Ultimately, they're legalistic, and have no grounding.

If you want easy answers, I ain't got 'em anymore. I don't want and don't need them. Past experience says the easy answers are usually wrong. When I took the easy route out, I got into more trouble than it was worth. When I took a harder route, things might have been difficult, but the thought required to get through forced a more thorough examination of the problem in the first place, and I learned a lot more from it. (I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel, but facing real problems head-on, rather than trying to skirt through, as I see too many people do.)

I hit 1000 posts. I think I've gained a great deal, so far. I'm not where I need to be yet, but I think I've made a start. It's not a big start, but it's a start, nonetheless.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth.

This is an excellent summary of your point. For the religious believer, you don’t willfully blind your self to facts (like evolution) or worse yet embrace lies (like Kent Hovind, et. al.) if you wish to be able to maintain any credible claim to rationality. Your truth about the need for salvation, and Jesus being said salvation’s conduit, isn’t really effected if the Flood Narrative is only a morality tale, if God never nuked Sodom or if Eve never had a craving for an apple. It’s o.k. for a rational believer to accept parts of their holy texts as metaphor and life lesson.

A rationalized believer needs their book to be 100% true and will go to any length to make it so. Thus, Kent Hovind has several hundred appearances a year.

You could get away calling yourself a Christian if you only held as factual the last few chapters of the Gospels (maybe a few parts of Act too ;)) and considered the entire rest of the Bible as metaphors, bit’s of factual but embellished history and prophecy. I’ve never encountered anyone like that however, but I’ve met many who are completely comfortable with considering Genesis to be nearly completely metaphorical. Some might argue that if you reject Eden as a metaphor, then there’s no need for salvation and hence Jesus is irrelevant even if he did raise from the dead. But that’s not necessarily the case. If you consider man to be inherently sinful and that it’s a byproduct of free will, the Eden narrative just served put that “truth” into an easily understood story.

I think Roadtoad’s appellations for the different types of believers are accurate and appropriate.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Roadtoad,

I think maybe your terminology is a little mixed up.

I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.

It seems to me that what you are describing as "rational faith" is actually rationalized faith. Rationalization is when you attempt to use logically invalid methods (such as ad-hoc explanation, circular logic, and question begging) to reconcile your preconceived beliefs with the available evidence. This is exactly what you are doing when you say things like

The Bible is a divinely inspired Book, and one with value for generations, but it remains a Book, and should be interpreted in light of Fact, which is subordinate to Truth.

You are starting with the preconceived belief that the Bible is a divinely inspired book, and then attempting to interpret it in the context of what we currently know, even though you know full well that this isn't what the original authors believed it meant when they wrote it!

That is rationalization.

What you are describing as "rationalized faith", isn't even an attempt at rationalization. It is simply blind acceptance, in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever anybody tries to explain why you are wrong.

I have no idea what "rational faith" could even mean. It is self-contradictory. Faith is a belief without reliable supporting evidence. Such beliefs are inherently irrational. A rational belief is one which you have a logical reason for holding (by definition), and if you don't have reliable supporting evidence, then you can't possibly have a logical reason for believing it.

Dr. Stupid

[EdipisReks]

i was going to say something along the lines of this being rationalized instead of rational, but the esteemed doctor beat me to it. in order for the faith to be rational, the irrational foundation (in this case the belief that the Bible was divinely inspired) would have to be removed. if this were to be done, it would no longer be faith.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadtoad

I'll put it like this: If I read a verse that makes sense, in light of what I've learned from other sources, then that's something I consider "rational." If archaeological evidence says there was a Jericho, and that certain events happened at that site, then, when I read through the Bible, that which jibes with what evidence has revealed is what I hold to. The rest of it, you lay aside.

Here is one of the deceptions in the bible that is very effective to the casual reader. (and the bible uses this often) Here is the actual time line:

- Jericho was a city (very old)
- Jericho was destroyed (Huge walls lay in ruin)
- hundreds and hundreds of years elapse
- The Israelites moved into Canaan
- Years later glorious stories were written about Joshua's military victories (Jericho included)

Here is the Israelite time line:

- The Israelites moved into Canaan
- Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites
- Glorious stories were written about Joshua's military victories (with mention of the huge walls at Jericho)

Here we have a military victory 'just so' story. Jericho was already in ruins when the Israelites entered Canaan! The story must have been assembled years later, because the current generation/population knew damn well the Israelites had nothing to do with the demise of Jericho. It would have been a story developed to frighten an enemy a generation or two later. ("See those ruins? We did that")

'Just so' stories are supposed to be froggy little childrens tales to explain unknown phenomenon. However, the bible takes 'just so' stories into a whole new realm - history.

The bible is dripping with 'just so' stories taken as fact. This causes death! (Isn't that strange?)

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadtoad
Iwhen I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.

RoadToad,

I think you just hit a period where things worked and you happened to have a crutch to explain it. Things go good and things go bad. If you were to look, you would see it happens whether you are being religious or wearing your favorite socks.

All you can do is try to be a good human. I don't think belief in a talking snake is any help at all.

The weight that was lifted off my shoulders when I finally realized the truth was amazing. Once I realized the myth...once I realized there was no heaven...no hell...no god...no satan... We are here on this planet through a wonderful accident of planetary position and time. This is it. Live your life and have a ball and be mighty happy you're here.

[Roadtoad]

I have to admit, the answers I've been getting have been surprising. I can't say I always like the answers I get, but if you can't handle the heat from something like this, you probably shouldn't ask the question. (Or, for that matter, you shouldn't even sign in here.)

Maybe there's a better way to describe this:

If I flip on the light switch, I know the lights should come on. Past experience tells me there's electricity flowing through the wires, and the light bulb should work. (If they don't, then I know I either should have paid the light bill, or changed the bulb.) The act of using the light switch is an act of faith. I can't see the electricity, I can only see the effect of it. That would be rational faith.

Irrational faith would be holding out my hand over the switch and saying, "Let there be light!" It don't work. Not even for Sylvia Browne.

Like I said, I'm working on this. I ain't there yet. It's going to take some time to figure this one out. When I write, I write to learn, not simply to groove on seeing my words on the screen. Frankly, I thought Stimpy's and triadboy's responses had a lot to them, as did US's. Lots to consider.

But then, that's what I was after in the first place.

Billiefan, in the event you're reading this, take note: This is called INTEGRITY. People here are giving honest answers to honest questions. We may not like what the other has to say, but there's a willingness to confront that, and a willingness to deal with one another with respect. You may want to take a few lessons from triadboy and others here. Hit and run is for the cowards on the freeway.

[arcticpenguin]

RoadToad,

Your original question seems to be: how should a believer and man of faith consider the Bible in relation to other sources of information, or something like that. As I am not a man of faith and not a believer, I have tossed out certain assumptions you still hold.

Look around you today. Who are the people who claim to have direct communication with God? They are people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Oral Roberts. I prefer to think that these people are kooks (some more dangerous than others) and not actually people with direct communication with God (whom of course I do not believe in anyway).

When you read the Bible, why do you believe the people who wrote that actually had a 'divine inspiration', instead of considering that maybe they were kooks as well?

Having tossed out the bath water long ago, I search the basin thoroughly, but I find that is no baby there, and never was.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
RoadToad,

Your original question seems to be: how should a believer and man of faith consider the Bible in relation to other sources of information, or something like that. As I am not a man of faith and not a believer, I have tossed out certain assumptions you still hold.

Look around you today. Who are the people who claim to have direct communication with God? They are people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Oral Roberts. I prefer to think that these people are kooks (some more dangerous than others) and not actually people with direct communication with God (whom of course I do not believe in anyway).

When you read the Bible, why do you believe the people who wrote that actually had a 'divine inspiration', instead of considering that maybe they were kooks as well?

Having tossed out the bath water long ago, I search the basin thoroughly, but I find that is no baby there, and never was.

An interesting point. I look at David Koresh, and read what he said, compare it to what I read in the Bible, and know Koresh is a liar. Ditto Jones and Roberts.

This is scary business all the way around. You put a foot forward, seeking to know what God wants, and there's plenty of people out there ready to tell you. Funny thing is, once you really take the time to listen to what they have to tell you God wants, you realize God hasn't spoken to them, not at all.

Divine Inspiration isn't easy to figure out. I can't, myself, really. I can read certain books in the Bible and say, "Yes, this works." I can read others and say, "HUH?" Someone smarter than me read all this, and hopefully, ignored their own agenda long enough to say: "This will have value in another day beyond my own."

I can't tell you where the baby is, or was, or if the baby existed. I can only tell you what makes sense to me. And there isn't much that does.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

An interesting point. I look at David Koresh, and read what he said, compare it to what I read in the Bible, and know Koresh is a liar. Ditto Jones and Roberts.

To dig just a little deeper, I will remoind you that my question was not 'how do you pick out today's kooks', it was 'how do you know that the folks who wrote the Bible wren't kooks'. I.e. how do you know that your yardstick for comparison is accurate?

Cheers,

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Divine Inspiration isn't easy to figure out. I can't, myself, really. I can read certain books in the Bible and say, "Yes, this works." I can read others and say, "HUH?" Someone smarter than me read all this, and hopefully, ignored their own agenda long enough to say: "This will have value in another day beyond my own."

So then, your own internal standard is really the one you're using. If this is the case, what good is the yardstick, the Bible, for figuring out God's will? Wouldn't Moby Dick work just as well? Keep what you like, discard what you don't?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I would suggest, in light of several recent threads, that there is a difference between Rational Faith, which requires a strong adherence to Fact, and Rationalized Faith, which requires Personal Revelation.
Dang, Toad, I'm starting to feel bad for you.

I don't know how to say this without sounding arrogant, but the only way you can retain a Rational Faith is if you remain ignorant. We now have at hand enough facts to make any faith irrational (even if we can't prove it false).

You are trying very hard to retain something of value, while still accepting truth. This is quite noble. Unfortunately, it is also futile.

The only truths the Bible holds are the same truths that all stories told by people hold: truths about people. The insight into human nature, the relationship between power and responsiblity, good and evil, and other human concerns that you gleaned from the Bible are still worth keeping: but you could have got all that from Tolstoy or Hemingway.

The physical truths of the Bible are without merit whatsoever. Even its history is so distorted as to be virtually worthless.

If you follow this path of Rationalism very far, you will inevitably have to surrender faith. If you had been born even 50 years ago this would not be the case: like Shaeffer, you could still hold out that personality and consciousness might be gifts of God, and you wouldn't be irrational. But that was 50 years ago. :( The God of the Gaps is dead, squeezed to death by science answering the last of the questions that really matter to us.

The only comfort I can offer is that the Christian story, however beautiful it seems to you now, isn't really very pretty. Ultimately the idea that everything we do on Earth is just some kind of shadow-play, some kindergarten that will fade into insignificance after the first few billion years in Heaven, renders life far less meaningful than the pitiful dregs of meaning the existiantialists offer us. When you have completed your journey, I think you will understand that. Making our own meaning might not be very much, but its better than nothing.


My father went through this very same crisis. At one point he was complaining to me about some silly person at his Bible study group, who had asserted that we come back in Heaven as "points of light." Dad started flipping through his Bible, asking her what her references were for that claim, and she just said, "Oh, it's just what I believe." He was most annoyed at her silliness. I laughed at Dad and told him, if you keep on with that kind of rational inquiry, in 20 years you will be me. He didn't think that was funny, and the next time we talked, he had decided that the Bible could not be read without "spiritual discernment." In other words, he just gave up.


Again, I don't mean to sound arrogant, but lots of people have been down this path before, and it only ends in one of two ways: you lose all faith, or you abandon the path. All the things your fellow Christians taught you are false. I know this is an incredible claim, but eventually you will see it is true. I know a number of otherwise intelligent people who just can't believe that all of it was a lie, and yet everytime they put any one fact to the test, it fails. It's very hard to dig out from under so much fluff, but once you do, you realize just how deep it all was. Case in point: my fundy engineer at work came in one day, laughing about how silly Catholics are for believing that Mary was also a virgin birth. Now from his perspective, this makes sense: nowhere in the Bible does it even hint at such a thing, this is something Catholic theologians invented. On the other hand, the rest of us couldn't stop laughing: after all, once you have accepted one virgin birth, really, what's so incredible about two? He didn't get it - he just didn't get it, even when we explained. He was that ingrained in his world-view that he couldn't even see the other side. Because if he could, then his own natural rationalism would destroy his faith: if he could understand why any virgin births at all is just as incredible as two virgin births, then his faith is doomed. Because every single religious fact turns out to be just like that.

Recognizing that the Bible has no validity whatsoever is a big step in dismantling all that supposed authority. A shocking step, too, I would imagine.


In case it wasn't obvious, kudos to you for what you've done so far, and cheers from the peanut gallery.

[thaiboxerken]

Since when is belief in mythology rational in any sense?

[thaiboxerken]

To our Western minds, reared on the Hollywood version of so much =
history, the Crusades mean noble knights rescuing damsels in distress. =
Oy vey -- is that ever a lie.=20

Now, it's true that there were knights, and there were kings, and there =
was a chivalric ideal. And that King Richard the Lionhearted, a Crusade =
leader, (who was incidentally one of the worst kings England ever had) =
was definitely a macho warrior. But that's pretty much where it ends.=20

The Crusades turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage, and =
woe to the poor Jews in the way. Indeed, the Crusades mark the first =
large-scale mob violence directed against Jews which is going to become, =
unfortunately, the pattern for the next hundreds of years. The later =
pogroms are just going to be a repeat of this idea.=20

The Jews were not the only -- and in fact, not the primary -- victims of =
the Crusaders. Muslims were. If you're a student of Islamic history, you =
know that a large part of the reason why the Arab world is today the way =
it is has to do with the Crusades. All the brutality directed toward =
them devastated the Arab peoples economically, made the Arab world very =
closed, and contributed to Arab hatred of the West.=20

(Why do Arabs paint the doors of their houses blue to this day? To ward =
off the evil eye. Why blue? One explanation is that it was the color of =
the blue-eyed northern Europeans that came to slay them.)

There were altogether ten Crusades covering a swath of time between the =
11th through the 13th centuries:

a.. The First Crusade, 1095-1099, saw the taking of Jerusalem from the =
Muslims, the slaughter of both the Muslim and Jewish populations of the =
city, and the establishment of the Crusader-run Latin Kingdom of =
Jerusalem (which lasted only until 1187).=20
b.. The Second Crusade, 1147-1149, was organized to help the =
Christians to recover lands which they lost to the Turks, but it ended =
in dismal failure.=20
c.. The Third Crusade 1189-1192 was organized after Saladin, the =
Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem. This is the Crusade in which King =
Richard the Lionhearted figured. It was a failure.=20
d.. The Fourth Crusade, 1202-1204, saw the capture of Constantinople, =
which at the time was occupied by Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodox =
Christians, who did not recognize the authority of the Roman Pope.=20
e.. The Children's Crusade, 1212, sent thousands of children for the =
Holy Land, where they were captured by Muslims only to be sold as slaves =
or to die of hunger or disease.=20
f.. The Fifth Crusade, 1217-21, was aimed at Egypt, but failed.=20
g.. Four more Crusades mounted in the 13th century failed to reverse =
the Muslim gains. In 1291 the last Crusader stronghold at Acco fell.
That's the picture in a nutshell. Now we can look in greater detail at =
the aspects of the Crusades which most impacted on the Jews.

(For anyone interested in knowing more about specific Crusades, the =
authoritative source is a book by H.E. Mayer, called The Crusades, =
published Oxford University Press.)=20



http://lists.laplaza.org/pipermail/judahephraim/2003-May/000307.html

[Ladewig]

Add to this something else I've said before: when I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.

You assert that living by Christian Scripture is better than living by no Scripture at all. How do you know that following Christian Scripture is better than following Islamic Scripture or Buddist Scripture or Hindu Scripture or Zoroastrian Scripture? Wouldn't a rational approach require at least trying these other beliefs to see if they pass the "Yes-this-works" test?

[Loki]

RoadToad,

Add to this something else I've said before: when I live by what I read in Scripture, things work. When I don't, things don't work.
This exact point comes up often in discussions with 'believers' - StamenFlicker and Christian have also said the same thing to me (in different words) - that they believe "success in live" is directly linked to their "faith". When they move away from the scripture, then they feel that "bad things" start to happen.

Can I just say that I *don't* believe this is a true statement. It's the *exact* same justification given for homeopathy, etc.

1. I'm sick
2. I do 'X'
3. I get better
4. 'X' must have been the cure.

Sorry, but I think your simply 'pattern matching" in the exact same way that believers in other such belief systems do.

I've often wondered whether this is - at least in part - a result of you living within a society that so heavily weights thinks against the "unbeliever". SUrely in Anerica, with it's trong christian emphasis throughout society, it 'adds pressure' to your life to go against the majority opinion, and it "makes it easier" to conform. Of course, it's much more complex that what I've jsut written above, but I do wonder if you'd feel so strongly that "when I live by what I read in Scripture, things work" if you lived in a country that applied less indirect pressure to the topic of religion!

Here in Australia general society doesn't seem to have much of a religious 'bias' at all, and I seem to see 'success' and 'failure' in life pretty much spread across the religious spectrum - I know some pretty damn mixed up atheists, and some very together theists. And the opposites, as well. Really, I struggle to find much correlation one way or the other between "well-socialised/together/happy" and "religious".

[Roadtoad]

That's an interesting point both you and Laedewig make, Loki. I suppose the real question is what do you consider success, I guess, in this situation. In my case, I consider success to be better relationships with my wife and sons, and with my friends. Perhaps this is due to, as you say, a certain preexpectation.

On the other hand, I have to wonder about this in light of the failure of my first marriage, (when I wasn't a believer in much of anything). Maybe there's more to be examined.

Don't be feeling sorry for me. I have to ask these questions. I'm not expecting to enjoy this process, nor am I expecting to like the answers. If you have any honesty in your heart, you have to take this road.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If you're a student of Islamic history, you =
know that a large part of the reason why the Arab world is today the way it is has to do with the Crusades.
The Mongols had at least as much to do with the destruction of Arab society as the Crusades did. Not to excuse Christian terrorism in any way, just pointing out that it took more than a few hundred thousand psychotic Bible-thumpers to break the morale of the Islamic world.

[Ladewig]

Laedewig
Just when I think I have seen all possible misspellings of my name, along comes another. How foolish I am to think the list is finite.

[Fun2BFree]

What you are seem to be doing is trying to find rational reasons for doing what you do..that is lead a rational life...if you do that you will find that the Bible and theology are pretty useless..you are always checking what they say against rationality and evidence and fact...if you really are hoping to live a life based on those things as the final PROOF-then all else falls away.

There really is nothing about Christian or Bible based approaches that you are advocating vs The Falwell/Robertson/Koresh, etc type vs Islamic fundamentalist terror vs Jewish reform vs any religion that distinguish them from each other as bases for truth...they are all belief systems grounded on faith that the belief system is correct----when you start to say one is better than another you will find that process is only possible by resorting to reason and logic that is independent of any belief in a Supreme Being or any faith based system whatsoever....faith answers a human need for order where there is none, but it is not based on anything in the Real World.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ladewig

Just when I think I have seen all possible misspellings of my name, along comes another. How foolish I am to think the list is finite.

Oops. Sorry...

[Roadtoad]

Just an observation, and it probably doesn't have much to do with anything:

I find some of the most useful and interesting posts here are from people who once believed, and now do not. I've gained some pretty strong insights from this.

What I've found interesting, though, is that there are NO Christians besides myself posting here, unless I missed something. Odd.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If you're a student of Islamic history, you know that a large part of the reason why the Arab world is today the way it is has to do with the Crusades. All the brutality directed toward them devastated the Arab peoples economically, made the Arab world very closed, and contributed to Arab hatred of the West.


A larger part, however, would be from:

a. Stagation of Ottoman leadership during the 18th and 19th Cents.
b. The British and French mapping faiscos after WW I.

[BobM]

I find some of the most useful and interesting posts here are from people who once believed, and now do not. I've gained some pretty strong insights from this.

I don't post here much, but I lurk.

I've gone all the way round. I was raised catholic; though I don't think I ever really believed, so much as I mimicked the people I was around. Around age 10 or so, I simply stopped attending church and what-not. Spent 20 years as an athiest, and then converted to christianity.

...of course, it's only been about 10 months, and I'm once again battling with myself. Not in the same way as before.

My problem is this: if I truly belief, why do I make so many compromises? If I believe, shouldn't I be devoting my life to futhering the cause of christianity? I feel no urge to do so, whatsoever.

For a believer, isn't any compromise really an expression of unbelief?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Just an observation, and it probably doesn't have much to do with anything:

I find some of the most useful and interesting posts here are from people who once believed, and now do not. I've gained some pretty strong insights from this.

What I've found interesting, though, is that there are NO Christians besides myself posting here, unless I missed something. Odd.

How many Christians are as thoughtful and willing as you , Roadtoad, to probe their own beliefs enough to even visit the JREF much less post or read its forums? I don't know the answer but an educated guess would be- not many.

[Fun2BFree]

I would like to address the whole notion of success coming out of belief...
the first problem is defining success and when the person making the definition is the one whose success is being judged instantly their is inherent bias...

the other problem is methodologic:

Another analogy:

A guy goes to a casino using his "system" which brings him "success"--let us just say we all agree that success is that he is enough ahead that it is worth his time to go to the casino...now if his method is that he uses the color of the dealer's hair to determine at which table to place his bets and the time of day to determine the size of his bets and at the end of the day he is coming out ahead - does this provide any proof that his system is working...that it is the right system. There are all sorts of reasons from science/math/probability to explain why this system is not correct and yet it "works" for this guy. Which proves that judging the success of the system based on limited experience is a flawed way to get at the value of a gambling (or a belief) system... this is called anecdotal evidence and from the analogy given it should be clear why such evidence is not reliable...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Just an observation, and it probably doesn't have much to do with anything:

I find some of the most useful and interesting posts here are from people who once believed, and now do not. I've gained some pretty strong insights from this.

"I've been down that lonely road."

[Loki]

bobm,

For a believer, isn't any compromise really an expression of unbelief?
Interesting concept! Can you give an example of a 'compromise' you've made recently?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Loki
bobm,


Interesting concept! Can you give an example of a 'compromise' you've made recently?

Ask any Christian with any integrity, Loki, and you'll find we've all made compromises. That, Amigo, is one of my biggest headaches in this. (Damn, I didn't even get to introduce that part of this!)

It's like this: Paul didn't go around making grand speeches, telling people about the joys of knowing Jesus. Truth to tell, he spent most of his time making tents. (The Book of Acts was really little more than the highlights of the missionary journeys Paul took.) The point was, he chose to LIVE what it was he believed, and that was what made it possible for him to talk to people about Christ. There's ample evidence that he took collections for people who were genuinely suffering, and that he went out of his way to help.

But, if you listen to most pastors today, it's become a headhunting session. Go out, and bring 'em in. (If they stay, maybe they'll tithe, I guess is the mentality.) The problem is, what am I being brought in for? Much of the time, you run into these cliques, (and yes, cliques are nothing more than a form of mental abuse), most of which are gathered around the pastor. You have this wall around the "most important man in the Church." In fact, it's become McChurch. (Come to the sign of the Golden Crosses!)

Problem is, if you read the Bible, the most important person in the Church may not even be in attendance. This is the shutaway, the injured, the sick, the imprisoned, the homeless... Central to the Gospel is the ideal that we are to be tending to the genuine material needs of the community!

As a Christian, I am supposed to be manning the kitchen at the homeless shelter. I am supposed to be volunteering at the local AIDS Foundation. I am supposed to be helping the prisoners learn to read. I am supposed to be doing what we're now paying our local, state, and Federal bureaucrats to do for us. PREACHING THE GOSPEL IS THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING WE'RE CALLED TO DO! You do that only AFTER you have earned the right to be heard.

In church after church, I volunteered to start food closets, I tried to get people to help out with the local social service agencies, I tried to talk people into starting a job bank... I read the Gospel and found something I could do. This was Life and Living: To give of myself, and to make life better for another. I could bring joy to those who had none, food to those who lacked, another chance to those who were seeking one...

This made sense to me. This was something I could do that took me outside of my selfish attitudes, and brought good things to others. Why else do you live, except to make life better for another?

But there was always an excuse why OUR church couldn't do those things. (I've already mentioned this before, I so I won't bore you with this again.) So I moved on, looking for ways to help others. I'm not part of an organized church, anymore, it seems. Who the hell wants a broken down trucker, who wants to help guys sitting in Folsom Prison learn how to read and write? Or help the homeless and hungry find food? (I actually had a minister ask me, "Do you know what kind of people go to food closets?" My answer: "Hungry people." He was not amused.)

That was what I got out of the Bible. Maybe I missed something.

[Fun2BFree]

I volunteered to start food closets, I tried to get people to help out with the local social service agencies, I tried to talk people into starting a job bank... I read the Gospel and found something I could do. This was Life and Living: To give of myself, and to make life better for another. I could bring joy to those who had none, food to those who lacked, another chance to those who were seeking one...

This made sense to me. This was something I could do that took me outside of my selfish attitudes, and brought good things to others. Why else do you live, except to make life better for another?

And why does any of this require belief in God or Jesus or any religious doctrine or book???? If you think this is the best way to live presumable that is based on some real world evidence that this leads to real world "positive" outcomes....so again...why do you need a book or a God or a saviour to motivate you to do that which makes "sense" to you?

[BobM]

Interesting concept! Can you give an example of a 'compromise' you've made recently?

Really, anything you do that doesn't 'advance' the faith is a compromise with unbelief.

Posting in this forum. Reading science fiction (Vernor Vinge writes the _best_ aliens.) Playing video games.

As Roadtoad says shouldn't we be out doing the "good work?" Helping people, spreading the word, saving souls, and what-ever.

My church does have a food-bank and is engaged in some volunteer work, but nothing major. For the most part, my fellow church-goers are just like everyone else: looking out for number one.

But if you truly believe, in every way possible, that the (christian) Bible is the Word of God; why would you engage in these passing things? (I'm asking that question of my self.)

My first answer was: I'm selfish.

Then I thought... but how can I remain selfish if I believe all this? The only answer I can see is this: I don't. The selfish part is the doubting part. The part that says: why waste my time? I can't make a difference. What if my belief is a mistake? Why not do the things I enjoy? Why risk wasting my life on this?

[Yahzi]

Roadtoad
(I actually had a minister ask me, "Do you know what kind of people go to food closets?" My answer: "Hungry people." He was not amused.)
:D :D :D

If it's any consolation, if I believed that Jesus was an actual real person, I would be convinced that this is exactly the answer he would have given to that question.


BobM
Have you ever considered the possiblity that the system is designed to force you to compromise? As Road said, you can't speak until you've earned the right, and the rules are set up so you can't ever actually achieve the right. Thus... you never get to speak, which means you never get to contradict the preacher.

No matter what you do or say, the preacher can always respond: "Have you walked on water yet? No? Then be silent."

Nice set-up, eh?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


And why does any of this require belief in God or Jesus or any religious doctrine or book???? If you think this is the best way to live presumable that is based on some real world evidence that this leads to real world "positive" outcomes....so again...why do you need a book or a God or a saviour to motivate you to do that which makes "sense" to you?

Obviously it doesn't. There are people who do this sort of work all the time. But if you'll look a little more closely at what I wrote, you'll realize this is supposed to be a central tenet of what makes someone Christian.

I could, I suppose, start listing the Book, Chapter, and Verse which covers all this. I didn't do so out of respect for you. (Again, that was supposed to be another tenet of the Faith. Those I encountered were to be treated with the greatest respect.) My thought was that a Christian had a particular duty to follow this particular... I don't know, discipline?

Having been liberated from sin, you had an obligation, even if it isn't necessarily spelled out, to bring blessings to others. That made sense.

True, I don't need to do this just because God/Jesus says I ought to. This makes sense. Lots of people don't. For me, though, this seemed to be the ideal direction at a time when I had little else really that made my life complete.

(P.S.: Thanks, Yahzi. :D )

[Fun2BFree]

It has always been fairly clear to me that to be a Christian one has to believe in Christ...as you already said...the stuff about Christianity that appeals to you is possible without such a belief...so again it begs the question-what is the point of being a Christian---since this is not getting through from this side either I will spell it out as clearly as I can----If it is it possible to do all those things that you say are central to being a christian without the belief in Christ how can doing those things/behaving in that way be said to be central to being a christian? That cannot be the thing that defines being a christian...

If you keep justifying what is right by what makes sense for your fellow man independent of whether Jesus is for or against it that seems to me to be not the central part of being a christian....If you think that all behaviour is defined as good or bad based on what JC says about it then that is being a christian...Jesus is the way, the truth,etc...all for the glory of GOd or because God says soo....BUT if sense and sensibility and how it affects your fellow man are what guide you -then it ultimately can't be Christianity-if Christ is unnecessary...I won;t quote you chapter and verse but What is that verse in John always showing up at sporting events say about it???

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
It has always been fairly clear to me that to be a Christian one has to believe in Christ...as you already said...the stuff about Christianity that appeals to you is possible without such a belief...so again it begs the question-what is the point of being a Christian---since this is not getting through from this side either I will spell it out as clearly as I can----If it is it possible to do all those things that you say are central to being a christian without the belief in Christ how can doing those things/behaving in that way be said to be central to being a christian? That cannot be the thing that defines being a christian...

Redemption. Plain and simple.

I've made some serious mistakes in my life. Some have cost me dearly. I did not expect that I would escape unscathed, but I thought that at some point, I could be forgiven.

Christianity offers forgiveness. Atheism does not.

I'm not saying I've been forgiven completely by other Christians. Believe me, I haven't. If anything, I've had my past repeatedly thrown in my face.

I'm also not saying that I've not been forgiven by atheists. Oddly enough, atheists tend to be more forgiving than most Christians.

I accept the idea of one God. I can't pinpoint why, but I'm trying to. I accept that there was in history an individual named Jesus who did what has been claimed of him. On that we disagree. You say there is no God, and Jesus was either a local myth, or a fraud. (Bear in mind, the Bible itself leaves out ANY notion that Jesus could simply have been a "good teacher.")

In what I accept, assuming there is an eternity, there is redemption. If God's word is true, then I have been forgiven by Him. If it's false, then the whole thing is a pack of lies, and it's been a waste, but at least I've tried to live a better life than I might otherwise have. True, I could have done so without a religious belief, but I question whether I would have or not. (I know myself too well.)

At some point, I'd like to think that I can redeem my past and make things better for someone else, even if all I can do is grab some kid who's on his way down and try to turn him around. I'd like to do more, but there are no guarantees in this life, regardless of what you choose to believe.

And no, Fun, I'm not here to jam my finger in your face. I've got too much respect for you.

[thaiboxerken]

People don't need anything other than themselves to forgive themselves and other people. No gods needed, no jesus or bible needed.

Christianity offers forgiveness while at the same time rendering guilt for the simple act of existing. Christianity teaches that all people are born sinners, and to constantly ask forgiveness for being born.

I don't care what the christian bible says, I won't grovel to some mythical dictator and plea for forgiveness because I exist.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Christianity offers forgiveness. Atheism does not.
But it does. Atheism has two forms of forgiveness.

One is jail. Once I've done my time, I'm done, and you can go f*** yourself.

The other way atheists forgive is they pay it forward. Whenever anyone has tried to thank me for a good deed, I have always just said: do the same for someone else.

Atheism requires the courage to forgive oneself. It's not easy, but when you add up all the wrongs done to you, it becomes clear that people as a class do a lot of wrong things. The goal is not to not do wrong (because that is impossible): the goal is to own up to what you've done and try to make amends where possible.

I can pretty much forgive anything if your response is, "Ya, I did that, I'm sorry, what do you want me to do about it?" What else can you ask for?

[Ladewig]

Redemption. Plain and simple.

I've made some serious mistakes in my life. Some have cost me dearly. I did not expect that I would escape unscathed, but I thought that at some point, I could be forgiven.

Christianity offers forgiveness. Atheism does not.

Christian view:
[list=1]
God created Adam and Eve,
who committed a very grave sin,
so grave that not only were they punished, all their descendents for all future generations are to be punished (including you),
but, forgiveness for this sin that you did not commit is available,
because the all-loving God had his son murdered for your sake,
so, drink some blood and eat some flesh and come on up to Heaven.
[/list=1]

I was born and raised a Christian and around age 33, I decided I just could hold all these ideas in my head at one time. If believing these six things makes you happy, then I offer you a hearty handshake and I wish you well. Just don't be surprised if some people look at you a bit askance if you try to describe it as rational.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Christian view:
[list=1]
God created Adam and Eve,
who committed a very grave sin,
so grave that not only were they punished, all their descendents for all future generations are to be punished (including you),
but, forgiveness for this sin that you did not commit is available,
because the all-loving God had his son murdered for your sake.
[/list=1]

I was born and raised a Christian and around age 33, I decided I just could hold all these ideas in my head at one time. If believing these five things makes you happy, then I offer you a hearty handshake and I wish you well.

Why do you need to be forgiven for something you didn't do? That's unjust, not to mention in contravention of common sense. Isn't God supposed to be just from the Christian perspective?

However, having recently finished Genesis, I find this God character to be a sadistic bastard who punishes entire cities for little or no apparent reason.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
People don't need anything other than themselves to forgive themselves and other people. No gods needed, no jesus or bible needed.

Christianity offers forgiveness while at the same time rendering guilt for the simple act of existing. Christianity teaches that all people are born sinners, and to constantly ask forgiveness for being born.

I don't care what the christian bible says, I won't grovel to some mythical dictator and plea for forgiveness because I exist.

I have to admit, Ken: You're rare. You put it out there as you see it without any apology. That, I can and do respect.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by c4ts


Why do you need to be forgiven for something you didn't do? That's unjust, not to mention in contravention of common sense. Isn't God supposed to be just from the Christian perspective?

However, having recently finished Genesis, I find this God character to be a sadistic bastard who punishes entire cities for little or no apparent reason.

And now, you're getting to the crux of my crisis...

[Loki]

c4ts,

Why do you need to be forgiven for something you didn't do?
It's a little more complex than this nowadays - you aren't apparently 'tainted' with original sin if (a) you die young enough or (b) you haven't heard of the gospels. These special kinds of humans are exempt from the need to pay for original sin. Original sin is sort of a special 18th birthday present from god. As you come 'of age' in any society in which the "good book" is availabe, god says "now I can punish you for events that occured thousands of years ago!" . Thanx god!

-------------------------------

Roadtoad,

And now, you're getting to the crux of my crisis...
I'm not sure if I really understand you - is your crisis "why do I need redemption?", or "why is god apparently so sadistic?"

I've made some serious mistakes in my life. Some have cost me dearly. I did not expect that I would escape unscathed, but I thought that at some point, I could be forgiven.

Christianity offers forgiveness. Atheism does not.
Christianity offers forgiveness in the next world for behaviour in this. Atheism (well, secular humanism) asks you to make amends in this world for behaviour in this. One system I can see and judge for myself here and now, the other I need to take on faith. One system attemtps to produce results here and now, the other doesn't really care.

Perhaps more importantly, does any compassionate person truly believe that if I (a) make a serious mistake in this life, and (b) make amends in this life that (c) I then deserve to be punished in the next? To me, atheism demands more of you now, can produce more results now, and isn't incompatible with a fair and just god!

[Ladewig]

Perhaps more importantly, does any compassionate person truly believe that if I (a) make a serious mistake in this life, and (b) make amends in this life that (c) I then deserve to be punished in the next?

Furthermore, even if you don't make amends, do you deserve to be punished for all eternity for this finite serious mistake?

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by c4ts

However, having recently finished Genesis, I find this God character to be a sadistic bastard who punishes entire cities for little or no apparent reason.

Yahweh is one of the worst deities in all of mythology.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Ladewig

Furthermore, even if you don't make amends, do you deserve to be punished for all eternity for this finite serious mistake?
Even Hitler doesn't deserve infinite punishment.

6,000,000 liftetimes of punishment, sure. But not infinite.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Loki
Roadtoad,
I'm not sure if I really understand you - is your crisis "why do I need redemption?", or "why is god apparently so sadistic?"

Christianity offers forgiveness in the next world for behaviour in this. Atheism (well, secular humanism) asks you to make amends in this world for behaviour in this. One system I can see and judge for myself here and now, the other I need to take on faith. One system attemtps to produce results here and now, the other doesn't really care.

Perhaps more importantly, does any compassionate person truly believe that if I (a) make a serious mistake in this life, and (b) make amends in this life that (c) I then deserve to be punished in the next? To me, atheism demands more of you now, can produce more results now, and isn't incompatible with a fair and just god!

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Loki. (And I just thought it was your sig!)

Your view of Atheism is compassionate, and kind. This was what I assumed Christianity was supposed to be, that we were to go beyond the law itself, and to the heart of what God's Laws were intended to create. In other words, you were to reach out to other in compassion, (remember, Scripture is clear that an Israelite was to treat the Sojourner in the land with respect and kindness), because you're not going to be here forever. Or, as said elsewhere, you get one life, and then the Judgement.

I was not a compassionate person prior to accepting Christianity. I could give my excuses for that, but they would be just that: excuses. Most of them would be worthless. From what I recall reading, I am to forgive in this world, because what I bind on Earth is bound in Heaven. Considering all the filth I've dumped on others in my life, I would just as soon leave that behind, thank you, and not just in the next life, but in this one as well. I would just as soon, should I ever get the chance to do so, be able to buy a round for those I knew in the past, and be able to look back on the errors of the past and go beyond them, rather than have that weigh anyone down in any way, shape or form.

I'm speaking from some experience here, in part because of a scoutmaster who got his kicks groping kids. (Who, by the way, was supposedly straight. Yeah, sure. Let's keep out gays from the Boy Scouts. That'll fix things! Dumbasses....) Hard as hell to let go of that in this life, much less for the next.

But I've had to. In part, because my parents at the time chose to ignore me, ("How could you say that about a colleague and friend of you father's!"), and now, no one knows where the SOB is anymore. In another part, because I had a son who was molested, and he needed me to be 100% for him. I had to put this on the back burner, and had to move on so I could be an asset to my son, rather than a liability. I also had help in this: my wife went through this, too, as a child.

This is not an easy subject. But this should be covered. And no, I don't have an easy answer for any of it.

On another note, this thread has gotten to the point where I practically need another day or two from when someone's posted before I answer. There's a lot to chew on here. Hope you don't mind. As I keep saying, I'm here to learn, not so much to chatter.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
no one knows where the SOB is anymore
And that's where you get your redemption. You look in the mirror and say, "But I'm still here: I'm not hiding: and if anybody calls me to account for what I have done, I will own up to it."

There isn't anything more you can do, and there isn't anything more you should do.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Yahzi

And that's where you get your redemption. You look in the mirror and say, "But I'm still here: I'm not hiding: and if anybody calls me to account for what I have done, I will own up to it."

There isn't anything more you can do, and there isn't anything more you should do.

And reading this just brought tears to my eyes.

Damn you, Yahzi.

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

I may not like the fact that my earliest ancestor had a small brain, and that he/she spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten, but that's what the facts say happened.

I have never understood why it should make any difference whether our hominid (and other) predecessors had "smaller brains". I had a smaller brain when I was born, yet I in no-wise rue the fact; it's just the way the universe works, since I couldn't spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus!

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I'm still working on it. It's not perfect, but I'm trying.

I'll put it like this: If I read a verse that makes sense, in light of what I've learned from other sources, then that's something I consider "rational." If archaeological evidence says there was a Jericho, and that certain events happened at that site, then, when I read through the Bible, that which jibes with what evidence has revealed is what I hold to. The rest of it, you lay aside.

So why use the Bible for anything at all? Why not simply depend on these other sources in the first place, since the Bible is so unreliable without these other sources? Even if the Bible does contain some historical accuracy (such as the names of ancient towns, etc.) that doesn't provide any indication of reliability. For example, I've just finished a book by Koontz that mentions Los Angeles, San diego, Santa Barbara, Lake Tahoe, and several other locales that I know do exist, but I can't therefore conclude that any of the plot details actually occured.

[Fun2BFree]

Road toad

what has happened to you and your life is terrible and I would wager that the SOB who molested was not an atheist...likely a God fearing Christian...because the problem is not in what you think it is in how you think--and faith based beliefs are founded on accepting what is in a book or your head or some combination and that way leads to abuse...

That you are still here is what it's all about---

We go on. Knowing there is no afterlife, no judgement, no big rulemaker in the sky to make it all right...we go on.

[St_Hereticus]

Roadtoad, you might get some insight from George Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God. He includes an excellent discussion of "rational faith".

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus
Roadtoad, you might get some insight from George Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God. He includes an excellent discussion of "rational faith".

Thanks. Sorry I didn't write back earlier, but things were pretty much going to hell around here. I'll look for that one at the library. (I believe our local branch has it.)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
what has happened to you and your life is terrible and I would wager that the SOB who molested was not an atheist...likely a God fearing Christian...

And, yes, he was.

[Yahzi]

George Smith's book is the one book I would ask a believer to read. My dad sent me books for years: finally, I sent him that one. I said, dad, if you only read one book on atheism, this is the book to read.

He never read it, of course. But he did stop sending me books.

[Finella]

Hi, Roadtoad --

Originally posted by Roadtoad

That was what I got out of the Bible. Maybe I missed something.

You didn't miss a thing. I remember as a teenager, I was questioning the whole Christian thing. Why, exactly, did Christ have to be nailed to a cross? What did that really have to do with anything? What was the point?

Around that time, my family wound up joining a church who lived to serve. Literally. A little plaque on the door to the church office said: "Jesus first, others next, yourself last." And the priest of that church often preached to serving Christ in every person. It was exactly what I needed to learn about God and faith at that point in my life. It seemed to me that faith was useless unless it motivated you to act -- that whole passage in James was my mantra: "What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill.' " I realized that the cross wasn't the important thing in Christianity, it was the sympathy, it was the empathy with those who suffer, and thus the willingness to love others.

It was through this experience that I realized what living as a true Christian was like. As I went to college I struggled with my career choice. How would my daily life serve others to the best of my ability? A long story short, I realized my calling to be a music therapist in a community hospital serving the mentally ill, homeless, and drug-addicted in the area. My job is part of my devotion to God, and a celebration of the gifts God has given to me. I also learn every day from the gifts that these troubled people have, too.

I think that, in some ways, yes, atheism can give you some of this assurance, but it's not structured in the same way as a healthy Christian faith is. (And, as you showed with your traumatic experience in the Scouts, just because someone thinks they are a Christian doesn't mean that 1) they actually are; and 2) that they have any of this understanding of how to be a healthy Christian.) I don't sense the depth of this kind of living (in faith) in an athiest view, either. So it doesn't seem to be of an equal quality. But I'm willing to be educated on that matter. :) I know that what I have found works for me, though.

Thanks for letting me share...

---,---'--{@

[Fun2BFree]

Nothing that Finella or Roadtoad has said is the positive part of God belief requires God at all---...scratch beneath what is being said and realize that when a value judgement is being made--regarding depth of existence or happiness or satisfaction it requires reasons to back it up--Reasons---something is good BECAUSE it does such and such...that is rational thinking and NOT faith...Faith would be it is good because I believe it...and it is true because I believe it to be...This is the starting point for evil because the truth or goodness is not subject to reason... that molestor can get fogiveness later...or claim to be doing God's work...but the rational atheist must always profligate himself before reason- which is outside the individuals control.....If people get comfort from believing in myths and superstitions and yet the mythical figure is non-existent then the strength and comfort derived must be realized to have come from within that person---that the individual has the power---just about every sitcom/TV show has an episode where a kid has magical amulet or luck charm that they believe allows them to play ball better or do something better...but by the end of the episode they lose the object or find out one way or another that they do just fine without the "magical" amulet...a good lesson that applies to faith mythology---the comfort and strength our ours...not a gift from Casper the Ghost in the sky....religion ultimately is a power play--to make us feel weak and helpless so we can be expoited by someone else---stop putting us down but realize both our true weaknesses (our inability to determine truth and reality only based on what we individuals believe-our need for independent verification--our need to test reality in as many ways possible) and recognize our true strengths (our resilience and our ability to carry on is a world where we know of our own death) THe religious view is upside down---it assumes our belief makes reality and our gifts are not our own but only given by some made up Godthing

[Finella]

Golly, I'm spending a lot of time here today... one last post... honest... :)

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Nothing that Finella or Roadtoad has said is the positive part of God belief requires God at all---...[snip]....religion ultimately is a power play--to make us feel weak and helpless so we can be expoited by someone else---stop putting us down but realize both our true weaknesses (our inability to determine truth and reality only based on what we individuals believe-our need for independent verification--our need to test reality in as many ways possible) and recognize our true strengths (our resilience and our ability to carry on is a world where we know of our own death) THe religious view is upside down---it assumes our belief makes reality and our gifts are not our own but only given by some made up Godthing

"The positive part of God belief" absolutely requires God -- but I can't prove that it is God to you, so perhaps that is why I haven't tried explaining it. I experience God every day, always have, and I hope I always will, but that may change, who knows. I practice contemplative prayer -- meditative silence -- and try to simply be present with God, and I feel that I am. It's one of the ways I experience God every day. But to people who don't believe God exists, this is not something I can prove, and I don't intend to try.

My experience with God is that God shows me how wonderful I am -- not how weak and helpless I am! I may feel weak and helpless about myself, but through God's eyes, I see that I actually am a good and strong person who can learn through my mistakes, and who can continually grow into a better person. I was not raised in a faith tradition that taught me humanity was inherently evil -- quite the contrary, I was taught that humanity forgot that it was created and loved by God, and thus became evil.

Part of what helps me carry on in a difficult world is the sense that God is there and ultimately All is Well. I know others don't require a god to be there, and they seem happy. All I can say is that to be true to myself, I know God is there in my experience.

Sorry if this detracts from the original question... but I wonder, Roadtoad, if your definition of Personal Revelation, which you say is the crux of Rationalized Faith, is what I am describing above. If so, it seems that you view this as a negative way to experience belief. If it is not the same, I'd like to know what you think the difference between my "personal revelation" and the PR you describe in your first post. Just curious what you think.

---,---'--{@

[Fun2BFree]

Finella-

How is God in your life any different than a magical amulet which gives the believer in it the same positive feelings you describe...in other words...is it not possible that everything that you give God credit for providing exists without God? Before you say no only God makes it possible because you just know it-please spare me that sort of nonsense...you have already said you cannot prove it to someone who does not believe--it is a non-proveable situation that depends on faith...and so you have to allow that it is POSSIBLE that all of it exists independent of God..that the existence of God is not a requirement or a pre-requisite for anything you said....if God does not exist--(as is the overwhelming likelihood given available evidence---just as many things like dragons, unicorns, etc. can be said to be nonexistent) If God does not exist- can people be happy and deep and satisfied??? The answer is yes....so you cannot rationally say that the things you say are the positive part of God belief actually require that God really exists....GOd and God belief is not necessary for people to live full, deep, satisfied, happy lives...and I would say in general the evidence supports the proposition that God beliefs in general have been an impediment in the way of full, deep, satisfied and happy lives for millions.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Finella
I experience God every day, always have, and I hope I always will, but that may change, who knows. I practice contemplative prayer -- meditative silence -- and try to simply be present with God, and I feel that I am. It's one of the ways I experience God every day---(snip)
Part of what helps me carry on in a difficult world is the sense that God is there and ultimately All is Well. All I can say is that to be true to myself, I know God is there in my experience.


So from your own subjective experience the reality of the universe must be as you describe it...it cannot be any other way? It is all about you and what you know and feel, apparently... If you feel that it is so...then it must be so? Wow- no wonder you feel strong and powerful with such a belief...it is the same sense of power Mohammad Atta got from his belief and the Crusaders got from their belief as they slaughtered non-believers...(by the way Finella- I don't mean to attack you personally but you as a representative of a belief system that has been shown to be devoid of reason and divorced from the real universe/world and has reigned havoc and disaster and destruction on the real world.)

Sorry--but while there is a difference in WHAT you think, there is no difference between you and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in HOW you think....it all comes down to what feels good or right to YOU--and therein lies the problem with faith.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Finella
"The positive part of God belief" absolutely requires God -- but I can't prove that it is God to you, so perhaps that is why I haven't tried explaining it. ---,---'--{@
I think (but am not certain) that what Fun is trying to say is that it is in fact possible to expierence that positive part without possessing a belief in God. Certainly some Buddhists feel the same way, without believing in anything resembling God.

This may be the only way you can experience it, which is why I still support freedom of religion. All we atheists are asking is that you recognize that it doesn't mean it's true, or more to the point, it doesn't mean that it will work that way for everyone.

The Christian who explains the altruistic atheist and the Buddhist by saying, "God works in mysterious ways," is the kind of Christian that a secular, rational society can sustain. It's the ones that explain why the God of Love requires us to stone homosexuals with that passage that secular, rational society must be forever at war with.

One stance is inclusive, and the other is exclusive. If I could summon up Roadtoad's position in one sentence, it would be: Christianity should not be used to exclude.

[Loki]

Finella,

It was through this experience that I realized what living as a true Christian was like.
We're probably not going to agree on this of course, I think you've got it backwards! There is no true christian way to live. You *know* how you want to live, what values you want to express through your life, and you assign the label "christian" to them. The exact same values can be found without the label. Perhaps more importantly, other people will apply entirely different values to the exact same label!!

I realized that the cross wasn't the important thing in Christianity, it was the sympathy, it was the empathy with those who suffer, and thus the willingness to love others
These values are neither intriniscally christian, or exclusively christian.

[Finella]

Dearest Fun,

I think you are misreading me, and I ask for your patience as I try to explain.

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

So from your own subjective experience the reality of the universe must be as you describe it...it cannot be any other way? It is all about you and what you know and feel, apparently... If you feel that it is so...then it must be so? Wow- no wonder you feel strong and powerful with such a belief...it is the same sense of power Mohammad Atta got from his belief and the Crusaders got from their belief as they slaughtered non-believers...

If you go back, you will see that I personalize all of my statements for the very purpose of not generalizing to others. I do not know that my "subjective experience" is the true reality of the universe. I do not know that "it is all about what [I] know and feel." Do not make these assumptions of me.

It is precisely this reason why I find it fruitless to explain my experience of God to others -- why I find God necessary to my life. My words never do it justice, and I don't want to come off sounding as if I have all the answers -- I know darn well that I don't. I've never pretended that I did.

It is this which keeps me humble. I know God is far wiser than I, and while I know I am good and loved, I know that I am still human. I know I am very capable of making mistakes. Therefore, I pray and make decisions carefully, sometimes asking others of my faith for help in big decisions.


(by the way Finella- I don't mean to attack you personally but you as a representative of a belief system that has been shown to be devoid of reason and divorced from the real universe/world and has reigned havoc and disaster and destruction on the real world.)

Interesting... but why the comparison to Atta, then? Are you really trying that hard to get a rise out of me? ;)

Sorry--but while there is a difference in WHAT you think, there is no difference between you and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in HOW you think....it all comes down to what feels good or right to YOU--and therein lies the problem with faith.
I think there is a vast difference. I think there may be some similarities between fundamentalist members of any faith, certainly. But I am not a fundy, and I never claim to know the mind of God.
---,---'--{@

[Finella]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I think (but am not certain) that what Fun is trying to say is that it is in fact possible to expierence that positive part without possessing a belief in God. Certainly some Buddhists feel the same way, without believing in anything resembling God.
An interesting point. And I might someday become a Buddhist, or at least come to believe in that approach to existence. And, Ken Wilber seems to think that a Buddhist view of things is a higher developed spirituality than a Christian one. Hm.

This may be the only way you can experience it, which is why I still support freedom of religion. All we atheists are asking is that you recognize that it doesn't mean it's true, or more to the point, it doesn't mean that it will work that way for everyone.
I think this can be the case. I want to believe that everyone is capable of experiencing God, but I know that even if that were true, it would not be in the same way as my experience of God. But, as you quote other Christians, "God works in mysterious ways," and this is the joy of discovering how God works; what are all the facets of God? How is that expressed in creation? It's not always in the way we hope or expect.

The Christian who explains the altruistic atheist and the Buddhist by saying, "God works in mysterious ways," is the kind of Christian that a secular, rational society can sustain. It's the ones that explain why the God of Love requires us to stone homosexuals with that passage that secular, rational society must be forever at war with.

One stance is inclusive, and the other is exclusive. If I could summon up Roadtoad's position in one sentence, it would be: Christianity should not be used to exclude.

Absolutely. Ideally, Christianity should be used to explore the nature of existence and to treasure all that we have.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,


We're probably not going to agree on this of course,
Now what makes you say that? :D

I think you've got it backwards! There is no true christian way to live. You *know* how you want to live, what values you want to express through your life, and you assign the label "christian" to them. The exact same values can be found without the label. Perhaps more importantly, other people will apply entirely different values to the exact same label!!

These values are neither intriniscally christian, or exclusively christian.

These values were taught to me in the context of my faith, so my associations with them are, naturally, Christian. Jesus as a model of these values is still, often, the way that I think of them. Other people will attach different values to them because they were raised in a different "brand" of Christianity. I think part of the problem with calling me a representative of Christianity (as Fun seems to think) is that I am a member of a very small, very liberal Christian denomination -- even compared to other churches in the US! In the world, my "brand" of faith is very rare. So, perhaps it would better to call me a liberal Christian, or even just an Episcopalian.

For the record, I never said that these values were exclusively Christian, but personally, based on how I was taught to be a Christian, I feel there is an ideal Christian life, yes, and I realize that not every Christian would see it that way. Thus is the reality of diverse human life!

---,---'--{@

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Finella
Dearest Fun,
If you go back, you will see that I personalize all of my statements for the very purpose of not generalizing to others. I do not know that my "subjective experience" is the true reality of the universe. I do not know that "it is all about what [I] know and feel." Do not make these assumptions of me.


Then you go on to say-



Originally posted by Finella
I know God is far wiser than I, and while I know I am good and loved, I know that I am still human. I know I am very capable of making mistakes. Therefore, I pray and make decisions carefully, sometimes asking others of my faith for help in big decisions.

You KNOW an awful lot that is completely unsubstantiated and not knowable in the sense that a rational person comes to knowledge--everything you state that you know is nothing more than what you have told yourself in your head...like Atta, and Jim Jones, and Koresh, and any neighborhood psychotic person...you happen to arrive at answers to the question that I think any rational person could arrive at without God....and that any rational person should arrive at---the answers are "correct" but the way you got the answer is flawed...remember when you had to "show your work" in a math problem...so the teacher could be sure you were arriving at the answer using a valid method....revealed truth, truth handed down to you as Christian values, your interpretation of the Bible...those are not valid methods and can be shown to be invalid methods over the centuries they have existed because so much of that methodology has led to the WRONG answers....rationality--free from the need to invoke Supreme Beings is still the best path to the RIGHT answers...so my comparison to Atta was not meant to get a rise out of you...it was meant to show you that you are not different in your methodology of thinking IF you think that the truth is arrived at through faith and not reason...

[Finella]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

so my comparison to Atta was not meant to get a rise out of you...it was meant to show you that you are not different in your methodology of thinking IF you think that the truth is arrived at through faith and not reason...

I do not exclude logic from my faith like some do. It is because of that that I came to this thread -- I wondered about Roadtoad's explanation of Rational Faith, which I believe I can relate to. Because I do incorporate reason into my faith, I do believe it is different than Atta's or any other kind of fundamentalist faith's way of exploring truth.

[Finella]

Oh, and btw....

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

"I know God is far wiser than I, and while I know I am good and loved, I know that I am still human. I know I am very capable of making mistakes."

You KNOW an awful lot that is completely unsubstantiated and not knowable in the sense that a rational person comes to knowledge--everything you state that you know is nothing more than what you have told yourself in your head

Oh, like I'm human and make mistakes?? Everything I said is completely unsubstantiated? Sheesh... I had no idea, all this time I thought I was a member of homo sapiens....:)

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Finella


I do not exclude logic from my faith like some do.

This statement alone proves my point--you have created in your own mind a nonsensical unrealistic position that you claim to hold and yet it is not possible...Logic and faith are not compatible. Period. Faith is belief without evidence..logic is the application of reasondon't take my word for it, read about this topoc whicj has been thouroughly covered by numerous great scholars and philosophers including those who chose the path of faith over reason...Immanuel Kant being the most famous....try reading Critique of Pure Reason...you either are applying logic or faith---not both. it is not possible. When you say you are different from Atta it is that you apply logic to how you live not in your faith but in the things you choose to believe...in other words faith is not necessary--and in Atta's example it is destructive...

This is the whole point...if (as you should)you are going to use logic as the ultimate determination of what is right and just (thou shalt not kill--okay; thou shalt stone nonbelievers to death--forget that one---) then just skip the whole Supreme Being nonsense and apply reason all the time.

[Yahzi]

Finella
If you can get past the sharp edges in Fun's posts, he has a point. (Ed: yes I know, pot kettle black, hush up now).

Faith only has a role if reason is insufficient to understand the universe.

Your response might be that some truths are too complicated to ever fully know, and can only be hinted at. Artistic truths are the typical example: beauty, etc. However, one does not need faith to appreciate art: simple reason will do.

So Fun's point, that faith is simply superflous, is correct - unless you cripple reason. But if you assert that some things require faith because reason cannot go there... in a few short steps you will be back at Dogma City. If reason does not arbitrate over all truths, then force will.

If you don't stick with reason all the way, then sooner or later you come to a point where reason can't be the arbiter, and then force becomes the deciding factor by default. If you do stick with reason all the way, then you don't need faith for anything.

And no, don't try reading Critique of Pure Reason. Dull and incomprehensible, all at the same time.

[Finella]

Hello, Fun and Yahzi...

I wanted you to know that your points are well-taken, and that I will need time to produce a response which I feel will do justice to the ideas I'm trying to convey. Are either of you familiar with Ken Wilber? I'm going to try to succinctly explain some of his theories, but Wilber is not known for being succinct himself, so this is going to be quite a task. :P I can't even refer you to his website, since it seems that in order to understand even the most basic of the articles there, one has to have read some of his work.

Hang in there... I'll get this out in the next couple days...

---,--'--{@

[triadboy]

Finella,

This also relates to discussions we've had on other threads. You do seem to reject logic in your faith.

[Yahzi]

Ken Wilber

I struggled mightly to not let his absurd vocabulary prejudice my understanding of his philosophy. Then I came across this quote:

the "Great Nest" is actually just a vast morphogenetic field of potentials

He's just another woo-woo head spouting terminology at terminal velocity, hoping you won't notice that it either doesn't mean anything, or refers to concepts so stupid they can't stand critical scrutiny. For instance, morphogenetic fields have been utterly and completely discredited, but it's so buried in all his gibberish that his reference to it might pass unnoticed.


Another example:

Here is an example from natural science: let us say that we are a "Martian scientist" watching life evolve on Earth. We see quarks emerge, then atoms, then molecules. And then, in a few rare instances, we see molecules gather together into cells.

The problem here is that the origin of life on Earth has nothing to do with the origin of quarks or atoms. I realize this is just an example he is trying to describe: but no credible scientist, or even layman with a credible scientific education, would make such confused statement. Even I (emperor of the strained analogy) would never think to link quarks to the origin of life. The most telling evidence is that bringing in quarks and atoms is not necessary: his example would have been fine without them. So why include them?

Because he slings terminology like hash, without any particular concern for what it actually means. Like any good woo-woo, he can't go for more than a page without referring to quantum physics, despite his complete and total lack of understanding of quantum physics.

Read anything by a real scientist: Steven Wienberg, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Steven J. Gould, Daniel Dennet, Francis Crick... Compare his style to theirs, and it becomes obvious that he is not a legitimate scholar. His use of language betrays him as a poseur: he imitates the style without understanding the substance.

It's not that you are too dumb to understand this stuff, Finella: it's that it is meaningless gibberish. I'm sure if you work hard enough you can extract something of value from it, but only because you are intelligent and inventive: certainly not because he put anything usefull there.


Edit: apparently many new-agers hate him, because he outs them as irrational goobers. I'd like to count him as a rationalist, but I think he is just another woo-woo that doesn't mind staking out turf at the expense of other woo-woos. Hitler stopped the Commies from taking over Germany, but that wasn't enough to justify him. It's not enough to fight the bad guys: you have to also be a good guy.


Edit: Here's a page reviewing one of his books. The author lists both strengths and weaknesses. Although I've only read Wilber for 20 minutes, I completely agree with the entire review (both positives and negatives).

In particular note the comment under weaknesses, "With all due respect, Wilber is quite innocent re science, especially physics." And the more telling comment later, "Also, he elegantly ignores more "plodding" and "down-to-earth" efforts in consciousness studies grounded on more scientifically based investigations." That's enough to do it in for me.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/abhoe.html

[Roadtoad]

Every once in a while, I read some of the posts on this thread, and I feel like I ought to be using my general, all-purpose, genuine whack-job answer to just about anything:

"It's my Karma. I vibrate in sympathy with the Universe."

PM me, and I'll send the translation. :D

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Edit: Here's a page reviewing one of his books. The author lists both strengths and weaknesses. Although I've only read Wilber for 20 minutes, I completely agree with the entire review (both positives and negatives).

In particular note the comment under weaknesses, "With all due respect, Wilber is quite innocent re science, especially physics." And the more telling comment later, "Also, he elegantly ignores more "plodding" and "down-to-earth" efforts in consciousness studies grounded on more scientifically based investigations." That's enough to do it in for me.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/abhoe.html


Read the review, Yahzi. I found it interesting: if he were writing for a magazine or newspaper, Wilber's piece would have been fact checked. For books, no such effort is made. Would someone explain this one for me?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Read the review, Yahzi.
Curse the English language... for a moment. I thought you were instructing me to peruse the rewiew I had just finished quoting.
:D

Not every newspaper fact-checks: only the ones interested in maintaining a reputation for objectivity. Some books (history, science, etc.) are fact-checked. But since a book only represents one person (the author), his personal reputation is allowed to live or die by his book.

In any case, fact-checking philosophy is normally considered a waste of time. Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.

[Finella]

Yahzi:

Okay, so let’s forget about Ken Wilber, then, for the purposes of this discussion. You’ve given me a far simpler example to work with to prove my point anyway. (And what was that? Oh, that faith and logic can be compatible. Right.)

Imagine pure faith and pure logic as poles on the opposite ends of the same spectrum. Pure faith requires no reason or logic, as you and others have argued. Pure logic, on the other hand, requires no faith. These extremes gradually modulate as you go toward the middle – they overlap.

The example you gave me was your critique of Ken Wilber. You had some first-hand experience, although limited, of his work. Thus your own opinion of his ideas was formed through your reading. This opinion was drawn from your own experience studying science, which could have included, for all I know, your own research studying quarks and atoms.

But the pure logic of your opinion ends there. You appealed to a higher authority by seeking a review of someone you respected to give you his opinion on Wilber. You placed trust in this person based on your past experience. Could this person be wrong? Maybe, but your past experience has shown that you can trust this person to have views which agree with your perception of science and logic. And you acquired your understanding of science and logic through other higher authorities. It would be fruitless and too time-consuming for you to personally check every single scientific theory that came around, right? So you have faith in these authorities that they make accurate observations and conclusions from their work.

So we see here that you are utilizing faith and reason concurrently! Yes? And we didn’t even need to get God into the picture to do it, either.

Briefly getting back to Wilber, I am sorry that you think so little of him. I don’t concern myself with his scientific stuff so much, since I’m not a scientist. I find his integration of Eastern and Western psychological theories more useful, personally, since I am a therapist. These ideas I found in his book Integral Psychology, where I don’t think he mentioned much of this quantum physics stuff at all. Perhaps this work would irritate you less, then, if psychology interests you. It seems that this is an area where he does better, anyway. Besides, I don’t think it is useful to throw out all of a person’s work simply because one part of it is lacking. We are all human, and all of our work cannot be perfect. You’ll note that even the reviewer you quoted did find some strengths in Wilber’s work.

I find this quote of yours quite interesting, too:

Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.

That makes using reason and logic alone to deal with philosophy somewhat difficult, I would guess.

----,---'--{@

[Roadtoad]

I question that idea, that philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts. Considering how many of them were also mathematicians, it almost seems out of character for you to say that, Yahzi. (Oddly enough, several were even devout Christians.)

In thinking about this, I'm reminded of Voltaire's supposed remark that he was watching the collapse of the Church. Yet, oddly enough, in his book, Candide, he praises faith, even condemns its lack, (though he doesn't spare anyone his barbs). Even stranger, for a man who supposedly gloated over the end of the Church, he helped pay for the construction of the church in his home town. (Though, in all fairness, he also said, "If they ask if I'm building a theater, tell them it's a church. If they ask if I'm building a church, tell them it's a theater.") I'll try and track the exact quote and circumstances.

I find it hard to view Voltaire as a man who rejected faith, particularly in that light, but I also find it hard to believe he'd have accepted the "Church" as we've come to define it.

(Edited to add: I'd be interested in hearing what Randfan has to say about some of this....)

[Yahzi]

Finella
So you have faith in these authorities that they make accurate observations and conclusions from their work.
Let me explain again why faith in the religious sense is not the same as faith in the scientific sense.

When I have faith in these authorities' observations, it is because I could, in principal, do the observations myself. My faith is based on the fact that at any time I can verify any of these observations personally.

Faith in the religious sense does not carry with it the option of personally verifying the facts. I cannot, in principle, do the observations myself.

In the scientific sense, all I am using faith for is to save myself some work. I don't need the faith: I could replace it by doing all the work myself, but I'd prefer to spend my time more usefully.

In the religious sense, I am using faith to support the entire conclusion. Not just that the work was done properly, but the entire truth of the claim. Because I cannot redo the work, I cannot verify the claim, so now, instead of just taking his report on faith, I also have to take his conclusion on faith.

Do you see the difference? Although the word faith is used in both cases, it clearly has two meanings: in one, it is faith in things you could verify, and in the other, it is faith in things you cannot verify.


Everybody
Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.
Eh, I was half in jest. Still, it is actually kind of true: philosophy is not science. Scientists argue over what the facts of the case are: philosophy is supposed to argue over what they mean. Establishing what is or is not fact is science's job.

So the idea that you should fact-check a philosophy book is kind of strange: a philosopher who deals in facts so unobvious that they need checking is an unusual creature.

However, given the importance of neuroscience to several traditional philosophical topics, and given how fast knowledge in that field advances, I suppose philosophy has to come down out of that ivory tower.

I wasn't saying philosophy should be imaginary; I was just trying to say that philosophy is not in the business of determining empirical facts, but rather of explaining them.


Roadtoad
I find it hard to view Voltaire as a man who rejected faith
I don't think he did. He mostly rejected the Church, as it was even more corrupt in his day than in ours.

But - if Voltaire were alive today, I think he would now reject faith. My position is that science and (some kind of) faith were still compatible as little as 50 years ago. Darwin was not the absolute last gasp for faith: genetics and neuroscience were. Francis Sheaffer argued for the existance of the divine based on the irreducible mystery of personal consciousness - back in the 50's. Back then, it was a good argument.

Just not anymore. Them pesky facts, again. ;)