Peter, I think your approach to God's Word is best summed up with the line "I would suggest that he solves the problem of the end of the appearances of Jesus by inventing the story of the ascension, possibly borrowing from the Old Testament story of Elijah being taken up into heaven."
Inventing? Seriously? I was prepared to accept some of your other points as matters of opinion but to suggest that a section of God's Word is invented is ridiculous.
Happy to debate this with fellow believers but not overly interested in the views of the usual atheist crowd...

"I was prepared to accept some of your other points as matters of opinion but to suggest that a section of God's Word is invented is ridiculous.Happy to debate this with fellow believers but not overly interested in the views of the usual atheist crowd..."

Very sensible of you rational-debate. The last thing a believer should risk is being exposed to rational input. As a believer, I made the mistake years ago of giving an atheist a chance to explain why he could not believe in any god, especially the Christian one. It's a terrible thing to have to admit to yourself how naive you were, how gullible, how easily led. Refusing to engage with non-believers is probably the best way of ensuring that this is an admission you will never need to make.

Hi Glen,
Obviously my comment was too brief to make myself clear.
I happily and readily engage with atheists and others on a regular basis, here and face to face. I'm yet to find one with anything vaguely resembling a convincing argument, and generally find it sad that most of them are so angry. There's a PhD in there for someone with more time...
My point was that the comments I will get from the usual suspects here will be general dismissing of the Christian faith rather than dealing with the specific question at hand, which I am keen to explore.
I am not naive and gullible; I have a strong and rational basis for my faith. I'm sorry that didn't turn out to be the case for you.

rational-debate,

I don't suppose you'd like to share your strong and rational basis for your faith.

I'd be really interested in hearing it if it's possible to put it succinctly.

(You probably think I'm being disingenuous asking that. Not so - I'm sincere and genuinely interested)

>>I was prepared to accept some of your other points as matters of opinion but to suggest that a section of God's Word is invented is ridiculous.<<

I have to agree: it's ridiculous to suggest that only some of it is invented. What corroborating evidence outside of the Bible is there that it is the divinely inspired word of god and not just a bunch of stories?

Just because it is invented doesn't mean it's without value.

Cheers,

Tony

"Just because it is invented doesn't mean it's without value."

That is true. So far it has provided a valuable source for motivation and interpretation for over two thousand years. With no end in sight (depending upon your reading of it)...

If God produces an autobiography as the sequel, then all the invented issues will disappear, as Tommy Cooper said, "...Just like that!"

All of it is invented. All reasonable evidence points to The Bible and other religious texts being the products of human beings.

The questions that remain are why these inventions (were they altruistic or attempts at control,power over people). Either way were they a good or bad thing - or neither. Does any of the good achieved outweigh the abuses and negative aspects of religious zealotry? Would history be a more violent or least violent picture without belief in a supernatural being?

Does religion serve a purpose in the modern world? No matter what I or other Atheists assert, it seems to serve a purpose for many irrespective of pedantics about texts.

Hi Poirot. It is a hard thing to distill into a message on here. I would encourage you to look at things from the opposite perspective. By this I mean, challenge the things that people tell you are true (eg. Science/Archaeology/Philosophy has disproved the Bible) and really test it. I know many who have done this and come away convinced of the truth of the Bible.

Some reading I have done which has helped me include writings by John Lennox (Oxford Professor of Mathematics, degrees in Science and Philosophy and whatever else takes his fancy). When he debates people such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, etc they don't do to well...

Older books would be Frank Morrison (Who Moved The Stone) and Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict). Both were people who set out to disprove Christianity and ended up believing it.

Bottom line is that I can't prove any of this to you but even the best efforts (and there have been many) of great minds throughout history have put not even a dent in Christianity.

Well I've just read a John Lennox article on line and I don't find him at all persuasive. He is basically a proponent of intelligent design - God made the universe, and allows humans to 'discover' the laws by which it operates. I wonder how he explains non-believers being allowed the same rights of discovery as believers

Rational-Debate, I guess that works the same way as contries run by despots are often called Democratic Republics

"The way forward for the Church is not a retreat into a literal and hence historical reading of Scripture."

Trouble is, Peter, without a literal reading of Scripture the Church has neither a way forward nor a way back. If original sin is nonsense -- as of course it is -- then the idea of a human sacrifice for the redemption of original sin is also nonsense, and the activities of Jesus, whether historical or mythological, were utterly futile. Jesus's claim to be listened to relies on the assumption that he had privileged access to the Head Honcho of the Universe; without that he has no more claim on our time than Socrates, Confucius or the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

When the Bible is judged on its merits rather than its supposed divine origins, it turns out to be a jumble of misogyny, bigotry and exhortations to slaughter, coupled with a few fairy stories and some erotic poetry. Cut the umbilical cord to God, and you're left with a Bronze Age version of Cole's Funny Picture Book.

Rational debate.
My apologies. The use of the word "invent" here is not up to the task. It would suggest that the author of Luke acted alone and was not guided by the Spirit that he is especially fond of invoking. A better description of the composition of biblical texts is that they arise out of the theological reflection of a community of belief; the Church. They are not therefore "invented" but are a response gathered from insights into the meaning of the person of Christ, his ministry death and presence in the church.

Thank you for your comment.
Peter Sellick

rational-debate,

<<I ...  generally find it sad that most [atheists] are so angry.>>

Perhaps the ones you've encountered are fed-up with the damage religion has done and continues to do; everything from trying to teach nonsense in school science classes to acts of terrorism and everything in between?

<<I have a strong and rational basis for my faith.>>

Faith is belief without good reason. If religious belief had a rational basis, then it wouldn't be referred to as "faith". 

You theists always seem to forget this, but are very fast to remember it again when you feel the need to accuse atheists or scientists of having a faith.

<<Bottom line is that I can't prove any of this to you but even the best efforts (and there have been many) of great minds throughout history have put not even a dent in Christianity.>>

And yet li'l ol' me can debunk the Abrahamic god in one post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464).

As an atheist interested in counter-apologetics, who was once a Christian interested in apologetics, I'd be fascinated to hear any arguments you could provide that go to demonstrating any god at all.

Dear AJ Philips,

As one who aspires to deserve the title 'religious', I tend to agree with your last post.

Belief, whether with or without good reason, is always related to facts about the material/objective world.
Faith is not a belief - faith is an attitude and has nothing to do with facts about the world.

Attempts to base faith on science or to mix up the two, only demonstrates the perpetrator's lack of faith.

Why would a wo/man of faith be interested in science and waste their time on it in the first place (unless they need to make a living out of it)?

What saddens me is that religion is wrongly attacked and degraded, as in "fed-up with the damage religion has done and continues to do", for the actions of some fools who dare call themselves 'religious'.

I sometimes wonder if we don't all get a little confused about atheism. There are apparently so many Gods in this world that millions of people have faith in, that I wonder what someone is called if they believe in one God, but none of the others?

What are you called if you believe in multiple Gods?
Who is to say that one God, or one human-written book about that God is more 'believable' than another?

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
&#8213; Richard Dawkins

Thanks AJ Phillips, I needed a good laugh. I assume you were joking with the amazing, God disproving link you posted? If that's the best you can offer, I think you may have put the cause of atheism back 50 years.

The reason the Atheists are so angry is that deep down they know they are wrong. Much easier to get all angry than to admit the truth. Ask any teenager...

.

Dear Suseonline,

.

"What are you called if you believe in multiple Gods?"

You are called a polytheist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
.

" ... I wonder what someone is called if they believe in one God, but none of the others?"

That "someone" is called a monotheist.

.

"Who is to say that one God, or one human-written book about that God is more 'believable' than another?"

The believers in that one God.

.

rational-debate,

There was nothing amazing about that post of mine that I linked to.

<<I assume you were joking with the amazing, God disproving link you posted? If that's the best you can offer, I think you may have put the cause of atheism back 50 years.>>

The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god of the Abrahamic religions is very easy to debunk. Take the problem of evil, for example. This is such a problem for the Judeo-Christian religions that they’ve had to invented an entire study devoted to skirting around it called Theodicy.

But instead of shooting off a nervous and uncomfortable-sounding jibe, could you explain to me why my points in the post I linked to failed? Did I miss something? Was there an error in my reasoning anywhere? Can you explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing God, who has an important message for us all, would be stupid enough to convey that message to us through texts written in languages that die-out?

I don’t think you can, hence your snide and evasive response.

<<The reason the Atheists are so angry is that deep down they know they are wrong.>>

And yet you are unable to provide a rational basis for your, um... faith.

How do you know this? And how can they know that they're wrong when theists can't even explain why they're right?

<<Much easier to get all angry than to admit the truth. Ask any teenager...>>

Who are these teenagers and what are they saying? Or are you comparing atheists - of all ages - to teenagers in general?

Let’s get this straight... I’ve given you a rational explanation for the anger some atheists display, along with examples of why my explanation could very well be the case (i.e. creationism, terrorism), and all you can come back with is some mysterious teenagers; or a bald-faced assumption about the psychology behind atheism, based on how some from a narrow and irrelevant demographic think and behave.

Poor form. Very poor form indeed.

Thanks Banjo.

However, there is a big difference between a 'belief' in something, and actually having proof that something is real.

Many kids believed in, and had faith in, Father Christmas, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. That doesn't make them real.

No one has proof of actually seeing a God, and we only have some books written by humans actually saying what Gods are supposed to have said.

Doesn't it make you wonder how us mere humans got on before these books were written, and rewritten, and amended, etc?

suze,

I'm not a Christian, but I'm interested in why people believe - what is it that convinces them. rational-debate pointed out John Lennox who is mathematician and a scientist, so belief is not restricted to those without scientific credentials.

I'm also interested in the psychology of how humans cope with being alive and what comfort they derive from belief in a deity.

Talking of the modern secular world, I read the other day that of the 31,000 deaths by firearm annually in the US - nearly 20,000 of them are suicides.

3 high school students suicide every week in Australia.

Why are we so unhappy with our rational world?

Poirot

Perhaps we are unhappy with our irrational world - the one where clergy who are meant to be the epitome of religious goodness abuse children, the one where clergy urge their followers to kill, the one where churches turn their backs on people who have been damaged by their representatives in contravention of their teachings.

Given that religious belief is very high in the USA, a majority of their suicides are probably believers.

And I'm not an angry atheist, rational debate, but I do have trouble understanding the need some people have to believe in the unprovable. Perhaps it is because I have a poorly developed 'god spot' in my brain. On reflection, I do get very annoyed when people push the 'our lord' stuff at me. They are welcome to 'their lord' but I draw the line at being included in their delusion.

Dear Poirot,

<<I'm not a Christian, but I'm interested in why people believe -what is it that convinces them.>>

I'm not a Christian either, but I think I can answer your questions.

Belief is, for most, an excellent religious technique, especially when it includes devotion to the object of belief.

It's very valuable to be able to suspend one's reliance on objective facts and ultimately wean ourselves from the influence of the objective.

The techniques of belief were designed before the scientific era, hence they had no intent to describe the objective world. Had they been designed today, they would probably include a preamble: "Please withdraw your attention from the external, objective world, operating instead on the basis of the following story and devoting your life to the service of the deity(s) therein. Begin with one minute twice a day, then gradually increase the time to two, three, five minutes, etc. until you can eventually suspend your interest in the world indefinitely."

That some people are convinced that the objects of their belief are within the objective material world, is due to the clash with modern-science which places such importance on knowing the world. Such errors, unless corrected, are detrimental to religion because they draw the aspirant's attention back into the world.

<<I'm also interested in the psychology of how humans cope with being alive and what comfort they derive from belief in a deity.>>

Being alive is not a problem, but being attached to the world is. Religious techniques, belief included, loosen this attachment, hence reduce the pain (comfort is simply the absence of pain).

<<Why are we so unhappy with our rational world?>>

Firstly the world isn't at all rational. You seem to mistake 'objective' (eg. external, similarly-perceived by all beings) for 'rational'. There is nothing especially rational in accepting the world as real only because others perceive it similarly, so one can readily share their experiences of the world with others).

The world is finite, perishable, addictive, meaningless and full of sorrows. Most importantly, we know deep inside that it is unreal, that it is an illusion.

The kind of religion that Sells promotes lies entirely within the spectrum of reductionist exoteric literalism and no amount of appealing to some kind of expanded metaphorical understanding can or will make the slightest bit of difference to anything. It is completely devoid of any kind of psychic or Spiritual depth or, put in another way it lies completely within the doubt-mind described by these references.
The first essay was originally published as The Psychosis of Doubt.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html
This reference points out that all of what is promoted as religion fits within the first three stages of life, and that the Process of Spiritual religion only begins when one has awakened into the fourth stage.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

Speaking of ding-bat literalism some literalistic Christians are now trying to argue that Adam & Eve were actual historically existing human beings. Such is an absurd proposition. By contrast this reference gives an esoteric Spiritual Understanding of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light
http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

These references point to an Esoteric understanding of the original Christian message.
http://www.beezone.com/esoteric_christianity.htm
The Resurrection & The Body of Light
http://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magaine/1690

the simple fact that athiests deny the corrupt nature of man demonstrates clearly that they are not into observing as part of their 'scientific' quest. Nothing sadder than pride and self righteousness that prevents people from turning to the Only One who can forgive their sins. Yep its ugly but mankind is rotton to the core. Thankfully God has provided a solution.

.

Dear Suseonline,

.

"No one has proof of actually seeing a God, and we only have some books written by humans actually saying what Gods are supposed to have said".
.

Peter Sells might have some proof. If not, what you describe is called hearsay, the hearsay of "believers".

Hearsay is rarely accepted as evidence in the courts of law of most democratic countries and the question of the existence of a God would appear to be far too important for any reasonable person to rely simply on hearsay as the sole basis of belief.

Actually, the problem is not a lack of belief, but a lack of something to believe in. Most people are willing to believe in something which exists, not in something which does not exist. That would be a bit silly.

Here is a link to hearsay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
.

"Doesn't it make you wonder how us mere humans got on before these books were written, and rewritten, and amended, etc?"
.

The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah, meaning "law" or "instruction", and are regarded as the most important section of the Scriptures, traditionally thought to have been written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE by Moses himself.

That means they were written sometime less than 4000 years ago.

Whereas palaeontologists estimate that we human beings broke off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago.

It seems we somehow managed to "get on" for about five or six million years (give or take a million years or so) as human beings before finally being saved by those books.

Thank God we made it !

And God help those poor chimpanzee cousins of ours who still haven't learned to read yet !

.

Dear Banjo,

<<Actually, the problem is not a lack of belief, but a lack of something to believe in. Most people are willing to believe in something which exists, not in something which does not exist. That would be a bit silly.>>

True, but back to square One, why this emphasis on belief? why is belief that important?

Whatever you believe in or otherwise is anyway only that, a mental process.

Religion is so vaster than that. As far as religion is concerned, belief (i.e. the generation of a particular mental process) is just one technique among many, not even the most important one. Whatever exists or doesn't exist has no bearings on religious practice, hence why do theists and atheists alike like so much to argue all the time on that moot point?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"why is belief that important?"
.

As Richard Feynman (Nobel prize in physics, 1965) is reported to have said, "A great deal more is known than has been proved".

That "knowledge" is what we call "belief".

If our thoughts and actions in daily life were strictly limited to "what has been proved" we would be constantly "bugging" like our computers and unable to proceed to the next step.

If the truth be known, we probably operate 99% on beliefs and only1% on proven facts.

Socrates even went as far as to say, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Life would simply not be possible without belief. Everything would come to a stop.

As a matter of fact, I had some serious concerns about you, Yuyutsu.

Your posts on this thread remind me of Alice in Wonderland crossing through the looking glass and observing:

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

You are a nice chap and I should like you to pay attention when you cross the street. I know you consider reality to be illusion and vice versa but, just as a special favour for me, would you be so kind as to count to ten, breathe deeply and wave your arms high above your head several times before you take that first step?

Tie a knot in your handkerchief so that you don't forget.

In the meantime, here is some more information on epistemology, the theory of knowledge, which I hope will interest you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

.

Dear Banjo,

I do not doubt for a moment that belief is necessary for human survival and material progress. Sorry for not making it clear - as the topic here is religious rather than about physical survival, I took for granted that we all refer to religion, but I should have been more explicit asking "Why this emphasis on religious belief? Why is belief that important for religion?"

I believe that when people (theists and atheists alike) equate religion with belief, they miss the whole point of what religion is about.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

"3 high school students suicide every week in Australia.
Why are we so unhappy with our rational world?"
.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the total number of students in Australian Schools exceeds 3.5 million, with 2.3 million of those attending Government schools, compared with 700,000 at Catholic schools and 500,000 at independent schools.

According to my Casio electronic calculator, 3 suicides in 3.5 million represents 0.00008% of the student population.

Though 3 suicides a week sounds terrible, I hope I am not being too cynical in thinking that you are being a bit excessive in concluding that "we (are) so unhappy with our rational world".

.

Dear runner,

.

"the simple fact that athiests deny the corrupt nature of man demonstrates clearly that they are not into observing as part of their 'scientific' quest. Nothing sadder than pride and self righteousness that prevents people from turning to the Only One who can forgive their sins. Yep its ugly but mankind is rotton to the core. Thankfully God has provided a solution."

.

Oh dear ! Would that be the "Final Solution" (Die Endlösung), runner ?

But who could possibly have made man " rotton to the core" like that ?

Now that you mention it, I see the rot is setting in as I grow older. As you say, too much pride and self righteousness, I guess. I'm definitely going on a diet as from tomorrow.

Do you think that will do it ?

At least, I can see my "corrupt nature" so I can't be an atheist. That's one problem out of the way !

I hope you're nicely conserved, runner, no numbing of the toes or fingers or anything like that ? Mind you, you have to watch out for the head too. They say that fish start rotting from the head.

Whatever you do, don't let it go to your head, runner !

But don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting there's anything fishy about you. That never crossed my mind.

You know me better than that !

.

Banjo Paterson
"And God help those poor chimpanzee cousins of ours who still haven't learned to read yet !"
Lol! : )

Yuyitsu, I looked up 'believe' in Wikipedia, and as you agree we are discussing religion, I looked it up in the context of 'Religious Belief'. It said "...a belief regarding the supernatural, sacred, or divine." It then defined 'faith' as "...a belief in something for which there is no proof."

So, can you explain to me what you think religion is all about, because I still don't get what you mean? Faith is always discussed by religious people as something they must have?

I am not trying to upset religious people, because I know their faith is often a great comfort for them. I really don't understand the hold that religion has on some people.

I always thought it could be because people are afraid of what 'happens' after they die, and clutch onto whatever they are told by religious 'leaders' as a hope for the afterlife.

.

Banjo,

Why did you quote "high schools" and then go on to calculate your apparently "inconsequential" suicide toll from the total school population?

I'm sure, upon calculation of the toll only upon the high schools population will produce a figure equally underwhelming.

Nevertheless, all those teenagers every year topping themselves in a fortunate country/society like ours - makes you wonder.

(Well, it makes me wonder)

Dear Suse,

Excellent questions!

<<Yuyitsu, I looked up 'believe' in Wikipedia, and as you agree we are discussing religion, I looked it up in the context of 'Religious Belief'. It said "...a belief regarding the supernatural, sacred, or divine." It then defined 'faith' as "...a belief in something for which there is no proof.">>

The authors of the Wikipedia must have been non-religious. Their definitions only reflect how religion looks from the outside by non-practioners.

Before religion was corrupted by institutions as well as by Time, religious beliefs used to be techniques where one consciously suspended their perception of the world in favour of a specified conviction they held and acted upon. However, those people who practised it were not fools and they never actually believed, in the modern sense, that this conviction had anything to do with the physical world -knowledge and beliefs about which were simply suspended at the time for the sake of their religious practices.

Now when corrupt institutions call themselves 'religious', they may propagate all kinds of distortions, including claiming beliefs about the world. This however, is the corruption of religion, not religion.

Faith is an attitude to life. Other dictionaries have several options besides 'belief', of which the closest, I think, is "complete trust [in God]".

<<So, can you explain to me what you think religion is all about>>

Religion is about coming closer to God - whatever methods it takes to actually come closer to God, not just to have nice ideas in the head.

<<Faith is always discussed by religious people as something they must have?>>

Strictly it is not a requisite, but if one doesn't trust in God, then one is not likely to be willing to sacrifice their worldly comfort in order to come closer to Him.

<<I really don't understand the hold that religion has on some people.>>

According to the Bhagavad-Gita, people who are interested in religion can be divided into 4 categories:

1) Those weary of the world.
2) Those who seek happiness.
3) Those who seek knowledge and wisdom.
4) Those who already know themselves.

(continued...)

Perhaps these definitions (extracted from Webster’ Third New International Dictionary and Collegiate Thesaurus) could clarify the difference between religious belief and faith (a distinction many non-English languages don’t have):

Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real. The act of assenting intellectually to something proposed.

Faith: The act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in. Complete assurance and certitude regarding the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. Belief and trust in God.

Of course, the definitions depend on other concepts - like, truth, reality - that again different people define differently.

As for religion, there are allegedly 300 insightful (and many more non-insightful) definitions. My favourite is Clifford Geertz’s anthropological (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645).

Also, Rodney Stark's "Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief" (HarperOne, 2008) is a fair study of the phenomenon of religion in the sense, as stated by the author, that “this book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human images of God or as the evolution of the human capacity to comprehend God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation" (meaning both atheist and theist).

.

Dear Suseonline & Yuyutsu,

.

Recent research reveals that unlike that of many other biological species, our DNA is highly homogenous. It has been suggested that a possible explanation may be that we very nearly became extinct about 70,000 years ago.

Life in those early days was quite terrifying. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snow storms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

But thanks to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

Having imagined the existence of invisible, supernatural forces, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.

This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community was called a scapegoat. The Christian religions later integrated the concept into their dogma, with Jesus.

For much of humanity, the polytheism of the original animist religions eventually became untenable as an explanation of natural phenomena and was transformed into monotheism.

For others, the transformation from polytheism to monotheism was pointless. Its role as a strategy for survival was considered obsolete.

For various sociological and psychological reasons, religious belief continues to remain necessary for some but not for others.

.

George,

Thanks for that definition of faith. The definition that I use (and the one that Suseonline mentioned) is implicit in that anyway. I prefer a broader definition that describes not only the belief, but the nature of it too. The definition I use also includes the understanding of faith that most theists seem to have, given that so many of them throw it back at those who disagree with them when they feel that their opponent's belief isn't justified either.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is the fact that the word “faith” is only ever used in instances where the evidence is insufficient to justify, or contrary to the belief that is being stated. For example, if a belief of mine is justified (and I can demonstrate that it is, with evidence and reasoned argument), then I call it a belief and/or knowledge - not faith. Likewise, if I have a confidence in someone that has been earned, then I trust them, I don’t just have faith in them.

Faith is never used when a belief is justified and can be defended, and is often used as a defence in the absence of a justification.

And how many times is it that we hear a Christian say that they take it on faith that God exists. Or that they “just have faith”, when all their arguments for the existence of God have been exhausted. Even if, by "faith", they're referring to the definition you provided, then their reasoning is circular and thus the definition I use still applies.

For these reasons, I feel that my preferred definition is just so much more practical, all-encompassing and, most importantly, reduces confusion.

Anyone who is at all familiar with all of the usual Christian apologetics, even the seemingly more sophisticated ones, will very quickly notice that they never ever refer to or use the word Consciousness with a capital C.
Which is quite odd especially when you read these two references.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-life

And speaking of Faith as a exercise of in depth discriminative intelligence, the various essays etc on this site provide a comprehensive Understanding of what it is and what it takes to be awakened.
http://www.beezone.com/whiteandorangeproject/index.html

(...continued, sorry Suse, I reached my message-limit)

In the first category, one just comes to a stage where the world no longer appeals or has no more to offer, or when one suffered enough.

In the second category, one wishes to use spiritual techniques for material success.

In the third category, one is not satisfied with the meaninglessness of the world, thus seeks to find the ontological Truth behind appearances.

In the fourth category, one already had a glimpse of God by knowing themselves, then they wish to expand and stabilise that knowledge.

<<I always thought it could be because people are afraid of what 'happens' after they die, and clutch onto whatever they are told by religious 'leaders' as a hope for the afterlife.>>

Yes, this may be the case for beginners. I would include those in the first category, of those weary of the world. They want to stop their suffering caused by that constant fear of death.

Dear Banjo,

What you describe has everything to do with history and nothing to do with religion. Yes, people over the ages used various strategies of survival, some more effective than others, but these do not pass for religion: a religious person seeks God, not survival!

Dear George and AJ Philips,

People (theists and atheists alike) who look at religion from outside, watching how religious people act out of faith, conclude that faith must be a kind of belief. That projection is only because they themselves would only act similarly out of belief. That is a mistake because religious and irreligious people do not share the same goals and values.

(yes, 'theists' was not a typo, I meant so: while theists are believers, they are not necessarily religious)

Here is a test of faith:

Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour?
If it would, then you have no faith, only belief!

.

Dear Poirot,

.

"Why did you quote "high schools" and then go on to calculate your apparently "inconsequential" suicide toll from the total school population?"
.

Good point, well taken.

I have had to extrapolate in order to calculate the high school student population in Australia and arrive at an estimate of 1,499,190.

The weekly suicide rate then becomes 0.0002%

There were about 40.4 suicides per week in Australia over the past decade, which, for an average population of 21,528,064 gives a national weekly suicide rate of 0,00018.

This certainly puts the high school suicide rate in perspective, indicating that it is slightly higher than the national rate.

It represents 7,42% of total suicides in Australia.

The suicide rates for children younger than 15 years is estimated to have increased by 92% between the 1960s to 1990s.

Suicide rates are generally higher amongst males, rural and regional dwellers, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,
.

"Here is a test of faith:

Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour? If it would, then you have no faith, only belief!"

.

I agree that having faith in nothing means I do not have faith.

But, belief in nothing also means I have no belief. Doesn't it ?

.

AJ Philips,

>>I feel that my preferred definition is just so much more practical<<
Sorry, but I could not discern a definition of faith and/or (religious) belief from your post (something like faith is : …), only negative comments on world-views that are based on different premises than yours. Like one does not include in the definition of the concept of e.g. “nation” a condemnation of nationalism or approval of patriotism, or some other judgement.

For exactly these reason - trying to clarify the concepts acceptable to people of various world-view approaches to religion - I thought it could be of interest to quote an authoritative and respectable source like Webster’s Dictionary.

Yuyutsu,

>>Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour?<<

Beyond whose doubt, yours or mine? If mine then it would not be I any more, so I could not tell. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "object of your faith".

Besides, one can “prove beyond all doubt” only formal logical and mathematical propositions (although even here some qualifications apply), certainly not the basic premises of one’s world-view.

George,

Sorry, I thought it would be safe to assume you remembered my definition given that you provided one too.

<<Sorry, but I could not discern a definition of faith and/or (religious) belief from your post (something like faith is : …)...>>

I mentioned it in my first post on this thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#260539).

<<...only negative comments on world-views that are based on different premises than yours.>>

Our worldview premises don't change the fact that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that a god exists (particularly when one considers the extraordinariness of the claim). We can't just pretend like these are simply philosophical leanings here. These are claims about the real world; claims that have real-world effects; claims that would be worldview-altering if they could be demonstrated.

Our worldview premises also don't change the fact that believing in the existence of something, without sufficient evidence, is to believe without good reason. Hence my preferred definition.

So if you're saying that I'm injecting too much of my own personal opinion into my definition for it to be helpful or as all-encompassing as I believe it to be, then I beg to differ.

<<Like one does not include in the definition of the concept of e.g. “nation” a condemnation of nationalism or approval of patriotism, or some other judgement.>>

Well we could just leave it at "belief without proof", if you'd prefer. "The suspension of critical thought", is another good one, I think.

<<For exactly these reason - trying to clarify the concepts acceptable to people of various world-view approaches to religion - I thought it could be of interest to quote an authoritative and respectable source like Webster’s Dictionary.>>

And it was. But that doesn't detract from any of the points I made. Unless you mean to imply that it is simply an unfortunate co-incidence that the label for religious belief also means "belief without proof"?

I don't think it is, and it would seem that a great many Christians would agree given their usage of the word too.

Dear George,

<<Beyond whose doubt, yours or mine? If mine then it would not be I any more, so I could not tell>>

This is a beautiful reply. It appeals to the heart as it expresses your faith.

Unfortunately, because you also have belief in the mix, it does not appeal to the mind. Did you also believe in God when you were a baby? before you even heard God's name? Assuming you didn't, then were you someone else then? were you not who you are now?

Now let me phrase it differently and lets take for example the atheist's favourite character: the tooth-fairy...

Suppose you believed in the tooth-fairy, suppose you offered her your milk-teeth in a jar, which you cleaned and anointed every morning and evening, then one day you saw a convincing (to you) proof that she doesn't exist. Your heart may be broken, but still you would throw that jar in the rubbish-bin...

...Not if you have faith, that's makes a world of difference: no amount of evidence could shake your faith and you will not be perturbed by such trifling issues as non-existence. Existence is a modern indulgence which is now in fashion whereas faith is currently out of fashion - but with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant!

Would you still love your wife when she grows old and wrinkled? or suppose she got breast cancer and lost that body-part, would you stop loving her because that part no longer existed?

Similarly, the love of God should not depend upon His existence.

.

Dear Yuyitsu,

.

You wrote to George:

"Would you still love your wife when she grows old and wrinkled? or suppose she got breast cancer and lost that body-part, would you stop loving her because that part no longer existed?"
.

If my dear wife dies before I do, I shall continue to love her even though she will no longer exist.

As you suggest, the fact that someone ceases to exist does not prevent those who love that person from continuing to do so.

.

... and you added:

"Similarly, the love of God should not depend upon His existence."
.

I agree. But, as with my wife, he will have had to exist for me to have loved Him in the first place.

If my wife had never existed, I could never have loved her. The same goes for God.

To love a God who never existed, is to love an imaginary God, the fruit of one's own imagination, which has no existence beyond one's imagination.

Of course, I could have loved an imaginary wife, but it would not have been my wife. The same goes for God. I could love an imaginary God, but it would not be God. It would just be the fruit of my imagination.

.

You then introduce the notion of "faith":

"... with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant!"
.

But this contradicts what you had just written to "Suze" on the same page 7of this thread:

"Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist ... then you have no faith ... "
.

Would you kindly review this and clarify.

I think you will agree it is important.

.

Dear Banjo,

A Jewish scripture (http://www.hillel.org/jewish/textstudies/pirkei_avot/pa_c5_m16.htm) states:

"All love that is contingent upon something, when the thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not rely on something, will last forever."

Unconditional love is a rare achievement. On the way there, one can have varying degrees of love with less-and-less conditions, the less the better.

<<If my wife had never existed, I could never have loved her.>>

Your one remaining condition seems to be that you must have memories of being together in the flesh with your late wife in order to love her. That's not bad at all, but there's one more step to go, one last condition to lose.

<<I could love an imaginary God, but it would not be God. It would just be the fruit of my imagination.>>

Very true - and I'll take it even a step further:

Had you been loving an imaginary wife, then she would still exist, though only as a figment of your imagination. That would be more difficult than loving a late wife that you still have memories of. God however, is not even a figment of imagination: one may be able to imagine a wife, but one cannot imagine God. So to love God without any contingency, so that this love lasts forever, is even harder yet than loving an imaginary wife.

So what can you do? Just do your best and try to have as fewer conditions for your love of God as you can. Have patience, practice makes perfect.

A beginner may for example have conditions for loving God such as "God must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent and reward me for good deeds", etc. That's OK for a start, but ultimately one needs to drop such conditions and love God regardless even that He never existed.

---
What I told Suse was that SHOULD one change their behaviour (eg. cease their devotion and veneration) upon finding out that what they considered to be the object of their faith does not exist (and never existed), then they had no faith to begin with, only belief.

AJ Philips,

From your link I extract this as your definition of faith:
“Faith is belief without good reason”.

This is like a Christian zealot defining atheism as “a wish to end in hell”. Both phrases “without good reason” and “end in hell” are perceived as negative by the author of the definition. I do not think this a priori bias is reflected in the definitions from Webster’s Dictionary, however I leave it to others to decide which definition is more insightful, yours or theirs.

Otherwise, I am not sure what you mean by “belief without good reason” and even less by “belief without proof” (what is then belief with proof?). As I mentioned above, I think in contemporary English you speak of proof only in the context of symbolic (mathematical) logic or mathematics, otherwise you have evidence (e.g. you have circumstantial evidence but not circumstantial proof). This is specific to the English language: many non-English languages cannot differentiate between proof and evidence, hence the confusion also in everyday English.

Also, the use of the term “evidence” - when referring to the very nature, structure, of reality as studied by science, notably cosmology and theoretical physics - was popularized in the English language sphere by David Hume (I presume), and it reflects exactly that: an eighteenth century philosophy of science, way of looking at physical reality. (Not to mention beyond the physical for those who believe in such).

On the other hand, “with good reason”, as I understand it, is rather subjective: I can only assume that you consider what you are doing or believing as being with good reason otherwise you would not be doing or believing it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think we have already agreed that we have different understandings of “exists, existence” since you even claimed that you yourself (and I) did not exist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.asp).

Nevertheless, I think I can understand you but as I used to tell my students, I can only judge (mark) you on what you stated (wrote down) not on what I think you thought.

George,

<<This is like a Christian zealot defining atheism as “a wish to end in hell”.>>

Not at all. The difference is that we can demonstrate what is and is not a good reason for believing something. To define atheism as “a wish to end in hell”, is to inject an unfounded belief into the definition regarding the existence of hell, as well as assume what the atheist does or does not want.

Your analogy only focusses on one largely irrelevant aspect of my definition...

<<Both phrases “without good reason” and “end in hell” are perceived as negative by the author of the definition.>>

This is a reason as to why you wouldn’t use my definition in formal communication, or list the “A belief not based on evidence”, definition separately - as dictionaries do. But it does not demonstrate any inaccuracy in my definition and nor is it a reason as to why I shouldn’t use it in an informal setting.

You don’t seem to be distinguishing between formal and informal communication here.

<<I do not think this a priori bias is reflected in the definitions from Webster’s Dictionary...>>

No, it’s not. And for the reasons I mentioned above.

However, if there is any “a priori bias” in my definition then that’s certainly not a bad thing given that no deductive reasoning for theistic a priori presuppositions have ever withstood critiquing (the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument are but two examples). Which, after thousands of years of religion, must surely give some heavy weighting to any bias that I may be injecting.

<<I think in contemporary English you speak of proof only in the context of symbolic (mathematical) logic or mathematics, otherwise you have evidence>>

Proof can also be evidence that goes towards establishing a fact. Evidence is a broader term that can also be used to describe data that suggests something which has not yet been proven. (http://tinyurl.com/lhs9xd8).

But we can say “evidence” too, if you’re more comfortable with that.

Continued...

...Continued

<<On the other hand, “with good reason”, as I understand it, is rather subjective...>>

It is subjective. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t subjective at all. I just said that I don’t think I’m injecting too much of my own opinion, since we can generally agree upon what constitutes a good reason to believe most things (science and legal systems would be in trouble if we couldn’t), and no-one that I’ve ever heard from has given good reason as to why gods should have special consideration when applying similar standards.

Of course, this is all up for debate and I’m happy to defend my claims if anyone wants to challenge them (see my definition as stimulation for discussion, if nothing else). If there’s a theist out there who feels they have a good reason for their beliefs, then they’re welcome to sock it to me. Unfortunately we rarely ever get much of a response (as this thread demonstrated) and when we do, they’re the same old tired arguments that have been re-worked and recycled for hundreds of years now because people keep poking holes in them.

Where’s the “good reason”?

Truth is, there isn’t one. Theists believe, because they believe, because they believe, and when pressed for a reason, they’ll usually just point to some weak argument they heard after they’d already started believing, and that only sounds convincing to those who are already convinced.

Sorry, George. Started typing there and couldn’t stop. You get the gist though...

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote:

["All love that is contingent upon something, when the thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not rely on something, will last forever."

Unconditional love is a rare achievement. On the way there, one can have varying degrees of love with less-and-less conditions, the less the better.]
.

I can assure you, Yuyutsu, that love is not contingent on anything. Nor is it temporary, partial or conditional.

You seem to have forgotten the discussion we had on this a bit less than two months ago. Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14890#256883

As I noted previously, in my humble opinion, most of those who think they love somebody do not. They mistake love for feelings, affection, sentiments, sex, liking, sympathy, admiration or some other basic impulse or self-serving urge.

Some seem to fall in love with their own image. They even look alike.

.

You then observe:

"... one cannot imagine God ... but ultimately one needs to ... love God regardless even that He never existed."

I do not wish to hurt your feelings, Yuyutsu, but" loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine" appears to me perfectly futile and of no interest whatsoever.

However, I hasten to add that if your worldly obligations allow you the leisure to indulge in such futile occupations, I certainly see no harm in it.

A well known French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, wrote a book entitled "L'être et le néant" (Being and nothingness), an essay on phenomenological ontology which touches on some of the aspects of your theory, but his "ens causa sui" (a being that causes itself) excludes any suggestion of a divine creator.

.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

George and I had a discussion on what is meant by "faith" a few months back.

You may like to check it out. Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#248255

.

AJ Philips,

I quoted those definitions from a respectable (not a priori theist or a priori atheist) source as a reaction to the questions raised by Suseonline. Of course, you are entitled to your own definitions as is my imaginary Christian zealot. And you are right that I would not use your definition, or that of that imaginary zealot, in formal communication with people seeking answers (and not a confirmation of their pre-conceived views). As I said, everybody can decide for themselves whether they find your or Webster’s definition more helpful.

Some theists and atheists have a rather sophisticated understanding of the basic concepts they build their worldview on; some others - again both from the theist as well as atheist camps - are satisfied with a rather simplistic understanding of science, religion and/or philosophies thereof. I think a fruitful exchange of views is possible only on the former level, not on the latter. That is another reason why I brought in an authoritative source of definitions; not to argue against anybody.

We have been through verbal ping-pongs a couple of times before and I always could only finish by reassuring you that I am not trying to convert you - to change what you find as “good reasons” for your beliefs or unbeliefs on which you build your worldview. There are missionaries - e.g. of a Christian or “dawkinsian” kind - who might try this, with or without success, but that is not why I occasionally enter discussions here.

[By the way, in the link Banjo gave you will recognise the distinction between “Sagan’s maxim” and the opposite - (i) and (ii) - that some time ago I posited as the basic wolrdview alternatives as part of my answer to you as to what I believed. Well, I should have given the link http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 instead of repeating myself. Then in my post to Banjo I would not have misplaced Sagan’s name to look as if he was equivocal about both (i) and (ii), which he, an avowed atheist, was obviously not.]

Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for the link. I think I remember that discussion.

George,

You’ve overlooked the differences I outlined between the definition of faith that I use and the definition of the imaginary zealot.

<<Of course, you are entitled to your own definitions as is my imaginary Christian zealot.>>

The imaginary zealot is not entitled to that definition, and for the reasons that I outlined. We don’t just get to invent our own definitions if they are inconsistent with reality and cannot be supported by evidence and reasoned argument. We may be entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.

<<Some theists and atheists have a rather sophisticated understanding of the basic concepts they build their worldview on; some others - again both from the theist as well as atheist camps - are satisfied with a rather simplistic understanding of science, religion and/or philosophies thereof. I think a fruitful exchange of views is possible only on the former level, not on the latter.>>

I agree, which is why I think we make so much headway in our discussions. Just remember, though, that there is more to sophistication than just ignoring the arguments that one feels are unsophisticated (it just comes across as snobbery that way). It also requires the ability to show why an unsophisticated argument is irrelevant or incorrect using sophisticated rebuttals. Sometimes the most unsophisticated points can blow the biggest holes in seemingly sophisticated arguments, and it is not enough to just brush the point off as unsophisticated and move on.

<<We have been through verbal ping-pongs a couple of times before and I always could only finish by reassuring you that I am not trying to convert you - to change what you find as “good reasons” for your beliefs or unbeliefs on which you build your worldview.>>

Yes, and again I remind you of just how disappointing I find that as there is no better way to ensure the truth of one’s beliefs, and weed out the false ones than to have them challenged.

Continued...

...Continued

I would also, again, express my confusion as to why you are often under the impression that I think you’d do anything of the sort - or that I’d fear it.

Finally though, it was fitting that you linked back to that old post of yours to me because, on re-reading it, I have spotted a problem that will enable me to demonstrate to you just one of the reasons as to why my definition of faith is not just based on a preconceived view and how my claim of, “without good reason”, can be demonstrated. The problem lies in the following sentences:

“There is no rational way to decide “logically” in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference.”

Actually, there IS a way to logically favour one over the other.

What we prefer is irrelevant. In both a philosophical sense and a practical sense, we take the option without the additional layer (e.g. the “Something” in “there must be Something”). Until we have good cause to believe that the additional layer exists - using evidence and reasoned argument - then (1) should be our default assumption.

You downplayed the role of occam’s razor (which is what, initially, determines the fundamentally important burden of proof) in making a rational choice and only offered a more subjective and emotive reason why one would prefer to assume this additional Something.

This is why it can be argued that atheism is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.

Imagine how this type of reasoning would go down in a court of law or in a scientific discipline (and as I said in my last post, I’ve never been given a reason as to why religious belief should have special consideration here).

Dear Banjo,

<<I do not wish to hurt your feelings, Yuyutsu, but" loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine" appears to me perfectly futile and of no interest whatsoever.>>

Firstly, it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God.

Now I think that you already agreed just then that the highest form of love is when no interests are involved. 'Futile' is always in relation to some object to be achieved: God cannot be achieved because we already ARE God (all we need to realise this is to remove the veiling obstacles).

Also, loving God is in our very nature, it's there anyway so we do not need to create it - only to uncover it, thus love of God is not just a method, but its own reward!

AJ Philips,

>>which is why I think we make so much headway in our discussions.<<

Well, perhaps, but only to the point (I think already reached many times) where we start to go around in circles. Hence my reference to verbal ping-pong.

>> there is more to sophistication than just ignoring the arguments that one feels are unsophisticated (it just comes across as snobbery that way). <<

Sometimes it is called snobbery, sometimes condescension, sometimes mental or intellectual gymnastics, I have been accused here of all these things. (I was often tempted to remark that it is hard to have discussions about algebraic topology with somebody who lacks the background insights - in this case mathematical rather than different worldview perspectives - and finds my attempts at explanations as condescension or snobbery.) This is why I wrote above that I only brought up an authoritative source of definitions, without wanting to argue against anybody or anything.

>>there is no better way to ensure the truth of one’s beliefs, and weed out the false ones than to have them challenged.<<

The “truth of one’s beliefs” and “weeding out the false ones” sounds to me like the language of rather conservative Catholics. Hardly a way to start discussions about theist and atheist worldviews, since exactly a different understanding of what is “truth” (except in formal or trivial situations) lies at the very basis of their (philosophical) disagreements.

>>This is why it can be argued that atheism is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.<<

Agreed. The same as “it can be argued that belief that not all of reality is reducible to the physical world accessible to science (which is less than belief in God, the next step in the beliefs that define a theist) is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.”

Different “we’s” have different understandings of “know” on this abstract level, so this is not a contradiction.

For the rest, I can only repeat that everybody can decide for themselves whether they find your or Webster’s definition more helpful.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You indicate:

"Firstly, it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God."

Please be assured I was not "implying an object". I had no idea Hindus considered their Gods as objects.

Am I not right in thinking that Yuyutsu was a moral warrior in the epic Hindu Mahabharata in which there were numerous Gods ?

I am sorry for mistakenly believing you were polytheist like your namesake.
.

You observe:

" 'Futile' is always in relation to some object to be achieved"
.

In the context in which I employed the term (loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine), the "object" is to love God. In this context, it is impossible and simply an illusion.

The same principle applies as that which you indicated above in respect of "faith":

" ... upon finding out that what they considered to be the object of their faith does not exist (and never existed), then they had no faith to begin with ...".

Applied to " loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine", doesn't this mean that you thought you were loving God but you weren't and it was only an illusion ?
.

You also indicate:

" ... loving God is in our very nature ..."

No, Yuyutsu, it is not. It is receptivity to the possibility of God that is in our nature.

Neuroscientific research has revealed that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

Genetically determined receptivity provides a favourable foundation for religious belief, subsequently developed through education.

Love, hate and indifference are attitudes which depend on individual choice.
.
As a general comment, Yuyutsu, I can't help feeling that some of your posts here strangely resemble the difficulty some men have in coping with their "anima" as described by Carl Jung:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjRQbJPULx4

.

Dear Banjo,

>>Neuroscientific research has revealed that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.<<

You are probably referring to the experiments and findings of Andrew B. Newberg and his followers with meditating Tibetan Buddhists or Franciscan nuns (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research.asp).

Perhaps one could say that the brain is related to “religious belief” like hardware to software: religious beliefs (with or without a capacity to meditate) are “run” on (some of) our brains and neuroscientists are the “hardware technicians”.

>>Genetically determined receptivity provides a favourable foundation for religious belief, subsequently developed through education. <<

The same as “Genetically determined receptivity provides a favorable foundation for the ability to understand (and research) rather abstract mathematics, subsequently developed through education.”

I would not mind if some neuroscientist informed me about what was happening in my brain while I was doing my research in mathematics, as long as he/she would not want to draw conclusions from his findings about the subject of my research - logical correctness and relation to “reality” of the mathematics I was “doing”.

The same for neuroscience and (the existence or not of) the subject of religious belief or source of meditation.

Note that Newberg does not make such hasty conclusions, although some of his followers and popularisers do. Neither does he avoid the problem of reality as seen by neuroscientists, a reality which might or might not be identical to physical reality as studied by physicists (http://bigthink.com/videos/the-neuroscience-of-religious-experiences-andrew-newberg-live-on-big-think).

See also his recent book http://www.amazon.com/Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist-ebook/dp/B001Y35GDS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370791958&sr=8-1&keywords=newberg+andrew

Dear Banjo,

Yes, Yuyutsu was a moral warrior in the Mahabharata.

There is a view that the Mahabharata is not a historical account, but an allegory of the inner battle between the elements of good and evil within one's body, mind and psyche, each character representing a particular proclivity.

<<I had no idea Hindus considered their Gods as objects.>>

Hinduism is a supermarket of ideas, intended to achieve all kinds of goals, not all even religious. Within Hinduism I take the religious path of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality).

The 'devas' depicted in the Mahabharata are commonly, but wrongly translated as 'gods' as there is no equivalent in the Western culture. A better translation could be 'demi-gods' or 'angels'. Some Hindus worship some of them, but that would be for them a secular activity with earthly goals in mind rather than part of religion.

Loving God is probably NOT in the nature of our bodies and brains, which are geared and evolved to survive and procreate, but I am not concerned with the body anyway, nor refer to some mental exercise of trying wilfully to love God. It is in our true nature, which IS God, to love God, to want to 'return', to unite with Him, to regain our awareness of being Him rather than a body, a brain or a mind, etc.

I suppose that it is likely for an evolved soul to be attracted to a body with genetic receptivity to religion (not only to religious belief). Otherwise one would be constantly fighting with their brain. In the end, however, what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God, not as much whether your body and brain assist you in that (although it helps).

We may read the story of Yuyutsu as an example of one whose body dragged him down towards evil. His physical association was with his 100 sinful brothers; his genetic pool was mediocre (a mixture of the warrior and merchant classes), but despite that pull, he used conscious effort to defect from their company and align himself with the forces of good.

.

Dear George and AJ Philips,

.

Belief and faith are largely interchangeable but there is a subtle difference which can, perhaps, best be apprehended by comparing "faithful" to" believable".

Faithful means loyal or reliable (with particular relevance to all living species as well as so-called supernatural entities).

Believable means most likely, given the circumstances (with particular relevance to hypotheses).

I hope you will find this helpful.

.

.

Dear George and Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your links, George. I find them quite interesting. Your comments on your maths research too.

I am not aware of anybody who believes in the existence of mathematics as an independent reality (but, perhaps you will correct me there). However, I agree that there seems no reason why the human brain should not have an in-built facility for mathematics and logical thought similar to that for belief in the supernatural.

I suppose the novelty in the research on religious belief is the fact the "God spot" has been located in the brain.

In any event, and unless you inform me otherwise, it seems that neither of these facilities could be construed as evidence of the existence of the supernatural or mathematics beyond human imagination.

I was alerted to the neuroscientific research on religious belief by the following article which appeared in "The Independent" a few years ago. Here is the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html
.

I must confess that communicating with you, Yuyutsu, is no easy task. Particularly when you declare that you " love a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine", or, as in your latest post:

"... I am not concerned with the body ... [but] ... in our true nature, which IS God ..."

I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me.

You write:

"... what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God ..."

I'm afraid I realised a long time ago that it was useless "to seek God". The best I could ever hope to achieve was to settle the question as to the existence or non-existence of "God".

It took the best part of my life, but I finally made it. Some might call it a revelation. I finally understood how the idea of the supernatural germinated in the nascent conscience of primeval man and evolved down the ages to present day concepts.

That is a simple reality which I have no difficulty relating to.

I have seen the light and can now die in peace.

.

Dear Banjo,

In English, belief and faith in a religious context are interchangeable only in a superficial language, not when studied by theologians, philosophers (of religion) or psychologists. Also in e.g. Latin, the equivalents of “I believe that God exists” (expression of belief) and “I believe in God” (expression of faith) have very different meanings.

I think the terms “faithful” and “believable” do not play much of a role in a religious context. In everyday language they mean what you describe, but I am not sure whether they better describe the essential difference between religious belief and faith - and better serve as an initial insight into the serious philosophy and psychology of religion - than the description in Webster’s Dictionary that I gave.

>>I suppose the novelty in the research on religious belief is the fact the "God spot" has been located in the brain.<<

Well, “God spot” is a term used by popularizers, not by Newberg, who did research with meditating nuns (who apparently believed in God), Buddhist monks (whose “spiritual world” might or might not be part of what science can access), and outright atheists. Otherwise I agree with you: what has been located are the parts of the brain active during meditation or deep prayer. After all, that there are many mental activities or states of mind that have had their "location" in brain identified.

ctd.

ctd
>>I am not aware of anybody who believes in the existence of mathematics<<

In my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 I referred to Penrose’s three worlds, physical, mathematical and mental, to which I would add spiritual.

Everybody (except for solipsists) believes - there is no strict “evidence” for that - that the physical world exists independent of the mental (individual or collective) world, i.e. is not reducible to it; many (not all) mathematicians believe that the mathematical world is reducible to neither the physical nor the mental world; theists or deists (like Einstein) believe that the spiritual world is similarly reducible to neither the physical nor the mental world.

Mathematicians who believe in the irreducibility of the mathematical world (i.e. its existence independent of our minds) are referred to as (mathematical) Platonists. Many, if not most, contemporary mathematicians are Platonists.

>>it seems that neither of these facilities could be construed as evidence of the existence of the supernatural or mathematics beyond human imagination.<<

I agree, this is what I wrote before referring to Newberg. Of course, neither is there “evidence” - a term when used when referring to reality, physical or otherwise, a leftover from David Hume and his eighteenth century philosophy - of its non-existence i.e. reducibility to the mental world.

May I add here that Chapter 1 and Epilogue of Newberg’s book referred to above (http://www.amazon.com/Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist-ebook/dp/B001Y35GDS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370791958&sr=8-1&keywords=newberg+andrew) are freely available online, and contain easy to follow material about the relevance (or not) of his findings to the question of God' existence, and how a neuroscientist can interprete it.

.
 
Dear Yuyutsu,
 
.
 
I wrote in my last post:

"I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me"
.

To be perfectly honest with you, I think I could write some pretty weird ideas myself and post them here as indications of profound wisdom for others to meditate upon.

But, don't worry, I won't do that.

Allow me simply to post the following little anecdote related by Albert Camus, a French-Algerian philosopher and author:

" The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor".

From "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942).

I sympathise with Sisyphus and draw a parallel with my quest of the God which many seemed to believe existed.
 
.

Dear Banjo,

So much for the tyranny of language: belief and faith are two completely different things.

Belief has to do with the world. It relates to the existence or otherwise of objects and is commonly associated with a degree of evidence (not too much, otherwise it would be 'knowledge').

Faith is a subjective state of being. It relates to trust and loyalty.

The reason why English and other modern languages place 'belief' and 'faith' in the same basket is probably due to the Western so-called 'enlightenment', whereby it became fashionable to have faith in objective evidence. As people began to have both belief AND faith in the same, objective evidence, they lost the distinction between the two.

<<I'm afraid I realised a long time ago that it was useless "to seek God". The best I could ever hope to achieve was to settle the question as to the existence or non-existence of "God".>>

This question has long been resolved. If you think of God as a deity, then surely there is no god under your bed. The existence of a deity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. in other words unlimited) is a logical contradiction.

However, God is not a deity.

<<I finally understood how the idea of the supernatural germinated in the nascent conscience of primeval man and evolved down the ages to present day concepts.>>

But who but you mentioned the supernatural? and who but you discussed concepts? God is neither supernatural nor a concept.

<<"I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me">>

That's good, or else you would be delusional. God is not supposed to make sense as He is not a sense-object. God is not supposed to be imaginable as He is not a mental-object. God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind.

George,

I don’t remember an occasion where we went around in circles. We often reach a point where I ask you what you believe and why - only to be stonewalled with a response along the lines of, “Look, let’s just drop it, okay? You wouldn’t understand." - but I can’t recall going around in circles, sorry.

<<Sometimes it is called snobbery, sometimes condescension, sometimes mental or intellectual gymnastics, I have been accused here of all these things.>>

Mental gymnastics isn’t what I was referring to there. Snobbery is different to mental gymnastics. Mental gymnastics is something people are accused of when unnecessarily complex arguments are used in order to avoid facing a simpler, but less comforting answer. Snobbery (condescension too, for that matter) would more be suggesting that the accuser isn’t sophisticated enough to understand and simply leaving it at that, rather than explaining your case to them. If you explain your case to them, then they’ll either understand where you’re coming from, or they’ll demonstrate to yourself and any onlookers that they’re just not going to get it. Either way, you wouldn’t have wasted your time.

Another point I’d make here is that it’s interesting that you only focussed on what I had said in brackets. The comment in brackets was only there as a side note. You consequently (and perhaps conveniently) missed the whole point that I was making in that paragraph by hyper-focussing on something that, ultimately, wasn’t important.

<<(I was often tempted to remark that it is hard to have discussions about algebraic topology with somebody who lacks the background insights - in this case mathematical rather than different worldview perspectives - and finds my attempts at explanations as condescension or snobbery.)>>

This would only be snobbery or condescension if the person you were talking to first asked for an explanation of algebraic topology and you refused to answer, suggesting that they would never understand anyway.

Continued...

...Continued

But I’m not sure why you’re still talking about condescension and snobbery though. It’s not like I was accusing you of it. I was simply cautioning you about how some may perceive suggestions that they’re not sophisticated enough to understand your beliefs when no effort is made to explain them.

<<The “truth of one’s beliefs” and “weeding out the false ones” sounds to me like the language of rather conservative Catholics. Hardly a way to start discussions about theist and atheist worldviews, since exactly a different understanding of what is “truth” (except in formal or trivial situations) lies at the very basis of their (philosophical) disagreements.>>

In that case, I have a few questions that I hope will get us somewhere: -

1. How do you define truth?
2. Do you define truth differently where religion is concerned and if so, why?
3. How do you define knowledge?
4. Do you define knowledge differently where religion is concerned and if so, why?
5. Do you agree that God’s existence is a logical absolute (i.e. He either exists, or he doesn't)? And if not, why not?

For clarity's sake, Yuyutsu (although I suspect clarity is not your objective here...)

>>God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind.<<

Put in less poetic language, this tells us that you can only find God when you take leave of your senses, and lose your mind.

That's a tad harsh, is it not? But fully consistent, I have to admit, with the complete absence of meaning that you allow to adhere to the God-concept. If there was the slightest inkling that we mere mortals could approach a definition, you will quickly tell us that we haven't a clue what we are on about.

Very convenient. But, in the end, utterly useless as a means of conveying understanding as to what is, as opposed to what isn't, your God.

And as happens with so many of Sells' contributions, this discussion has meandered its way far, far from the original topic. Which is a great shame. Because "biblical literalism" is the root cause of so many violent arguments, both within the realm of a single bible, but also across the various "holy works" that drive religions to fight each other to the literal death. A mature discussion on the pitfalls and potential remedies would have been useful.

Never mind. Perhaps we can discuss its impact some other time.

Dear AJ Philips,

Your questions were addressed to George, but I cannot resist answering:

1. Truth is that which masks nothing, specifically characterised by the absence of lying, deceit or illusion.
2. No. But in ordinary life we tend to leniently/sloppily pass for truth anything so long as it involves no deliberate deceit or an obvious lack of judgement. In the context of religion we are strict, so anything that masks the fundamental underlying Reality is not the Truth. Thus only God is true.
3. Knowledge is when nothing distorts the experience of the knower in relation to the known.
4. No. But in ordinary life we tend to leniently/sloppily pass for knowledge indirect experiences of the 'known', such as evidenced via the senses and the mind and/or via other people's claims. In the context of religion we are strict, so anything short of direct experience, using any via through which the 'known' is experienced by the knower, is distorted by that via, hence is short of knowledge. Thus one may only know oneself, because anything else but oneself is separated by space-time, requiring some vehicle to bridge that gap. Fortunately, since there is nothing but God, being God ourselves we can know God and as others are God too, we can know others.
5. Yes. God's existence is an absolute logical impossibility.

Dear Pericles,

The above explains why in order to know God, one must set aside and suspend one's senses and mind. It is however not required to lose them forever.

Indeed, God cannot be understood - because understanding is via the mind. God can only be known by direct experience. Unfortunately a direct experience cannot be conveyed to others, for it wouldn't then remain indirect!

Biblical literalism should be viewed as a religious technique that helps us to practise suspending our senses and mind. It is insufficient on its own and must be complemented by other religious techniques - otherwise indeed violence may erupt. Some people, usually beginners, find this technique more useful than others.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote:

"Belief has to do with the world ... ". Faith has to do with the world too.

" Faith is a subjective state of being ..." Belief is too.

Nothing is more treacherous than belief and faith, Yuyutsu. This is what the "Online Etymology Dictionary indicates:

belief

late 12c., replaced O.E. geleafa "belief, faith," from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (early 13c.).

faith

mid-13c., "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late
14c.; religions called faiths since c.1300. Old Faithful geyser named 1870 by explorer Gen. H.D. Washburn, Surveyor-General of the Montana Territory, in reference to the regularity of its outbursts.
.

I understand that the Hindu concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual as well as the tradition and philosophy followed.

Thank you for indicating that, within Hinduism, you take the religious path of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality).

This means that you believe that your spirit or soul - your true "self", called your "atman" - is eternal and that, according to the monistic/pantheistic theology of Advaita Vedanta, your "atman" is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit (therefore, said to be non-dualist).

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It also means that your goal in life is to become one with God, or, perhaps even, to become God ?

However, despite all your references to God, it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God. Indeed, it seems that Advaita Vedanta is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism.
.

I had great difficulty understanding when you wrote:

"God is not a deity ... The existence of a deity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. in other words unlimited) is a logical contradiction ... God is neither supernatural nor a concept.

God is not supposed to make sense ... God is not supposed to be imaginable ... God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind".

Also, when you declared that you " love a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine".
.

My Oxford English Dictionary indicates that "god" means "superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes, deity". And according to the "Online Etymology Dictionary", "god" means "supreme being, deity".

To tell the truth, I find Hindu philosophy quite interesting and I think I am beginning to unravel the picture as to how Hindu religions managed to develop their present dogma.

It all becomes fairly logical when one considers that, at the beginning, they were faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity. The method then seems to have consisted in adopting an avoidance strategy in order to proceed. This strategy would have permitted the circumvention of any objections, criticisms and pitfalls as and when they arose.

So if it is at all possible to judge by present-day Hindu religious dogma, this could well be a possible explanation of how it developed since its early beginnings during the ancient Vedic civilisation (1500BC - 500BC).

It does, at least, throw some light on why you evacuate many of what I consider to be legitimate questions as being irrelevant.

But, then again, perhaps, and it would be no surprise to me, I have completely misunderstood.

.

AJ Philips,

>>a point where I ask you what you believe<<

which I answered a long time ago in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883.

>>and why<<

What do you want me to answer? (I speak about six languages, if you wish I could list them, but would not know how to answer in a few words the “why” question). Even if I tried, I could not start the long exposition better than what you can find in the Epilogue - freely available online from amazon.com - of the Newberg book I gave a link to in my above post to Banjo.

>>you only focussed on what I had said in brackets<<

Originally I wrote “I have been often tempted to remark … “ but then realized you might react the way you did, so I changed it to “I WAS often tempted to remark…” to make it explicit that I was referring to situations when I was trying to argue a case, rather than offering an authoritative source of abstract definitions.

As to the very concept of definitions, strictly speaking they have to rely on words, concepts etc that either need to be further defined or are accepted as self-explanatory. This is the case in mathematics or in trivial, everyday situations, where all can agree on the understanding of basic self-explanatory words that the definition is build on. It is not the case with abstract terms like “faith”, “belief”, “existence”, “reality”, “truth”, “God”, “knowledge”, “religion”, “time”, “mathematics” etc.

This is why extensive, “semi-encyclopaedic” dictionaries - like the Webster’s one I have been quoting from - contain alternative “definitions” of a term, even when they don’t contradict each other. That is why I said that Webster’s definitions are helpful, insightful etc, rather than right or wrong. And this is why I wrote that different understandings (NOT DEFINITIONS) of what is “truth” lie at the very basis of disagreements between the two alternative worldview orientations.
ctd

ctd

So I probably cannot give you definitions of truth, God, existence, knowledge or answer your five questions to your satisfaction, certainly not in a few words (except to invite you to look them up in an authoritative dictionary of your liking).

Nevertheless, let me try at leat by stating that I see truth, (what exists on its own, reality) as something unattainable by us, only approximated by a process of our mind, be it in the confines of scientific investigation, philosophical reflections, intellectual assent or (for some) meditation and contemplation.

So its is not the case that “I am right with my worldview and you are wrong with yours” but rather that “I personally believe (in a manner hard to communicate over different worldviews) that my worldview is closer to that (principally unattainable) truth (about reality) than yours”.

Dear Banjo,

Let me repeat, the strict difference between “faith” and “belief” exists - to my knowledge - only in English, and even that only in specialist literature.

For instance, the book “Ueber den Glauben” by Josef Pieper was translated as “Belief and Faith” (Random House 1975), and provided with the following remark by the translator:

“The German word 'Glaube' can mean ‘belief’ or ‘faith’. In this translation we mostly used ‘belief’ but the reader should keep in mind the other term should some sentence sound strange. When quoting Thomas Aquinas ‘fides’ is translated as ‘belief’ instead of the more common ‘faith’ to keep consistency with the German text.”

Thanks for your thoughts, Yuyutsu. Unfortunately, though, I think we disagree on too many fundamentals to have any meaningful discussion.

George,

<<What do you want me to answer?>>

Well, I had asked several times before how you got from the “Something” to Christianity. Or do you view the Bible stories as just nice fables to read and think about? If so, then what do you get out of attending Catholic mass when you disagree with most of the people sitting there in the church with you, and particularly the guy up the front that you presumably go to listen to?

<<I speak about six languages, if you wish I could list them, but would not know how to answer in a few words the “why” question).>>

That’s what I suspected.

Our beliefs inform our actions; so if we can’t summarise why we hold a particular belief, then that’s a problem because we run the risk of believing other things, more detrimental to our well being, for unclear reasons. The ability to summarise is an important skill in research and critical analysis; a skill I doubt you lack.

<<Even if I tried, I could not start the long exposition better than what you can find in the Epilogue - freely available online from amazon.com - of the Newberg book I gave a link to in my above post to Banjo.>>

I couldn’t find Newberg’s epilogue there, sorry.

As for definitions, yes, “understanding’ is more what I was getting at.

<<Nevertheless, let me try at leat by stating that I see truth, (what exists on its own, reality) as something unattainable by us, only approximated by a process of our mind, be it in the confines of scientific investigation, philosophical reflections, intellectual assent or (for some) meditation and contemplation. >>

I agree, and this sits fine with what I was saying about having as many true beliefs as possible and weeding out the false ones. Those approximations can still attain high degrees of certainty.

Continued...

...Continued

Science and criminal justice systems rely on this. A defence lawyer doesn’t defend his/her client by asking, “Well, what is truth anyway..?”

So I guess the big question, here, is: Why are you making an exception for religious belief? Why is it not held to the same standards?

<<So its is not the case that “I am right with my worldview and you are wrong with yours” but rather that “I personally believe (in a manner hard to communicate over different worldviews) that my worldview is closer to that (principally unattainable) truth (about reality) than yours”.>>

Okay, but there is still an objective truth whether or not we are here to, or able to approximate or attain it. And as you suggested, one of us can be closer to the truth than the other.

So I don’t see how this contradicts what I had said regarding the truth of our beliefs either. I didn’t mean to suggest that absolute certainty needed to be attained. Absolute certainty is a largely useless concept anyway.

The only way the above could contradict what I was saying about the truth of our beliefs, is if you’re suggesting that there is no objective reality and what we want to believe is true, actually becomes true, simply because we want to believe it. And that we all live in our own compartmentalised realities where we can invent our own truths.

The problem with this, however, is that we rely on objective truths, and realities that we can all agree upon, in order to live in an as harmonious a society as possible.

Or does religious belief get a free pass here too? If so, then why?

Not in my universe it doesn't, Yuyutsu.

>>The above explains why in order to know God, one must set aside and suspend one's senses and mind. It is however not required to lose them forever.<<

It explains precisely nothing.

And even this new addition to our understanding is structurally incomplete. If it is not "forever", what happens when you re-attach your senses and reclaim your mind? Do you immediately stop knowing God? Do you gradually stop knowing God? If you still know God afterwards, without having to suspend your senses, why is it not possible to create that knowing without the tedious business of losing one's mind?

Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?

Dear Banjo,

<<It also means that your goal in life is to become one with God, or, perhaps even, to become God ?>>

Almost correct. My goal in life is God-Realisation. I am already God and so are you, it's just a question of realising that, by dropping the obstacles that obscure that obvious.

<<However, despite all your references to God, it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God.>>

It is also unimportant. Contemporary Western society attaches a disproportional importance to belief.

<<Indeed, it seems that Advaita Vedanta is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism.>>

Then so be it. Those 'some' are like zoologists who struggle to classify the platypus. The platypus doesn't care whether it's a mammal or a bird so long as it has enough water.

<<It all becomes fairly logical when one considers that, at the beginning, they were faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity.>>

What's wrong with empiricism? The main difference between the ancient Hindus and modern scientists is that the former did not discard valuable knowledge just because it was subjective.

Dear Pericles,

<<If it is not "forever", what happens when you re-attach your senses and reclaim your mind? Do you immediately stop knowing God? Do you gradually stop knowing God? If you still know God afterwards, without having to suspend your senses>>

Once you know yourself, you know that you ARE God, so then you could do as you like.

<<why is it not possible to create that knowing without the tedious business of losing one's mind?>>

It seems that you are so in love with your mind that you don't like losing it.

<<Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?>>

Not at all. It WAS important to me to answer your questions politely, as best I can. You want no obfuscation, then fine: for you this is all porno - you are wasting my time while you enjoy masturbating your beloved mind!

That sums it up pretty nicely, Yuyutsu.

>>Not at all. It WAS important to me to answer your questions politely, as best I can. You want no obfuscation, then fine<<

Polite obfuscation. I get it. As in...

>>Once you know yourself, you know that you ARE God, so then you could do as you like.<<

With which sense are you able to "know", pray tell. Given that you have suspended all those senses and capabilities of which we are presently aware, including the mind, reason, logic etc., which part of you suddenly finds out that you are a God?

>>...for you this is all porno - you are wasting my time while you enjoy masturbating your beloved mind!<<

Strangely enough, this is precisely the image I have of you. Hunched over your keyboard, giving yourself yet another self-induced petit mort, as you purposefully ignore all the questions, and instead deliver a sermon of such consummate condescension, that you are in awe of yourself for hours.

.

Dear Pericles and Yuyutsu,

.

Pericles wrote:

"Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?"
.

As I indicated in my last post to Yuyutsu, faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity, Hindu religions appear to have adopted an avoidance strategy in order to develop their dogma, permitting the circumvention of any objections, criticisms and pitfalls as and when they arose.

The method employed seems to have consisted in a process spanning nearly 3000 years of interminable verbal exchanges between gurus and their disciples which took the form of a series of riddles and contradictions during intellectual jousts, probably along similar lines to those that Socrates indulged in a few centuries later in the ancient agora of Athens.

Yuyutsu's posts here appear to follow the same pattern, "now you see me, now you don't". He is a moving target, at the slightest challenge contradicting whatever he said previously, turning it over without the slightest sign of unease like a hot sausage on a barbeque:

Yuyutsu: " God does not exist. My goal in life is God-Realisation. I am already God and so are you". [objestion: it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God]. Yuyutsu: " It is also unimportant. Contemporary Western society attaches a disproportional importance to belief ... What's wrong with empiricism? The main difference between the ancient Hindus and modern scientists is that the former did not discard valuable knowledge just because it was subjective".

According to Yuyutsu, to see God you must close your eyes. To hear God you must stop listening. To find God you must stop searching. To know God you must stop thinking. [objection: it seems that Advaita Vedanta (Yuyutsu's Hindu religious "path") is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism]. Yuyutsu: "So be it".

.

(Continued )

.

.

(Continued )

.

Yuyutsu: "God is not a deity ... God is neither supernatural nor a concept ... God is not supposed to make sense ... God is not supposed to be imaginable ... Religion is about coming closer to God ... a religious person seeks God, not survival!".

Yuyutsu: " with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant! ... the love of God should not depend upon His existence ... Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist ... then you have no faith , only belief! ... ".

Yuyutsu: " ultimately one needs to ... love God regardless even that He never existed ... it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God ... loving God is in our very nature ... what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God".
.

To understand Yuyutsu, we probably need to project our minds back about 150 years or so to a Bengali mystic known as Ramakrishna and his chief disciple, Swami Vivekananda whose teachings apparently continue to inspire Yuyutsu, though Swami died in 1902.

Yuyutsu obviously has problems bridging the gap between his acquired Hindu culture and his native Western culture, which possibly explains a certain amount of confusion in his expression, if not in his ideas.

The fact that he often contradicts himself doesn't seem to bother Yuyutsu. Perhaps his memory plays up with him occasionally.

And to cap it all off, I have the impression that our dear friend is not particularly endowed with communication skills.

A little patience and indulgence can do no harm.

.

AJ Philips,

>>I had asked several times before how you got from the “Something” to Christianity.<<

Do you want me to write a story of my life, or what, presumably in less than 350 words? Even if I tried, you would again pick it apart, sentence by sentence, to resist my non-existent attempts at converting you (I can’t see any other reason).

I presented my worldview beliefs (representations or models of reality, to use a language borrowed from philosophy of science) in four steps or levels (1. disbelief of Sagan’s maxim, 2. God who can be communicated with, 3. Christianity in general, 4. the Catholic version of Christianity). You want me to talk about jumping from level 1 to 3, possibly 4, in a few words. I am not that important, and there are a legion of books trying to explain why this or that philosopher, scientist etc is a Christian or just believes in God. Some might be too pushy but the serious ones just try to communicate to insiders (and hopefully also to outsiders) what the religious part of their worldview is about.

To read Andrew Newberg’s views on God you have to go to www.amazon.com, search for “Newberg, God”, click “Go” and then click on “LOOK INSIDE” the first book “How God Changes Your Brain”and then on “First Pages”. You can read the First Chapter and the Epilogue of the book by scrolling through.

To react to the rest, I really would have to repeat myself about how complex is the question of which representation of physical reality (i.e. physical theory) is more adequate for this or that purpose, and how much more complicated is the relation between various religions, which I see as “representations” of spiritual reality. To understand the first you need mathematics and perhaps to understand the latter you need spiritual or mystical insights (don’t ask me to “define” them!).

Dear Banjo,

>>To understand Yuyutsu, we probably need to project … to … Ramakrishna and … Swami Vivekananda<<

Yes, I think he himself admitted that much, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#256082.

You're probably right, Banjo Paterson.

>>And to cap it all off, I have the impression that our dear friend is not particularly endowed with communication skills. A little patience and indulgence can do no harm.<<

It is probably best if I don't try to extract any sense out of the communications, having foolishly committed myself to imagining that there was some to extract in the first place.

I'll just back away, slowly...

Dear Pericles,

<<I'll just back away, slowly...>>

And I thank you for freeing up my time to do better things.

.

Dear Pericles and Yuyutsu,

.

The king's a beggar, now the play is done:
All is well ended, if this suit be won,
That you express content; which we will pay,
With strife to please you, day exceeding day:
Ours be your patience then, and yours our parts;
Your gentle hands lend us, and take our hearts.

Exeunt

(Epilogue, "All's Well That Ends Well", Shakespeare)
.

And we, attentive observers, the more wise of it !

.

George,

Thanks for the instructions. I’m not very familiar with amazon.com and I glossed over the image of the book as nothing more than that. I’ll have a read of it shortly.

<<Do you want me to write a story of my life, or what, presumably in less than 350 words?>>

So are you saying that it’s ‘revealed truth’ then? That God has revealed Himself to you through your life? If so, then this poses many problems, such as why a God - who has an important message for us all - would choose to reveal himself only to certain people and in obscure ways that would be ignored by most rational people.

<<Even if I tried, you would again pick it apart, sentence by sentence, to resist my non-existent attempts at converting you (I can’t see any other reason).>>

To understand why others believe what they believe and see if it stands up to scrutiny; to get me thinking; to challenge my own beliefs; to defend reason if I think it goes against it.

There are many reasons. And as I had mentioned once before, one of the fundamental differences between the theist and the atheist is that atheists generally don’t have emotive reasons for their non-belief. So there is simply no reason to assume a resistance on my behalf. That would suggest that I don’t want to believe.

<<I presented my worldview beliefs (representations or models of reality, to use a language borrowed from philosophy of science) in four steps or levels (1. disbelief of Sagan’s maxim, 2. God who can be communicated with, 3. Christianity in general, 4. the Catholic version of Christianity). You want me to talk about jumping from level 1 to 3, possibly 4, in a few words.>>

Any or all of them would be good. I’d be particularly interested in how you came to your decision on 1.

Continued...

...Continued

You’ve said once before that religious belief need not be irrational (presumably you’d include your own in the ‘not irrational’ category), yet you are unable to summarise how you arrived at 1, 2 or 3. As I touched on before, one of the processes of critical thought requires that we be able to summarise what it is that we’re apply our reasoning to.

So how did you determine that your religious beliefs were not irrational without even being able to apply one of the most basic techniques of critical analysis?

<<I am not that important...>>

Either way, if you are going to scoff at, or brush-off arguments from atheists as naive or unsophisticated, then you need to be able to explain how this sophistication renders their points irrelevant, if you want to be taken seriously. It’s not good enough to say that it’s all too sophisticated to explain because your inability to summarise these sophisticated explanations brings into question whether or not you even have one at all.

Perhaps your answers become so complex because you are not asking (or you're avoiding) the right questions..?

<<...there are a legion of books trying to explain why this or that philosopher, scientist etc is a Christian or just believes in God.>>

I’ve read some of the opinions of prominent theistic thinks and watched debates with them (including the ones rational-debate found so convincing) and I am yet to see an argument stands up to any scrutiny or brings into question my broad definition of faith. I was hoping you had something new.

<<To understand the [physical reality] you need mathematics and perhaps to understand [spiritual reality] you need spiritual or mystical insights (don’t ask me to “define” them!).>>

No, I wouldn’t expect that you could define them either. The spiritual and mystical are what people fall back on when they have no rational reason to believe what they are proposing.

Hence my definition of faith.

AJ Philips,

>>if you are going to scoff at, or brush-off arguments from atheists as naive or unsophisticated<<

When I spoke of “naive or unsophisticated” (re philosophy of science or religion) I made it explicit that I meant atheists AS WELL AS theists.

>>I’ve read some of the opinions of prominent theistic thinks … and I am yet to see an argument stands up to any scrutiny <<

Exactly, this is what I gathered from your posts, and this is why I do not see any point in continuing with your interrogation since it is most unlikely that my “arguments” would suddenly stand up to your scrutiny.

>>I’d be particularly interested in how you came to your decision on 1.<<

I already wrote explicitly, that I saw no way to decide ‘logically’ in favour of the Sagan or the other alternative. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference but these cannot be explained - or at least are hard to explain - to somebody whose predilections and life experiences have led him/her to the opposite decision. So you are right that I should not have mentioned “spiritual or mystical insights” that I do not have myself (but accept and respect them in others).

“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing” (Blaise Pascal’s). Maybe reason needs also the “heart” (particluar personal life experiences) ingredient to opt for the non-materialist alternative.

Since I cannot communicate any convincing to you reasons for my preference, let me finish this exchange (and apparently the whole thread now that also others gave up) with two quotes I already posted here some years ago:

“Do not go afar: seek within thyself. Truth resides inside of man.” (Augustine of Hippo)

“Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, pre-formed, a mental space where the Truth may eventually lodge.” (Ortega y Gasset).

George,

Perhaps I should have mentioned theists there too.

<<When I spoke of “naive or unsophisticated” (re philosophy of science or religion) I made it explicit that I meant atheists AS WELL AS theists.>>

Either way, this is a strange way to reply unless you’ve missed my point entirely.

I’m not overly concerned with you scoffing at, or brushing-off their arguments as unsophisticated because they’re patently and demonstrably wrong anyway - sophisticated or not.

More to my point, though: given the ease with which one can show these claims to be false and the frequency with which it is done (by many), I personally don’t think you should have to explain your arguments to justify brushing them off. Supposedly unsophisticated atheistic arguments, on the other hand, (when not brushed-off) are often met with, ”Oh, that’s not MY theology!” Yet any attempts to gain an understanding of what their theology is, and why the unsophisticated arguments don’t negate it, are eventually just met with, “Yeah, it’s complicated”, along with pardons granted exclusively to the theology that are never justified.

Which I hope, by now, I have adequately shown to be merely a sidestep.

<<Exactly, this is what I gathered from your posts, and this is why I do not see any point in continuing with your interrogation since it is most unlikely that my “arguments” would suddenly stand up to your scrutiny.>>

No, no... I didn’t say “my” scrutiny. I said “any” scrutiny.

Actually, it probably doesn’t matter much anyway. I mean, if they don’t stand up to my scrutiny, then they’re certainly not going to stand up to the scrutiny of the more prominent atheistic thinkers.

I can’t help but think, though, that you’re subtly trying make this about me.

<<I already wrote explicitly, that I saw no way to decide ‘logically’ in favour of the Sagan or the other alternative. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference...>>

Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, there is actually a way to logically (and objectively, more importantly) decide in favour of one over the other.

Continued...

...Continued

Regardless of our preferences or personal life experiences, the one with the least assumptions is the default assumption, since the additional assumption carries with it a philosophical burden of proof until it can be demonstrated that it is necessary.

We apply this philosophy in our daily lives when dealing with the real world. Those who don’t, usually run into problems by either making bad decisions, forming incorrect beliefs or just wasting their time. Yet religious belief, again, is granted a pardon here. But why?

According to your philosophy, we can justify a belief in ANYTHING, so long as we presuppose it early enough in the piece.

AJ Philips,

>>According to your philosophy, we can justify a belief in ANYTHING, so long as we presuppose it early enough in the piece.<<

Well, I described explicitly the two fundamental worldview alternatives: materialism (naturalism; belief that science can principally access all reality) or its opposite, belief in the irreducibility of all reality to its material dimension accessible to science. So I don’t know where you get your ANYTHING from, but never mind.

>> as I pointed out earlier, there is actually a way to logically (and objectively, more importantly) decide in favour of one over the other. <<

So why don’t you just keep to your “way” without seeking a confirmation of it from me, who differently understands the terms “logically”, “objectively”, etc ?

As you know, some people think theists’ worldviews are based on delusions, some think this about atheists’, more precisely antithešists'. You cannot expect to have your worldview preferences confirmed, rid you of your insecurities, by those whom you think of as suffering from delusions, as not being “logical”, “rational” or what. Let me emphasize, that this goes both ways, for both worldview orientations.

So let me just repeat my plea to end this entanglement of misunderstandings by agreeing to disagree, by agreeing that we two are happy and at home with these two different worldview orientations.

Dear George,

<<Well, I described explicitly the two fundamental worldview alternatives: materialism (naturalism; belief that science can principally access all reality) or its opposite, belief in the irreducibility of all reality to its material dimension accessible to science.>>

These are certainly the key fundamental alternatives: one either goes with the world or one goes with God.

However, the motivation to take one path or the other is not belief, but is rooted in the soul's deepest yearning to return to its source.

Belief is merely a mental activity. The mind is fleeting and subject to change, one says this, then one says that. When we are born, we don't hold a belief either way whether or not reality is reducible to its material dimension accessible to science - that is acquired later, but we already come to the world with spiritual proclivities.

True, a spiritual aspirant is more likely to believe that reality extends beyond its material dimension while one who has not yet developed a significant interest in God is likely to believe the opposite, but that's all secondary, it's an effect, not the cause. We may perhaps learn from it about the likelihood of one's spirituality, but there are exceptions both ways.

Belief is not a requisite for religion - By their fruit you will recognise them!

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I wrote before, I think I can see what you mean, but in order to communicate we have to agree on a common language, that includes definitions of abstract terms used. (We already seem to agree that we mean different things by “exists”.) I am not conversant with the language that apparently Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda use so I can only keep to the more or less Christian meaning of the concepts as they are used in the West.

I used the term “belief” ONLY as the conscious act of choosing between the two fundamental worldview alternatives; intellectual consent is probably a better word, although it also has a meaning deeper than just to indicate a fundamental worldview option:

“Faith treated as belief alone is reduced to intellectual consent” expresses a rather standard Christian maxim. Perhaps it corresponds to your “belief is merely a mental activity”. In Western language one usually distinguishes between fides and fiducia, the former corresponding to belief, the latter perhaps to what you have in mind with “spirituality”.

John Cardinal Newman explicitly uses the term assent for belief, whereas the Lutheran Paul Tillich has assensus for belief or intellectual consent. The Jewish thinker Martin Buber distinguishes between the Greek word pistis and the Hebrew Emunah, corresponding more or less to fides and fiducia

So in Western language, it is the fiducia/Emunah component of faith that perhaps correspond to your “spiritual proclivity”.

The neuroscientist Andrew Newberg’s research, referred to in my posts above, seems to support your claim that “we already come to the world with spiritual proclivities”. In the same sense that we are born with mathematical and many other “proclivities”? After all, it depends on what you mean by”proclivities”, and - at least as far as spiritual proclivities are concerned - many will disagree.