The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The gleeful nihilists > Comments

The gleeful nihilists : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 15/6/2016

It is notable that natural science could not and did not arise from pantheistic cultures.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Interesting and thoughtful article, or it would be if it just didn't rely almost exclusively on legend and fable merely manifesting as scholarly tomes.

And as such is chock full of known unknowns, unknown knowns; few if any known knowns and unknowable postulations presented as if they were factual?

And I don't intend to allow myself to be the subject of some inquisition for having stated a position, which will stand or fall on its own merit, without debate or defence, take it or leave it.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

Indee, an interesting article. Nevertheless:

There is no rational argument for a given set of (e.g. Christian) religious beliefs (or other world view presuppositions, e.g. atheist or materialist) that would be convincing for everybody.

What makes people opt for Christianity is FAITH, which is more than just religious beliefs understood as world view presuppositions, as I tried to explain in a short article http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf intended for publication on this onlineopinion (but rejected by Graham as inappropriate). Here I used the term fiducia, used e.g. by John Hick, to describe that extra that complements a set of beliefs into a full-grown faith. I think also conversely, it is fiducia that is lacking in people who say they lack (or openly reject) religious beliefs since without fiducia these are barely comprehensible.

So one should not say people who put their “total trust in reason” (because, usually not by their fault, they lack a sense of fiducia or lost it) necessarily end up in nihilism: they create their privatised fiducia. The same as one should not say those who believe in a religious set of world view presuppositions (in a way appropriate to their overall education and culture) are superstitious just because those who lack a sense of fiducia cannot understand the believer!s reasons for accepting that given set of beliefs.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 10:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We may think we have free will, hope, dreams, obsessions but it is only the flux of neural impulses, a billion synapses flickering away in our brain."

Ah, dualists!

The only way that we can conclude that if what 'I' do is down to my synapses, then 'I' don't have free will, is a hidden assumption: that my 'I' is not these flickering synapses. But this is exactly what you are trying to demonstrate, that there is more than the material. And so we see here that this is merely question-begging.

My self, my 'I', *is* these flickering synapses. Yes, I am made of matter; yes, what I *do* arises out of what is *am*. But what I am is human, and human is a fine thing to be. The accusation of nihilism is simply more question-begging.
Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 12:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More proof that Sells has not the slightest felt-comprehension as to what he he is talking about. And completely one-dimensional too.
These references address the issues that he refers to.
What we are as human beings in Truth & Reality
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm

Radical somatic ontology
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/touch.htm

Archaic old time religion and scientism
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism

Essays on the doubt-mind that informs/patterns every minute fraction of modern "culture"
http://www.dabase.org/doubt.htm
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 5:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Read the Hebrew bible and you will find that the quest for land is a key aspect of the history of Israel."

What has this to do with religion?

The logic?
A. The nation of Israel is questing for land.
B. The nation of Israel has a religion.
Therefore,
C. Israel's religion is questing for land.
And even,
D. Christianity, a universal derivative of Israel's religion is also questing for land, thus materialistic.

"Read the New Testament and you will find that the body is central to its concerns."

And which religion does not require the body? Can you tell a religion which can be practised without a body?
"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the Lord." [Psalms 115:17-18]

It is very important that the body is healthy, flexible and without pains, so it does not stand in the way, distracting the mind and obstructing religious practices - hence the Yoga Asanas (body postures) are included in Hinduism and considered a religious practice. Without a flexible body, even Muslims are unable to pray.

"In Christian theology the creator is separated from the creation."

Doesn't this render the creator limited? ... and us, orphans?

Even if contemporary Christian theologians are materialists, Jesus was not!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 10:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« There are two kinds of materialism, the methodological and the ontological. Methodological materialism is the rightful domain of the physical sciences … »

Perhaps - but it seems to me that there is no “à priori” reason to limit scientific enquiry to the sole domain of “methodological materialism”.

The field of interest of “science” is more generally “reality” – irrespective of the form or nature of such “reality”, defined simply as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it”.

Perhaps “scientific realism” may be a more appropriate term to describe scientific knowledge, i.e., “our best scientific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world, at a particular point of time”.
.

Also, I agree with George when he writes:

« What makes people opt for Christianity is FAITH, which is more than just religious beliefs understood as world view presuppositions … »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 16 June 2016 8:54:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

You refer to :

« … narrative devices that point beyond themselves to theological realities formulated in a prescientific culture … »

The term “theological realities” is an oxymoron.

The word “theological” relates to the study of "divinity" – which is a “concept”, a “belief”, or a “doctrine”, certainly not an established reality.

The word “realities”, on the contrary, relates to that which exists independently of ideas concerning it.

There are theological "studies", "concepts", "beliefs" and "doctrines" but there are no such things as "theological realities".

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 17 June 2016 6:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//It is notable that natural science could not and did not arise from pantheistic cultures.//

It is notable that Peter either believes that the Ancient Greeks weren't pantheists, or that they did not practice natural science. Neither of these beliefs is correct.

Nor are his beliefs that nihilism is a necessary outcome of atheism.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 17 June 2016 9:42:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is sounds like one big fallacious appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). I like the idea of this “radical scepticism”, though. I want to learn more. It sounds about as frightening as ‘ultra-rationalism’ or being ‘radically’ intelligent or sensible.

George,

In the context of religious belief, how does this ‘fiducia’ differ from credulity? As it stands, it appears to just be a fancy label used to disguise a belief’s lack of rational justification.

I do like the idea of rationalists having a “privatised fiducia”, though. It’s like a less-flattering way of saying ‘freethinker’.

It seems the purpose of this word, fiducia, is to falsely equate religious belief and rationalism by glossing over the negatives of the former, and depriving the latter of its virtues.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 17 June 2016 12:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

>>how does this ‘fiducia’ differ from credulity?<<

The same as apples from oranges (silly questions beget silly answers).

Anyhow, you can find out about “credulity” in any dictionary, whereas fiducia (besides its meaning in Roman law) is a technical term used in philosophy of religion. I used it in that rejected article written with the intention to clarify the confusion arising form mixing the rational and other - personal, cultural, psychological, “spiritual” etc - aspects of faith. Apparently without success as far as you are concerned although my post was in response to Sellick’s article who I assumed was familiar with the term and should understand the nuances.

Where John Hick has a distinction between fides and fiducia, Paul Tillich, the Lutheran philosopher of religion par excellence, distinguishes between assensus and fiducia, the Jewish thinker sees it as pistis versus Emunah, the Catholic philosopher Bernard Lonergan speaks of the irreducibility of faith to religious beliefs, etc.

None of them mentions credulity in this context, although http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18154#322473 applies also to those who cannot tolerate what they cannot understand in matters of religion, faith, spiritual dimension of reality, etc.

One can be rational without being a rationalist, social without being a socialist, fundamental without being a fundamentalist etc.

This is all I can say. Not being a specialist philosopher, I can only reproduce what I understood specialists say.

By “privatised fiducia” I meant that what gives somebody a satisfaction (even excitement, sometimes with an urge to convert, persuade outsiders) similar to what a believer gets from his faith, albeit without reference to an external spiritual source of this satisfaction. Like you can have “privatised sex”, i.e. without an external partner, but I did not want to use that word because some might find it offensive.
Posted by George, Saturday, 18 June 2016 8:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Like you can have “privatised sex”, i.e. without an external partner, but I did not want to use that word because some might find it offensive.//

Yes, I do find that very offensive. It really upsets me when people use pointless and long-winded euphemisms to express simple concepts because they have somehow reached the erroneous conclusion that it is good manners to call a spade a 'wood and steel composite silicate re-positioning device' instead of just a spade.

Euphemisms are only acceptable when they're funny, e.g. 'shaking sticky white coconuts from the veiny love tree'.

Just say wannking, dude. That way everybody knows what you mean without you having to explain it in an 'i.e.'. There is nothing offensive about clarity or conciseness.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 18 June 2016 10:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

I’m not sure why my question was silly. Up until that point there appeared to be no difference between fiducia, in the context of religious belief, and credulity. Sure, the article you submitted provided some superficial details that made fiducia a more complex notion. But fundamentally, the two appear no different to each other.

<<None of them mentions credulity in this context, although http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18154#322473 applies also to those who cannot tolerate what they cannot understand in matters of religion, faith, spiritual dimension of reality, etc.>>

That’s a pretty presumptuous sentiment you've expressed there. It presumes that those who reject certain beliefs must necessarily lack the ability to understand them. That’s a bit of a false dichotomy quite obviously set up to prevent an individual having to consider the possibility that there may be good reasons for the rejection of a belief that they hold.

The poem mentions mocking the “beautiful and good”. Though examples are few and far between, even I can see some good in religion. I think the most beautiful thing about religion is that it can bring hope to so many in a world torn apart by religion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 18 June 2016 3:47:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

I understand your quandary with regard to the appropriate word for religious adherence.

I don’t think it’s a question of philosophy of religion but of semantics.

In fact, I don’t think the distinction between “belief” and “faith” is specific to religion. It is a general distinction.

If I may quote what I consider to be the most authoritative English language source, the OED, it indicates the following definition for the word “belief”:

“An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof ”

For “faith”, the OED indicates the following definition :

“Complete trust or confidence in someone or something”

As you rightly suggest, it is quite subtle, but the germ of the distinction is in the definitions and simply needs to be amplified a little in order for us to see it more clearly and get a better understanding of it.

What it means is that “belief” is qualifying perception or information as “fact” rather than “fiction”. Whereas “faith” is having “complete confidence in somebody or something”.

Naturally, we have to “believe” that somebody or something exists before we can have “faith” in him/her or it. However, we do not have to “believe” what he/she or it says or does in order to have “faith” in him/her or it. The qualification of “fact” or “fiction” does not depend on our “faith”. It depends on our “belief”.

As we all know, somebody may be compelled to lie in particular circumstances. That does not prevent us from having “faith” in that person.

Also, allow me to add that commercial contracts are based on the legal principle of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), whereas insurance contracts are based on the legal principle of “uberrima fides” (utmost good faith). The difference is due to the fact that insurance is invisible which makes it more difficult for the buyer to judge the quality of what he is buying compared to a house or a car or some material product.

He is obliged to place his trust in the insurer (the seller), not the product.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 19 June 2016 1:59:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

<<Naturally, we have to “believe” that somebody or something exists before we can have “faith” in him/her or it.>>

Why?

We can still have complete trust or confidence in someone or something even if we never heard the word "existence" or ever entertained a similar concept.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 June 2016 2:29:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Your question brings to mind Bertrand Russel’s « Flying teapot » :

http://russellsteapot.net/

Of course it is possible to have faith in something which does not exist. Of the current world population of 7.4 billion people, I understand that roughly 6.3 billion (85%) profess to have faith in a god or gods that does not exist or do not exist.

Only 1.1 billion people (15%) are estimated to come under the category of those considered to be “religiously unaffiliated” (atheists, agnostics and “very ordinary persons” such as myself) :

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

To be perfectly complete, perhaps I should add that my mind remains open to possible future evidence which may prompt me to revise my position on this question as on all and any others that I may hold during my lifetime.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 19 June 2016 3:44:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

<<Of course it is possible to have faith in something which does not exist>>

Not only the above is not what I wrote, but it is not even possible: how can one talk about "something which does not exist", let alone have faith in "it"? If "it" doesn't exist, then "it" is not something!

The case that I presented was quite different: It is quite possible, in contrast with your earlier statement, that:
1. Someone/Something, 'A', exists.
2. Person 'P' has faith in (completely trusts) 'A'.
3. Person 'P' does not believe that 'A' exists.

One possible explanation (but not the only) to this situation is that 'P' has no concept of "existence".

Now since you mentioned God, there is no such contradiction there because He neither exists nor is someone/something, thus if you insist on this particular definition of "faith" (“Complete trust or confidence in someone or something”), then it follows that no-one can have faith in God.

I would like to say that I do have faith in God, I intuitively feel I do and the fact that He doesn't exist doesn't deter me in the least (in fact the contrary), but according to this narrow definition which you chose, that is not even logically possible.

<<To be perfectly complete, perhaps I should add that my mind remains open to possible future evidence which may prompt me to revise my position on this question>>

And the question is?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 June 2016 5:03:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis,

Yes, it was in anticipation of reactions like yours that I did not use the word to indicate by analogy what I had in mind. As for the rest of your objections, they apply to most of what philosophers (or e.g. theoretical physicists) write. My only advise is, just do not read things that you can understand only as “pointless and long-winded euphemisms” that upset you.

AJ Philips,

>>I’m not sure why my question was silly<<

Compare with “how does this text (written in Turkish) differ from a gibberish”. For me it does not differ because I do not speak Turkish but I accept that to Turks it might make sense. "Silly" was a mild word to indicate offensiveness - for some it is "credulity" for others "gibberish."

>> It presumes that those who reject certain beliefs must necessarily lack the ability to understand them.<<

You have a point here. Certainly one can make valuable contributions to the understanding of religion as a phenomenon by professional psychologists, sociologists, even philosophers, irrespective of what they believe or don’t believe.

On the other hand, you can accept or reject a belief only in the way you understand it, i.e. the concepts, relations etc used to express that belief. I certainly reject the belief in the existence of God as a supreme being among other beings, which is how the concept of God is understood by the “good old lady” (and many philosophically unsophisticated Christians), as well as, apparently, also Richard Dawkins, although she believes in Him and he does not. Many theologians say, they do not believe either in a God Dawkins shows arguments against. See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17951#318961 or http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16226#282668.

Other, e.g. Christian, tenets do not make sense if you do not believe in God (although if you interpret them naively - no other possibility for the “good old lady” and her unbeliever counterpart - they can clash with what is known from science, history, psychology etc
Posted by George, Sunday, 19 June 2016 7:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I agree but my concern was only with the (religious) meaning of these words as used by theologians and philosophers of (Western) religion. This was explicit in http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf: “Of course, both belief and faith have their respective meanings also outside the religious context but that is not my concern here.”

Anyhow, if the difference was that simple, scholars would not have had to invent foreign (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) words for it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As we know, you obviously have a non-standard meaning for the verb exist, since you claimed e.g. that you yourself do not exist.

On the other hand, you could also refer to Paul Tillich’s “God does not exist.  He is being-itself beyond essence and existence.  Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Chicago UP 1951, p. 205) or “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (ibid, p. 237).
Posted by George, Sunday, 19 June 2016 8:03:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … how can one talk about "something which does not exist", let alone have faith in "it"? »

Well, I don’t see any problem there. Lots of people talk about things that don't exist, including God or gods. That's no exception. There's nothing unusual about that.

You add :

« If "it" doesn't exist, then "it" is not something! »

That’s correct, but it does not prevent people from talking about it. That’s because most of them think it does exist. They do not realise that they are actually talking about nothing. I know it sounds silly but that’s the way it is !

And you conclude :

«… it follows that no-one can have faith in God. »

That is also correct, but they think they have faith in God because they believe that there is a God. Happily, that is not important. It is their faith alone that is important, “sola fide” – no need for a God or gods in reality.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but there are numerous instances of people attributing their miraculous survival from all sorts of disasters and natural catastrophes etc. to their faith in God. It is their faith that saves them – despite the fact that there is no God.

Keep your faith, Yuyutsu. It is extremely precious. It might even save your life someday.

Unfortunately, it won't save mine because I know there is no God. If I tried to pretend I had faith, I would just be kidding myself.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 19 June 2016 9:32:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Thank you very much for the quotes from Tillich. Not coming from a Christian background, I am not familiar with Tillich, but I agree with every word.

Skimming through his wikipedia entry, I note that so far I agree with all I saw of his views and took a note that it will be worthwhile to read further.

As for my own non-existence, Tillich writes: ”God is being-itself, not a being”.
Where I come from is the Advaita Vedanta philosophy which adds: "Yes - an you are that", "Tat Tvam Asi".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/tattvamasi.htm
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 June 2016 9:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … my concern was only with the (religious) meaning of these words [belief & faith] as used by theologians and philosophers of (Western) religion … if the difference was that simple [as indicated in my previous post], scholars would not have had to invent foreign (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) words for it »
.

I’m not so sure the English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), would agree with you on that one, George.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 20 June 2016 2:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Speaking of being saved by faith in my previous post, I indicated :

« Unfortunately, it won't save mine because I know there is no God. If I tried to pretend I had faith, I would just be kidding myself »
.

I hasten to add that that is not the end of the story.

God or a god (any god) is not the only entity in which one may have faith. Many victims of natural catastrophes who are convinced they were saved by their faith owe their survival in fact to their loved ones, family, friends, neighbours, rescue workers and even in a few rare instances to their domestic pets.

Personally, I place my faith in my dear wife.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 20 June 2016 3:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks. I just thought that it was confusing to use a word (exists) with a standard meaning (we all agree that you exist) while meaning something else, usually more abstract, without pointing that out. Like for someone who is looking for a free parking space, it is useless even confusing to refer him/her to outer space (cosmology) or topological spaces (mathematics).

Obviously, I am not that familiar with Hindu philosophy/religion as you are with Christianity, but my understanding of Brahman was as corresponding to God who reveals Himself in “I am who I am” (seen or not as a person), whereas Atman to what Christians call God’s grace dwelling in an individual. Or could not Ortega y Gasset's "The Christian God is apparently transcendent to the world, but imanent in the depths of the soul" (What is Philosophy, p. 175) be seen as a reference to the Brahman/Atman distinction?

Dear Banjo,

If you are referring to Ockham’s razor (in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary), this depends very much on the subject seeking an explanation: for centuries all scientific explanations about how our world came to be could be seen as unnecessary since all explanation can be found in the Book of Genesis. Similarly if you believe in the reducibility of all reality to the material only, you might indeed be satisfied with an explanation that is based only on that a priori assumption or belief.
Posted by George, Monday, 20 June 2016 7:20:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« If you are referring to Ockham’s razor (in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary), this depends very much on the subject seeking an explanation. »
.

The subject you raised, as I recall it, was the distinction between “religious beliefs” and “faith”. That was the subject of the article you wrote entitled “Religious beliefs versus faith” on which I was commenting.

It seems to me that the OED definitions of “belief” and “faith” which I cited in my earlier post are short, to the point and allow an unbiased reader to clearly distinguish the difference of meaning between not just “religious beliefs” and “faith”, but “belief” and “faith” in general.

The difference is exactly the same:

“Belief” is qualifying perception or information as “fact” rather than “fiction”. Whereas “faith” is having “complete confidence in somebody or something”.

By application of the principle known as “Ockham’s razor”, more complex explanations are superfluous and unnecessary. They can only complicate matters and render them less comprehensible – which is not the objective.

John Hick, whom you cite in your article, appears to ignore the clear OED distinction between “belief” and “faith” and purports to introduce a “supplementary” sense, “fiducia” into the word “faith” in order to create a difference.

According to the Gaffiot (1934 edition), considered the most authoritative Latin dictionary in France, “Fiducia” means “confidence” and “Fides” also means “confidence”. The difference resides in the origin of the words and is so subtle that, for all intents and purposes, it is non-existent.

Hick’s explanation (which you cite in your article) - that “faith” as “fides” has a “cognitive use” whereas “faith” as “fiducia” means that, despite indications to the contrary, “the divine purpose towards us is wholly good and loving” - is pure fantasy.

In any event, he has not differentiated “religious beliefs” from “faith” but, instead, purports to differentiate two (simultaneous) meanings of the word “faith” – which is not what your article was about.

I’m afraid, he’s is pulling the wool over your eyes,George.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 20 June 2016 10:18:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

<<but my understanding of Brahman was as corresponding to God who reveals Himself in “I am who I am” (seen or not as a person), whereas Atman to what Christians call God’s grace dwelling in an individual. Or could not Ortega y Gasset's "The Christian God is apparently transcendent to the world, but imanent in the depths of the soul" (What is Philosophy, p. 175) be seen as a reference to the Brahman/Atman distinction?>>

Yes, this is a good analogy.

When it comes to God, or Brahman, whether when He appears as the world and when He appears as our own soul/self, no words are adequate, so we can only use analogies. The only way to know God is directly, not through any via, such as the mind, the senses, words, etc. In that state of direct experience ('anubhava') all difference dissolve, including the apparency of being an individual soul separate from all others and all things.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 June 2016 4:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary definitions of “belief” and “faith” which you quoted earlier are not very different from the OED definitions.

With this in mind, despite my disagreement with Hick on what he considers to be an epistemological conundrum relating to a religious world view orientation (and I qualify as simply a question of semantics), I suspect that our conclusions may have been fairly similar had you not deviated from your original theme of “religious beliefs versus faith” and become embroiled in splitting hairs with Hick on what he considers to be different aspects of “faith”.

As it stands, your conclusion reads :

« … you can argue for or against only the (rational) fides aspect of faith, and the jury is out until you take into account – those who can – the (subjective, cultural, emotional etc.) fiducia aspect »

Perhaps we both may have concluded :

« You can argue for or against the rational aspects of “religious beliefs” and “faith” but rational arguments are of no avail as regards their subjective, cultural, emotional and psychological aspects »
.

Sometimes, faith itself is of no avail :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szYrXzEi0cg

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 20 June 2016 11:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I don not think I can make myself more clear, nevertheless, let me repeat: I agree that explanations that are "more complex" than what the person in question can identify with - like a non-specialist with specialist explanations e.g. in theoretical physics - are unnecessary (even useless). However, a simple (popular) explanation that is satisfactory for the uninitiated might not be so for the specialist who seeks “more complex” explanations for various reasons.

As I said, for a person who has never heard of a telescope, any explanations about our world being part of a solar system and galaxy are unnecessarily complex. The same for a person whose world view is based on Sagan’s “the physical universe is all there is ” (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883) hence does not regard religious faith as addressing anything outside the mental, subtleties about fides/assensus vs fiducia can be too complicated and unnecessary.

I am sure your authoritative Latin dictionary, does not provide under spatium/espace an argument supporting a claim that what mathematicians say about topological spaces is unnecessary or too complicated.

There is a difference between saying this or that is too complex and/or unnecessary FOR ME to understand - there are many subjects with books and books written about them that I, personally, would thus regard - and pronouncing that scholarly works written on the subject and discussed by specialists in the field ARE (objectively) unnecessarily complicated and/or simply unnecessary. There are deaf people who do not consider theories explaining the difference between Classical and Baroque music as unnecessary although they cannot hear that difference.

ctd
Posted by George, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 7:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ctd

>>« You can argue for or against the rational aspects of “religious beliefs” and “faith” but rational arguments are of no avail as regards their subjective, cultural, emotional and psychological aspects »<<

I agree in principle, although I am not sure why you had to tilt my, still oversimplified, version by excising the rational aspect from the fiducia factors leading to being a believer. If you hear a suspicious sound and there is no way, no time, to decide whether it is harmless or life threatening, you’ll probably run, i.e. make a decision assuming the latter, although you cannot be sure. I think that would be a quite rational decision, dictated by our life-preservation instinct. I deaf person - who cannot hear the threatening sound but observes you taking off so suddenly - might think you acted irrationally.

Where fides/assensus refers to making a world view one's own, fiducia is more about deciding to make a corresponding life commitment. On both levels you can be rational or irrational. That is in my, non-specialist's, words.

You see, you made me compare unbelievers to deaf people, to counter your insistence that believers must have irrational (going against reason) reasons for their faith. We should agree that although both analogies reflect something, they are in essence caricatures expressing the inability to put oneself into the other’s shoes, be they “belief in God” or “belief in Sagan’s maxim”.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 7:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Your language analogy doesn’t wash, I’m afraid. You are not speaking a different language and it ignores the fact that many (if not most) non-believers grew up in religious households. Furthermore, you’re not in a position to claim that others will not or could not understand the reasoning behind your religious belief if you are only willing to explain so much of it before you shut the conversation down with claims that those with whom you are speaking wouldn’t understand (I’m just going by experience there).

Moreover, plenty of believers have explained to me the reasoning behind their belief and I understood those, so I'm not sure how your belief would be so unique. What is it that you've discovered that not even other theists have discovered despite a lifetime of belief? I've wondered about this for years yet you won't share it with the rest of the world despite the instructions per 1 Peter 3:15.

With regards to your chosen definition of faith, it appears the Webster’s definition was indeed a poor choice. I’ve looked around and it is the only definition of faith that, in the context of religion, does not mention the essential element of belief without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. So fundamental to religious faith is this element, that even theists themselves acknowledge it when attacking atheism (e.g. “I didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”).

The Webster’s definition has clearly been tailored to be as favourable to religious belief as possible, like this one: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t. The OED, which is widely considered to be the most authoritative English dictionary, has a more accurate definition. I would suggest that you use that definition in the future.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:27:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

>>I would suggest that you use that definition in the future.<<

Well, perhaps this sums up where we differ: I am not suggesting what definition of what you should use in your posts, articles or in your life.

We have been through this many times:

I am not trying to convert you so please do not try to convert me through your reasoning (using those definitions or meanings of words that you choose). You did comment on my post to Peter Sellick (whose world view is very close to mine so I could hope he understood), and I tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain to you (see the paragraph starting with “On the other hand”) what was originally addressed to Sellick.

I really do not understand what you want me to say or write, although I think I understand that you are seeking confirmations of your own world view choices. Many Christians do the same by trying to convert atheists merely through their reasoning, while in fact they need, for some reasons, an outside confirmation of their own world view preference, i.e. faith.

I shall keep on reading your posts and try to understand you but I do not know how else to respond.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 7:07:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Suffice it to say that I read the first half of your post with an acquiescing smile. I find it is equally as true as Ockham’s razor.

If you don’t mind, I’ll christen it “George’s theory of relativity”.

More seriously, the last paragraph of the second half of your post highlights a misunderstanding I should have addressed long before this. It’s important. I’ll address it now. You wrote:

« You see, you made me compare unbelievers to deaf people, to counter your insistence that believers must have irrational (going against reason) reasons for their faith. We should agree that although both analogies reflect something, they are in essence caricatures expressing the inability to put oneself into the other’s shoes, be they “belief in God” or “belief in Sagan’s maxim” »
.

I need to provide some background so please bear with me.

My understanding of the laws that govern nature is that “everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”, an idea attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC. Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed the idea in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this, Monod deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment” (chance meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event).

As an integral part of nature, I understand that this is not only how life began, but also, how we human beings function.

Like many living species and perhaps more than most, we are highly cooperative, forming large societies. As a result, we have developed an extraordinary degree of mimicry, physically, mentally, and in just about every aspect of our lives.

Though “randomness” has been largely harnessed over time by the development of freewill (understood as autonomy), free will, in turn, has progressively become heavily influenced and increasingly controlled by a multitude of social constraints.

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 9:27:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

Human “rationality” operates within this context and I am inclined to think “solely” within this context. I don’t think we can be anything “other than” rational. We are inextricably subjected to the laws of nature.

As a normally constituted human being, George, I am convinced that everything you say and do is rational, just like everybody else on earth (apart from the few exceptions who are not of sound mind).

I don’t think you or any other normally constituted person can be irrational. Even if you tried, there would be a rational reason for your trying - just as there would be a rational reason for your doing something unusual and completely out of character.

That is why I consider that normally constituted people such as yourself who hold religious beliefs have perfectly rational reasons for doing so. Their reasons may be vastly different from one person to another across the globe since they are not based on objective elements (such as material evidence, etc.) but on deeply ingrained subjective factors of a cultural, emotional and psychological nature (as we both seem to agree).

Rational arguments based on objective elements are, of course, totally irrelevant to the subjective but perfectly rational reasons for which people hold religious beliefs. Such arguments are about as effective as water on a duck’s back.

This is what I meant when I wrote that “rational arguments are of no avail as regards their [religious beliefs’] subjective, cultural, emotional and psychological aspects »

I hope that clarifies my position.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 9:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Everyone, religious or otherwise, starts off with a basic set of subjective and irrational desires. These desires could be physical, mental, emotional or spiritual - but regardless, there is never a rational necessity to desire anything.

Once our desires are established, we have the capacity to proceed in a rational manner to try and fulfil those desires. Some of us do so more than others.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 11:49:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion with me. I think I understand where you are coming from but that is not quite how I would express it.

No doubt you have in mind the exuberance of young children discovering the world into which they have been born. They are full of desires and curiosity.

It seems to me that that is the way nature works. That’s life and it’s a very healthy sign. The contrary would be preoccupying in my view.

It is the role of parents to encourage the curiosity of their children but to teach them to be prudent. It is also their role to temporise their impulsive desires as gently, intelligently and persuasively as possible but with all the necessary firmness and unyielding determination.

Having said that, I do not qualify such impulsive desires as “irrational”. I view it as perfectly rational or logical behaviour for children discovering the world and all its temptations for the first time, just as animals might have impulsive desires when they see something that makes their mouths water. It is a perfectly natural reaction.

I think “unreasonable” would be a more appropriate term. The OED indicates for unreasonable: “not guided by or based on good sense” and “beyond the limits of acceptability”.

Admittedly, the difference between “irrational” and “unreasonable” is not huge but it is important for a correct understanding of the forces of nature and how they determine our thought processes and behaviour.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 8:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

If an action or an interest is rational, this implies that it is not basic or primary, that you should dig deeper. For something to be rational, there must be an underlying desire plus a rational conclusion that doing or wanting something should forward that underlying desire.

For example, a child may want to discover the world because she understands that her parents expect her to. The deeper desire in that case could then be to have her parents like her. Now if even that is rational, then the further-deeper desire could be to keep the body fed, with the rationale that "if parents like me then they will feed me".

You can always dig further until eventually you arrive at an irrational desire.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 11:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thank you for an interesting post. Jacques Monod is a good example of an atheist thinker whose insights into the functioning of our world are an enrichment also for a theist world view (http://creation.com/jacques-monod-and-theistic-evolution) - there are quite a few of them, and not only scientists.

These posts started with a subtlety beliefs vs faith. You brought in another subtlety: the difference between irrational (or unreasonable if you like) - i.e. going against reason, even logic - and “arational”, something that Pascal had in mind with his “Le coeur a ses raisons que le raison ne connaît point.”

As Yuyutsu points out, any world view starts from some basic assumptions (I would not call them desires) about how we regard the world around us from where one makes conclusions, theoretical and practical, rational or arational, sometimes even irrational/unreasonable.

Anyhow, thanks again for the discussion and insights. I hope Graham is not cross with me for bringing in the topic through the back door (Sellick’s article)
Posted by George, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 11:53:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« If an action or an interest is rational, this implies that it is not basic or primary, that you should dig deeper … You can always dig further until eventually you arrive at an irrational desire »

I must confess that I do not see why that should be so, Yuyutsu.

As I indicated in my previous post I understand why certain desires may and probably should be considered unreasonable, particularly where young children are concerned, but not why they should be considered irrational.

Perhaps you could elaborate a little further.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 23 June 2016 6:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

The difference between 'rational' and 'reasonable' seems very subtle: what is the difference between a 'rationale' and a 'reason'?
perhaps one may imply more than the other that the thought is more conscious, but which one it is? Or perhaps one more strongly suggests the lack of contradiction, but which one it is?

Whichever words we use, the bottom line is that one has a desire 'D' which cannot be derived rationally or by way of reason, plus a reason/rationale 'R' which makes them believe that performing an action 'A' is likely to forward desire 'D'.

Desires can have no reason other than deeper desires. If we dig deep enough, we should arrive at desire(s) that have no rationale or reason, such as perhaps the desire to live. As we dig, it's also quite common to detect desires that are grounded on false logic and/or incorrect or obsolete assumptions.

Dear George,

Assumptions cannot drive us to do anything, only desires. Assumptions could be part of a rationale/reason for an action, but just that something is so, has no power to do anything on its own.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 23 June 2016 2:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You are right, assumptions do not drive us to do anything but I was referring not to actions but to world views based on one’s basic assumptions about the world outside and inside of us (beliefs e.g. into the self-explanatory power of science, or in God however one understands Him, etc).

You are also right, if I understand you properly, that these basic assumptions (and the world view built on them) can only influence how we evaluate our desires before acting on them in a particular situation.
Posted by George, Thursday, 23 June 2016 8:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« If we dig deep enough, we should arrive at desire(s) that have no rationale or reason, such as perhaps the desire to live »

.

I’m afraid I do not share your opinion on that, Yuyutsu. I agree with Jacques Monod that “life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process …” in which we all participate unwillingly.

The “natural” reproductive process of life keeps rolling on without interruption, despite all the wars and destruction we inflict on it from time to time. It could even be said that life is in perpetual motion.

Is it, as you seem to suggest, a purely irrational process ? I don’t think so.
I think it is a perfectly rational process of which biologists have probably already unraveled most, if not all, of the secrets, except perhaps, for the one you mentioned: what is it that provokes the “desire to live”. Is the desire to live purely irrational as you indicate ? I don’t think so.

Nature has equipped us and all other forms of life with what we call the “instinct of survival”. One of the first (if not the first) manifestations of the survival instinct in animals (including ourselves), which occurs on birth, is breathing. If we don’t breathe we don’t survive.

In the animal kingdom, breathing, like all other primary instincts that support survival, are imperative and, like breathing, many of them are not controlled by conscience. Similar phenomena have been observed in plant life, though, presumably, plants do not possess a conscience.

It seems obvious to me that the survival instinct is an essential cog in the wheel of “perpetual motion” of the life process. Without it, all forms of life would become extinct.

I consider that the whole life process, including the “desire to live” is perfectly rational. If it were not, I fail to see how it could possibly be so efficient and perpetuate itself as it does, or, at least, as it has done for the past 3.5 billion years or so.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 24 June 2016 8:49:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Do you participate in life unwillingly?
Surely if that was the case, then you would by now have had plenty of opportunities to jump off a bridge. The fact is, that you haven't done so.

In any case, when I mentioned the desire to live as a candidate for a bottom-ground irrational desire, I was not referring to the biological process: we know that the human organism has built-in survival and reproductive mechanisms, but those are not desires - they are mechanisms and some of them even work while you are asleep or otherwise unconscious, intoxicated or semi-conscious.

While a creationist biologist could still call these mechanisms "rational", they would not be referring to your individual rationality anyway. An evolutionist on the other hand, would consider them instead as the result of a long series of unintelligent trials and errors.

---

Dear George,

I think that choosing to accept some basic assumptions (about the world outside and inside of us) and reject others, is also a kind of action. With absolutely no desires, why would one even bother to adopt any assumption?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 June 2016 11:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I think there is a difference between thinking (analysing and deciding) and actually acting. I never said that there were “absolutely no desires” to act this or that way. Conscious or subconscious desires might befog the rationale of our decision making process but thinking based on desires only is called wishful thinking lacking objectivity.
Posted by George, Friday, 24 June 2016 7:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Do you participate in life unwillingly? »
.

We all do, Yuyutsu. We do not come into this life of our own free will. We have no say in the matter. We are conceived by our genitors who usually become our parents, i.e., they care for us until we are considered to be sufficiently autonomous to look after ourselves.

You add :

If so, « you would by now have had plenty of opportunities to jump off a bridge »
.

That is correct but the large majority of us do not “jump off the bridge” because, whether we like it or not, we are born not only with the “instinct of survival”, but more than that, with the “desire to live” and “reproduce”.

Desires are what keep us alive. Without desires our lives would whittle away and the reproductive process would grind to a halt. Desires are natural, healthy and essential to life, but it is in our best interests to keep them under control in a socially acceptable and reasonable fashion.

You then indicate :

« we know that the human organism has built-in survival and reproductive mechanisms, but those are not desires »
.
Yes they are, Yuyutsu. Thirst is a desire to drink. Hunger is a desire to eat. A sexual urge is a desire to reproduce. There are many biological or physiological desires. Some are controlled by human conscience. Some are not. Some are psychological (desire for power and fortune, desire to be admired, etc.) Some are a combination of biological/physiological and psychological desires (pain, pleasure, fear, fright etc.).

According to Hobbes, “human desire is the fundamental motivation of all human action”.

Many philosophers, psychologists and others have expressed various theories on “desires” but, to my knowledge, none of them has ever suggested that they are “irrational”. Wikipedia provides a fairly comprehensive round-up these theories :

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

Steven Reiss, Psychology and Psychiatry professor at the Ohio State University, came up with a list of 16 basic human desires after interviewing more than 6,000 people :

http://explorable.com/16-basic-desires-theory

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 24 June 2016 9:44:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

You write: "We are conceived by our genitors who usually become our parents". However, only our bodies are conceived by their genitors, so the question remains: why would you or I want to have anything to do with this body and its genitors? Why should we take it personally and care whether and how that particular body functions, whether and how it looks after itself and survives?

Nothing explains that other than our [irrational] desire to associate ourselves with that body.

The body may (and does) have its instincts, but nothing rationally tells us to prefer and strive for having those instincts fulfilled. All we can say about it is that it's our primitive desire to do so.

The 16 basic "desires" that you listed can be explained away as electric/biochemical stimulations of the brain. If we accepted these as "desires", we would similarly need to accept the electronic impulses within computer chips as such, but then also we would similarly be speaking about the desires of the wind, the desire of fire to burn, the desires of the waves of the sea and even of the desires of a brick to remain attracted to the earth rather than BRexit to the moon.

It may well be that those 16 impulses keep our bodies alive, but that could well happen without our involvement in the process.

It appears that our own [irrational] desires can, to varying extents, override or even overcome those natural impulses. Experience shows that our ability to override those impulses can be improved over time with practice.

---

Dear George,

<<I think there is a difference between thinking (analysing and deciding) and actually acting.>>

Of course, but this difference is quantitative, not qualitative. On that continuum, between those two, we usually also list "speaking": thinking-speaking-acting. One could even insert "frowning"/"smiling" in-between "thinking" and "speaking".

<<Conscious or subconscious desires might befog the rationale of our decision making process but thinking based on desires only is called wishful thinking lacking objectivity.>>

Thinking would never occur without any desires. A rational act requires both: desire plus calculation.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 26 June 2016 7:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … only our bodies are conceived by their genitors … »
.
I think the “only” in that sentence is an allusion to your religious belief, that we human beings possess a “soul” or a “spirit”, in addition to our physical bodies.

I’m afraid I don’t share that religious belief (though my mind remains open to any new evidence that might come to light at some future time).

In the meantime, neither you nor I, nor anybody else for that matter, has any way of knowing if there really is such a thing as a “soul” or a “spirit”.

I feel it’s important, Yuyutsu, that you draw a clear distinction between “fact” and “belief” (of whatever nature). Otherwise, I’m afraid, it’s impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion about anything.
.

You also wrote :

« The body may (and does) have its instincts, but nothing rationally tells us to prefer and strive for having those instincts fulfilled »
.

The problem, Yuyutsu, is that there are certain instincts which do not pass by our conscience and over which we have no control whatsoever. They are activated automatically. In the animal kingdom we call them “instincts”. Plants have a similar faculty which is also triggered automatically to help them survive when they come under attack and their lives are in danger. They have no control over that faculty either.

Perhaps the best way of thinking of it is that nature has programmed all living species with an “instinct of survival”, a “life instinct” and a “reproductive instinct” and, except for a small percentage waste (an “aberration of nature”) the programme cannot be modified, overwritten or deleted.

Like any fixed computer programme, it is perfectly rational (written in logical sequence) and indifferent to our personal preferences. Nor does it make any difference whether we “strive to fulfill” it or not. It simply computes what it is programmed to compute and that’s it.

By the way, the faculty applies to life species, not wind, fire, sea waves and bricks which you mentioned.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 June 2016 7:09:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Here's some soul-searching for you ...

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nPrWo5pEvyk?rel=0

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 June 2016 7:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I think we have different understandings also of the words thought, thinking and action, acting. Every court will make a difference between whether you intended (thought) to kill somebody or whether you actually did the killing. I can think of sending you $1000 but you will agree that this is very much different from actually doing the bank transfer.

The same with desires, i.e. “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen” in my dictionary. You are right that thinking would never occur without a decision (rather than desire) to think, but “strong feelings” are usually detrimental to clear thinking.
Posted by George, Monday, 27 June 2016 8:35:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

The concept of "soul" (or "spirit") is not necessary here - If I were to discuss it, this would only complicate things and take us away from the simple point that I made.

With no further metaphysics and ado, regardless what you are, the fact is (I presume, since it is subjective and only you can really tell) that YOU desire whatever it is that you desire.

Yes, there are instincts of which we are not conscious and/or cannot control (at least not without extensive training: some yogis are known to control their heart-beat and much more, but lets not digress into it now). Why do you call it a "problem"?

In the extreme case, suppose bodies can do all that they do, including even talk and sing and comment in this forum, without our involvement: that's fine, I don't see a problem with it. Computers also do what they do according to the way they were programmed; the wind does what it does too out of necessity, yet all this does not explain your involvement with this particular body you call "yours" - what have you to do with it in the first place, especially as it could do the same without you?

---

Dear George,

I don't deny the differences between thought and action and I believe that courts are correct in making this distinction. I simply believe that the difference between the two is only in degree, rather than fundamental. One moves their whole body while another only causes certain neurons in their brain to fire. Yet again, someone in between could move their mouth, but no other organs.

Yes, strong feelings are born of desires. If one attempts to think rationally and clearly in order to serve one desire, it is very common for strong feelings arising from a different desire to cloud their thinking.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 4:06:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I don’t see much point in continuing this, but still. I really do think there is a qualitative difference between thoughts and actions, like there is between software and the mechanical actions of a machine-hardware operated by a software. Our hardware is biological, i.e. our body that to 95% (DNA) is identical to a chimpanzee’s, the software is our mind (producing thoughts) that distinguishes us from other living organisms, including chimpanzees, by much more than the 5%. (Your brain-dead person who moves his lips would correspond to a pre-computer mechanical automaton.)

So I don’t believe our thinking - and the achievements of human culture, arts etc - is reducible to only “certain neurons firing in the brain”, but I am aware that many people do, perhaps including you.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 7:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

<<So I don’t believe our thinking - and the achievements of human culture, arts etc - is reducible to only “certain neurons firing in the brain”, but I am aware that many people do, perhaps including you>>

Actually I am, like you, of the view that neither our thoughts nor our "achievements" (I don't like that word for everything we do is by God's grace) are reducible to "certain neurons firing in the brain".

We are responsible for both, hence the difference is only quantitative, even while the civil legislator treats thoughts and actions as if they were qualitatively different, at times drawing the lines between thoughts and speech and at others between speech and action.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 7:27:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

So let us agree that our difference - you claiming that thinking and acting are only quantitatively different, wheres I see the difference as qualitative - is minuscule, and seen as quantitative or qualitative depending on where you look at it from ;-))
Posted by George, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 8:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Well we strayed quite a bit from the topic, so lets leave it at that.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 30 June 2016 3:05:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier. I’ve been a bit busy the last couple of days.

You wrote :

« The concept of "soul" (or "spirit") is not necessary here - If I were to discuss it, this would only complicate things and take us away from the simple point that I made »
.

I agree, but you were the one who brought up the subject when you wrote: « … only our bodies are conceived by their genitors … »

To which I commented that this appeared to be an allusion to your religious belief that we human beings possess a “soul” or a “spirit”, (or some other supernatural element), in addition to our physical bodies.

I pointed out that a religious belief should not be presented as an established reality. If you present it as your personal religious belief that's fine with me.

And no sooner had you declared that « The concept of "soul" (or "spirit") is not necessary here », you then added, in the same post :

« … all this does not explain your involvement with this particular body you call "yours" - what have you to do with it in the first place, especially as it could do the same without you? »

Here again, this is obviously an allusion to your religious belief that we human beings possess a “soul” or a “spirit”, (or some similar supernatural element), in addition to our physical bodies, and that the two are dissociable.

You keep bringing up (or, at least, alluding to) the subject that you say you don’t want to talk about.

I think I have already made it clear, Yuyutsu, that while I respect your religious beliefs, I do not consider that the concept of “soul” or spirit”, or whatever, corresponds to reality.

But, since you insist, once again, I feel obliged to repeat that it’s important, Yuyutsu, that you draw a clear distinction between “fact” and “belief” (of whatever nature). Otherwise, I’m afraid, it’s impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion about anything.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 1 July 2016 9:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

While it is true that I tend to believe that we have a "soul" as well as a body, this is redundant for this discussion and it was never my intention to even hint at that. You are what you are, neither a body nor a soul. While I have no evidence for the existence of souls, you need no evidence to know yourself (nor could any evidence help there).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 July 2016 11:42:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« You are what you are, neither a body nor a soul. While I have no evidence for the existence of souls, you need no evidence to know yourself (nor could any evidence help there) »
.

You may be right, Yuyutsu, but I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than a mammal of the homo sapiens species, commonly known as human beings.

As biologists have established that no two human beings - not even monozygotic twins - are genetically identical, it seems that, like everybody else on this earth (whether past, present or, perhaps even, future) I am unique.

I am me and nobody else - and nobody else (for what little time is left for me to live) can be me. And because, as you rightly point out, neither you nor anybody else has any evidence of the existence of “souls”, I consider that I am limited to my physical body.

René Descartes did not live long enough to benefit from the scientific discoveries in the domain of genetics. His “cogito, ergo sum” was the best he could do with the meagre tools at his disposal at the time.

Apart from genetics, the best evidence I can find for my existence as an individual is the perception I have of myself (my self-awareness), through my multiple sense system and my ability to command my own thoughts and actions without, or despite of, any outside influence. In other words, my ability to exercise “free will” (or my degree of autonomy).

I understand that I inherited these faculties as a single, distinctive cog in the wheel of life as it turns in “perpetual motion”. The function I exercise as such is to nudge the wheel on to the next cog (my offspring) who relay it on to the next generation, and so on ...

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 2 July 2016 10:58:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

As the wheel progresses, the cogs evolve. They become more efficient, gain in autonomy and last longer. Perhaps there will come a time when they are able to transform the wheel to their advantage, harnessing it with a conveyor belt in order to rotate supplementary life wheels in favourably locations elsewhere in the cosmos.

So, while I regard religion and deity as things of the past, no longer capable of providing a satisfactory explanation of anything, I do my best to understand the true nature of mankind, without concession nor illusion, and to trace his trajectory into the future, with the tools of today, as far as my imagination will allow – which, much to my regret, I must confess, has so far proven to be neither terribly inventive nor, for that matter, of any great vision.

That's life, I guess, and that's about the best I can do.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 2 July 2016 11:03:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

There is a difference between self-awareness and sense-perception. Whatever you perceive through your senses, you can tell that it exists and you can even tell that you are able to influence its movements, but you cannot tell that it is you. The same could be said about your car.

I assume that you once were a baby.
Then a toddler, then a small boy, then a big boy, then a youth, then a young adult, an adult, a mature adult, and an old man.

Throughout, that body has changed, that brain has also changed and science tells us that not a single atom remains in it for longer than 7 years.

If you were a body, then would it be the baby-body or the old-man body? I assume that you consider both to be the same you, you call them all "me", so which of them is the real "me"? Who is the one who once was not yet born, once was a baby, once was an old man and once will be dead?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 2 July 2016 11:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« Whatever you perceive through your senses, you can tell that it exists and you can even tell that you are able to influence its movements, but you cannot tell that it is you »
.

I certainly can, Yuyutsu.

When I feel pain, I know it’s me who feels the pain, not somebody else. When I am happy or angry or sad and lonely, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever who it is who is happy or angry or sad and lonely. When I fall in love I know it’s me who falls in love, not somebody else. When I am ill I know it’s me who is ill, not somebody else.

When I play tennis, when I swim, when I was young and used to box, when I raced, when I won or lost, I knew who it was who won and who lost. Either it was me or it was somebody else. I still have my trophies. There is no doubt it was me who won them. My name is engraved on some of them with the title, the competition and the date. They were personal experiences I shall never forget. I alone had those experiences. Nobody else.

When I passed my scholarship examination at the end of primary school just before my fourteenth birthday and came top of my class, I was absolutely thrilled. I had never been top of my class before. I knew it was me and nobody else. My teacher and my class mates all knew it was me and nobody else. They congratulated me, nobody else.

When my brother died I knew that I was the person whose brother had died. It was not the brother of somebody else who died. I still have fond, personal memories of things we did together. Nobody else could possibly know of those personal experiences. Nobody else shared them with us. There were no witnesses. There were only the two of us. I am the only one who knows about them now.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 3 July 2016 9:15:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

There is only one person in this whole wide-world who has accumulated all those experiences - and many more - and who knows about them. That person is unique, with a unique identity, a unique genome, and that person is me.

I assure you, Yuyutsu, that I exist and that it is me who is writing this post and I am willing to bet that you exist too, even though, I imagine, that Yuyutsu is the pseudonym you use on OLO and not your real name, just as Banjo Paterson is my pseudonym and not my real name.

But each of us has a unique identity, a unique genome, with unique experiences, personalities, relationships, aspirations, etc.

The fact that we can communicate with each other as we do is tangible evidence of your existence and of mine. If we can communicate with somebody else, then that somebody else also exists . If he did not, we would not be able to communicate with him.

That is the way I see it, Yuyutsu.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 3 July 2016 9:35:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Of course, nobody denies that you are you or that you are the one who experienced whatever your experiences were, but it seems that you misunderstood the grammar of my statement:

"Whatever you perceive through your senses, you can tell that it exists and you can even tell that you are able to influence its movements, but you cannot tell that it is you."

The specific perception I was referring to was of your homo sapiens mammal body whose movements you are able to influence (just as you also can influence the movements of your car). The last 'it', like the two earlier instances of 'it', refers to the objects of your sensual experience, in this case your body, rather than to the experiencer.

---

Since you raised this issue:

«So, while I regard religion and deity as things of the past, no longer capable of providing a satisfactory explanation of anything»

But religion and deities were never meant to explain anything anyway - why should they? it's like saying: "now that we have cars, horses no longer write books". Horses were used to pull carts and deities were used as attractive, uplifting objects to pull our attention away from the mundane. Horses were never intended to write books just as religion and deities were never intended to explain anything.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 July 2016 5:51:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … nobody denies that you are you or that you are the one who experienced whatever your experiences were, but it seems that you misunderstood … my statement.

Whatever you perceive through your senses, you can tell that it exists and you can even tell that you are able to influence its movements, but you cannot tell that it is you. The specific perception I was referring to was of your homo sapiens mammal body whose movements you are able to influence … rather than … the experiencer »
.

I understand what you are saying, Yuyutsu. But we oàbviously have different world-views.

You indicated earlier that “you are what you are, neither a body nor a soul”. Whereas, I answered that I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than a mammal of the homo sapiens species. Of course, the common term is a “person”, which, according to the OED, is “a human being regarded as an individual”. I consider that I am the “person” whom you refer to as “the experiencer”.

However, if I understand you correctly, you have difficulty accepting the idea that a “person” is no more than a physical body.

I understand your scepticism and see no reason to criticize it. But until somebody comes up with a better explanation of what constitutes a “person”, based on verifiable (or should I say “falsifiable”) evidence, I see no justification for affirming that I (or anybody else for that matter) am “neither a body or a soul”.

Biology is still in its infancy and we still have a lot to learn. Who knows, perhaps one day we shall manage to unravel the mystery of life and how the mind works without having recourse to all the usual supernatural subterfuges.

But, I’m afraid we’re still a long way off, Yuyutsu. Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen during our lifetime.

So, play on Pied-Piper, play on …

http://www.hameln.com/_mediafiles/90-tourismus-rattenfaengerlied.mp3

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 4 July 2016 10:05:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«However, if I understand you correctly, you have difficulty accepting the idea that a “person” is no more than a physical body.»

The word 'person' comes from the Latin 'persona", or theatrical-mask.

While to complicate things I believe that we wear at least two such masks on top of each other - our body on top of our soul, it makes no real difference if you believe either that it is all just one mask; or that soul does not even exist. Science may indeed discover more regarding what a person consists of and indeed it will not likely happen in our lifetime, but these are mere details that are not crucial for differentiating the wearer from the worn.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 4 July 2016 11:01:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I overlooked a question you raised in your previous post :

« … religion and deities were never meant to explain anything … why should they? »
.

I understand that we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying, not only before we developed intellectual faculties superior to other biological species, but even long after we were able to employ them. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became terribly 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.

It is not surprising that little by little, due 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 invented the supernatural, 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 is now reputed to be a scapegoat. The Christian religions integrated the concept into their dogma.

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 12:05:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

The concept of religion and deity has evolved with the sociocultural and demographic evolution of mankind, in all its diversity, throughout the world :

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

On the purely personal level, in addition to the sociocultural and demographic factors just mentioned, I suspect that a certain number of psychological factors also play an important role in determining the disposition of individuals to religious belief.

Parental influence, lack of self-confidence, hope, fear, in particular, come to my mind.

Perhaps some are just waiting for the miracle to come :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di-etRm4cN8

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 12:10:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I understand that we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees...»

All fine apart for the word "we". This elaborate description of origin and behaviour is all about humans, not about us.

Yes, humans do all sorts of things that are driven as you stated by all manners of motivations, including fears and hopes: Just because a particular behaviour prevails as part of human culture does not necessarily make it religious. The indiscriminate categorisation of any ritual and any supernatural belief as "religious" is sloppy at best.

The purpose of a deity is not to relieve one's fears and grant their desires. The purpose of a deity is to help focus the worshipper's attention away from their obsession on the mundane. If one is disturbed by mundane fears and desires, then it is often proper to offer and instruct them in the valid technique of praying and/or believing that a given deity will solve that problem. That way they will focus their attention more and more on the deity and less and less on their mundane fears/hopes.

It is easy to see how outsiders who have no understanding of the religious process might mistakenly get the false impression as if that deity is indeed supposed to solve that mundane problem. It may then occur that such outsiders imitate the religious by starting to propitiate that deity (because they consider it a practical solution to their problems), similar to a monkey pushing buttons on a phone because it saw humans doing it, without true understanding why they did so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 2:16:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« This elaborate description of origin and behaviour is all about humans, not about us »
.

I don’t wish to disappoint you, Yuyutsu, but I’m afraid I have to confess that I am what is known as a “person”, i.e., “a human being regarded as an individual” (OED definition). If you care to check it out, you will see that I did actually mention it in my post to you on the top of p.11 of this thread.

On the other hand, I was totally unaware of the fact that you are not of the same species as myself. Please forgive me but I honestly can’t recall your ever having mentioned it before this. Your command of the English language is excellent !

You also wrote :

« The purpose of a deity is not to relieve one's fears and grant their desires »
.

That may be so in today’s context, but it was certainly not the case five to seven million years ago. As I explained in my previous post, faith was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he could neither understand nor control. He invented gods, worshipped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

No doubt the new purpose that, as you say, modern man has deemed more appropriate to assign to deity in the 21st century is quite different. We are now several million years further on. Times have changed. There has been a tremendous evolution since those early beginnings.

Having said that, I am somewhat dubious about the change of attitude you announce in today’s religious followers, whose prayers have almost invariably been in the form of a request for some favour or other, and rarely a simple act of worship of deity without some ulterior motive.

But I’m willing to believe that you can read the hearts and minds of religious believers better than I can, Yuyutsu.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 7:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

As English is not my person's first language, my person thanks you for the compliment.

Neither of us, I think, has the tools to discern what was/were the original motive(s) of primeval man in inventing and worshipping gods. If your hypothesis is correct, then it means that those acts were not religious at all, but rather a technological [failed] attempt to improve their physical conditions. If mine is correct, then their original purpose was religious - although it often deteriorated by copy-catting the acts without understanding their spirit and purpose.

The same can be said about contemporary people who call themselves "religious", but instead of loving God, perceive Him as an ATM: "Press Here for Heaven".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 8:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Neither of us, I think, has the tools to discern what was/were the original motive(s) of primeval man in inventing and worshipping gods »

That's true, but I find it's easier to look back 5 to 7 million years than it is to look forward just 5 to 7 years.

And with that thought in mind, I think I'll call it a day.

All the best, Yuyutsu, until we meet again.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 6:01:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy