|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 31, 2022 21:04:06 GMT
Having that strong a belief (that there is NO nonphysical) I think would take faith....just as much faith as strong claims that there is the nonphysical and what the nonphysical is...its composition/components/function/etc.
Faith in what? Faith is trust in someone or some thing. For example, driving on a road requires faith in other drivers, that they will follow the rules and use common sense. Sending your kids to school requires faith in the teachers that will keep your children safe. So if I lack belief in something, that is the absence of faith, not faith in something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 31, 2022 21:48:15 GMT
Having that strong a belief (that there is NO nonphysical) I think would take faith....just as much faith as strong claims that there is the nonphysical and what the nonphysical is...its composition/components/function/etc.
Faith in what? Faith is trust in someone or some thing. For example, driving on a road requires faith in other drivers, that they will follow the rules and use common sense. Sending your kids to school requires faith in the teachers that will keep your children safe. So if I lack belief in something, that is the absence of faith, not faith in something else. What DO you believe in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 31, 2022 23:49:17 GMT
Faith in what? Faith is trust in someone or some thing. For example, driving on a road requires faith in other drivers, that they will follow the rules and use common sense. Sending your kids to school requires faith in the teachers that will keep your children safe. So if I lack belief in something, that is the absence of faith, not faith in something else. What DO you believe in? I don't call myself anything but humanist and/or naturalist are probably accurate but I don't know very much about those labels. I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Science is a collaborative attempt to rationally explain how the universe works. And that humans are animals and our behavior is rooted in nature. Individual beliefs are irrelevant because they are all culturally induced, that's why it's so important to keep records and check each other's work. Now, your turn -- Faith in what?
|
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Apr 1, 2022 0:37:24 GMT
What is my definition of metaphysics? Just what I said, anything outside of physics, which would probably be synonymous with the supernatural. If you can make that work for you as an atheist, then more power to you. For me, atheism just didn't make any sense with my premonitions, and I guess I needed something more philosophically consistent. Do I believe in a personal God? I suppose you could compare my view of Divinity to something like a spiritual version of the Gaia Theory, perhaps? That we're all part of a greater whole, that Divinity is part of us, and we are a part of It. I do believe in some higher consciousness, but it's obviously far beyond our limited understanding. I believe that we can commune with It, but my practices are quite different than Christians. Rather than worship, for me there is simply admiration and respect and reverence. Rather than prayers, I do trance work, and access that divinity within my own soul. I'm not very "book taught", which I honestly think is a good thing. Most of my beliefs are views that I've had since childhood, even though I was raised as a Christian. I was a very pagan child. I would say in my view, there is less focus on Divinity than there is in Christianity. My focus is more on self-mastery, and learning what I'm supposed to be learning in this life, because that's why we're here. Life is a classroom, and we're here to gain wisdom through experience. I don't think Divinity particularly wants or needs us to send up worship and praise, because even I wouldn't want people to treat me like that. With trance work, it's mostly about Listening, gaining knowledge and understanding by going deep within myself. It's all about growth. Paganism is very consistent with my worldview and interests--- Nature, ancient cultures, mysticism, history, philosophy, languages, botany, astronomy, foraging wild foods, cooking ancient recipes, playing ancient music, art, poetry, and on and on. But mostly, it really just makes me appreciate and cherish life, here and now, and to pay attention to all the wonders around us. It's so easy to take things for granted, and to lose our joy and sense of wonder. People who live close to Nature haven't forgotten that. I've seen women in India and Africa taking their laundry down to the river to do the washing, and they sing and laugh and play the whole time. How many Westerners can say they enjoy doing laundry as much as they do? We've built ourselves luxurious gilded cages, and now everyone is completely miserable and hates each other. We've definitely taken a wrong turn somewhere. So do you generally contend that 'all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality which you say would be synonymous with the supernatural.' I guess that might be the case if one concludes the 'supernatural' is the source of the premonitions you experience. That would mean the ' some way' in the above definition would be the premonitions...premonitions would be the part of the physical world that are dependent on this ultimate reality. Honestly, that question doesn't really work for panentheist types. It's more geared for people who have a purely transcendent view of Divinity, not for those of us who see Divinity as being imminent within Nature. There are certain things that the Christians and atheists spend a lot of time debating that I don't really care about, and this is one of them. Does Nature depend on Divinity when Nature is Divinity? Whatever. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 1, 2022 10:23:25 GMT
I don't call myself anything but humanist and/or naturalist are probably accurate but I don't know very much about those labels. I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Science is a collaborative attempt to rationally explain how the universe works. And that humans are animals and our behavior is rooted in nature. Individual beliefs are irrelevant because they are all culturally induced, that's why it's so important to keep records and check each other's work. Now, your turn -- Faith in what? I believe essentially the same as you as far as what you've described.
There are a few areas where I think I have faith. The first does relate to what you said ie 'that everything we know is natural' and the others relates to some of the deeper philosophical questions and esoteric dilemmas.
There is a small, but I think significant, difference between what I said that I think required 'faith' and what you said you believed: 'everything we know is natural.' Yes...I think everything 'I know' is natural. But, I meant that I can't show to myself or anyone else that there is not an element of reality that is nonnatural. But I do have 'faith' (ie accept without being able to show it) that that is the case. And I have faith that ultimately everything anyone experiences is probably caused by some element of the natural world even if it is something we aren't and perhaps never CAN be aware of. Of course then I could be accused of simply 'defining away' the non/super/whatever natural by calling it just another element of the natural world that we're not aware of and perhaps can never know. Again, I have faith that that is not the case.
There are other areas pertain to such questions relating to real meaning in the world, morality, values, etc. where I think I have faith. Those are all whole discussion threads of their own, so won't get into them here. But one good example is that many atheists/naturalists become nihilists...ie stop believing in any meaning for life/existence. Some may end up facing existential crises. I have no such crisis because I have 'faith' that the natural world provides adequate basis for real meaning...or at least meaning sufficient for me to carry on a happy, productive, fulfilled life even if I can't show with arguments, demonstrations or explanations what that basis is.
Then there are some things I just have faith aren't true such as I have faith we are not all living in a big matrix. I have faith that solipsism is not true, ie that I am not the only mind and I imagine everyone else's mind even though I don't have the arguments to prove otherwise.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 1, 2022 17:36:28 GMT
I suppose the idea is since God is supposedly the source of all existence, the value he bestows on something is more "real" than the subjective value we have for one another.
Putting aside issues with that stance for the time being, it is still subjective as to whether we put any value in God's objective value in us. Badly paraphrasing Sartre here but from that point of view, the question is not whether or not God exists, it's does it matter if he does? And for the theist it does, and for the atheist it does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 1, 2022 19:35:09 GMT
I don't call myself anything but humanist and/or naturalist are probably accurate but I don't know very much about those labels. I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Science is a collaborative attempt to rationally explain how the universe works. And that humans are animals and our behavior is rooted in nature. Individual beliefs are irrelevant because they are all culturally induced, that's why it's so important to keep records and check each other's work. Now, your turn -- Faith in what? I believe essentially the same as you as far as what you've described.
There are a few areas where I think I have faith. The first does relate to what you said ie 'that everything we know is natural' and the others relates to some of the deeper philosophical questions and esoteric dilemmas.
There is a small, but I think significant, difference between what I said that I think required 'faith' and what you said you believed: 'everything we know is natural.' Yes...I think everything 'I know' is natural. But, I meant that I can't show to myself or anyone else that there is not an element of reality that is nonnatural. But I do have 'faith' (ie accept without being able to show it) that that is the case. And I have faith that ultimately everything anyone experiences is probably caused by some element of the natural world even if it is something we aren't and perhaps never CAN be aware of. Of course then I could be accused of simply 'defining away' the non/super/whatever natural by calling it just another element of the natural world that we're not aware of and perhaps can never know. Again, I have faith that that is not the case.
There are other areas pertain to such questions relating to real meaning in the world, morality, values, etc. where I think I have faith. Those are all whole discussion threads of their own, so won't get into them here. But one good example is that many atheists/naturalists become nihilists...ie stop believing in any meaning for life/existence. Some may end up facing existential crises. I have no such crisis because I have 'faith' that the natural world provides adequate basis for real meaning...or at least meaning sufficient for me to carry on a happy, productive, fulfilled life even if I can't show with arguments, demonstrations or explanations what that basis is.
Then there are some things I just have faith aren't true such as I have faith we are not all living in a big matrix. I have faith that solipsism is not true, ie that I am not the only mind and I imagine everyone else's mind even though I don't have the arguments to prove otherwise.
I think we are on the same page. I wouldn't call myself a nihilist but there is no purpose to life other than what you give it. A supernatural deity doesn't give you purpose. Religion doesn't give you purpose, only a commandment to serve and obey, probably followed with the threat of dire consequences if you don't. Squirrels have no higher purpose and get along just fine. Like the old saying goes, I think therefore I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 1, 2022 19:41:31 GMT
I suppose the idea is since God is supposedly the source of all existence, the value he bestows on something is more "real" than the subjective value we have for one another. Putting aside issues with that stance for the time being, it is still subjective as to whether we put any value in God's objective value in us. Badly paraphrasing Sartre here but from that point of view, the question is not whether or not God exists, it's does it matter if he does? And for the theist it does, and for the atheist it does not. That is a conclusion I finally reached....belief in god is academic. Since I have absolutely no idea what a god might be or want....whether it even cares if I believe in or not....whether it cares what I do/think/say, my belief in or reaction/actions relative to it are irrelevant. To me, the existence of god is on the order of the Higgs boson or some other physics hypothesis. The Higg's boson, and those 'hypothetical' ideas about what might be going on in the world and in the quantum world are probably crucial in, and to, reality. The Higg's boson might be the thing that holds all of matter/energy together. It might be the only reason planets, stars, and people can exist. It might be ultimately important. But MY BELIEF IN or ABOUT it is quite irrelevant since I probably can't affect it, I'm not a physicist and what I know/don't know about it doesn't seem to matter a whit to it doing its thing. In the same manner, a god, if it exists, might be really really important, but no one, AFAIK, has any clue what said god wants/does/expects so I am just as well off ignoring it as trying to appease it. Heck...trying to appease it might irritate it just like some people hate worshipers...who knows. Prayers may piss the hell out of it.
"it is still subjective as to whether we put any value in God's objective value"
And yes, that is the main reason why I don't feel compelled to believe in God or a god in order to 'find meaning' 'value' or 'morality' in this world. Because even if there is a god that/who bestows meaning, assigns value to things/actions/thoughts of humans and creates morality, one has to buy into the idea that its meaning/value/morality is of objective value or is even of importance at all in order for that meaning, thus bestowed, to make those things objectively meaningful, valuable or for that morality to be compelling. And I've found no such objective basis for buying into that. Of course someone could say that said God could punish me eternally for failing to heed its morality. While that may be true, that at most provides a subjective reason to heed its values/morality. The threat of eternal suffering can't create an objective basis for believing in something or accepting some set of values. And while I think the threat of eternal punishment may well cause me to try to adopt a set of morals, I refer back to the fact that I have no idea what a god wants/expects of me so I have no idea how to avoid its wrath if it is wrathful.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 1, 2022 20:28:55 GMT
To me, the existence of god is on the order of the Higgs boson or some other physics hypothesis. Personally, I think that is the wrong way to view the concept of God and it's where I feel people like Richard Dawkins and his theist counterpart William Lane Craig err. To them God is essentially a hypothetical entity and whether to believe or not depends on whether the evidence supports him or not. But no-one really believes on this basis which is why neither side is very good at convincing the other. The comparison with the Higg's Boson is an interesting one because people's attitude as to whether it exists is completely different to how they feel about whether God exists. God means something on an emotive level that the Higg's Boson does not. I think I've recommended this video before on here but to me this completely changed my outlook on the whole God question. It's an exploration of Heidegger's view on God and his criticism that all natural theology sees God as the X in some equation that can be proved or disproved but this strips God of his importance to his believers. As the professor puts it in the video, people are devoted to God but no-one sings a hymn to the Uncaused Cause. Anyway, it's a long video but you might find it interesting:
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 2, 2022 2:10:57 GMT
I think I've recommended this video before on here but to me this completely changed my outlook on the whole God question. It's an exploration of Heidegger's view on God and his criticism that all natural theology sees God as the X in some equation that can be proved or disproved but this strips God of his importance to his believers. As the professor puts it in the video, people are devoted to God but no-one sings a hymn to the Uncaused Cause. There is nothing noble about being conditioned to believe a lie. My issue with faith based worship is that it inevitably puts large populations of people under the power of an organized religion that will use them to exert political pressure, based on a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2022 2:20:20 GMT
I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. It's neither logical or rational, reasonable or even scientific to say nature came to exist in a natural way. Just sayin'. Feel free to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 2, 2022 4:15:02 GMT
I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. It's neither logical or rational, reasonable or even scientific to say nature came to exist in a natural way. Just sayin'. Feel free to ignore. If I don't ignore it will you engage me in conversation? In the past you make remarks like that then resist conversation so I feel like it doesn't matter if I ignore it or not, there won't be anything more forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2022 4:32:14 GMT
It's neither logical or rational, reasonable or even scientific to say nature came to exist in a natural way. Just sayin'. Feel free to ignore. If I don't ignore it will you engage me in conversation? In the past you make remarks like that then resist conversation so I feel like it doesn't matter if I ignore it or not, there won't be anything more forthcoming. I try to avoid responding to posts that are all about the poster and literally nothing about the topic. Like the one I'm ironically responding to right now. At any rate... Without nature, there is no "natural." Therefore, nature could not have come to exist in a natural way. If you have something to say about that, then yes, we can have a conversation.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 2, 2022 8:27:08 GMT
There is nothing noble about being conditioned to believe a lie. Didn't argue faith was noble, only that the emotive side of it is more important than what it supposedly explains about the world. Definitely a danger, although one not exclusive to religious faith. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 2, 2022 10:21:07 GMT
To me, the existence of god is on the order of the Higgs boson or some other physics hypothesis. Personally, I think that is the wrong way to view the concept of God and it's where I feel people like Richard Dawkins and his theist counterpart William Lane Craig err. To them God is essentially a hypothetical entity and whether to believe or not depends on whether the evidence supports him or not. But no-one really believes on this basis which is why neither side is very good at convincing the other. The comparison with the Higg's Boson is an interesting one because people's attitude as to whether it exists is completely different to how they feel about whether God exists. God means something on an emotive level that the Higg's Boson does not. I think I've recommended this video before on here but to me this completely changed my outlook on the whole God question. It's an exploration of Heidegger's view on God and his criticism that all natural theology sees God as the X in some equation that can be proved or disproved but this strips God of his importance to his believers. As the professor puts it in the video, people are devoted to God but no-one sings a hymn to the Uncaused Cause. Anyway, it's a long video but you might find it interesting: "...I think that is the wrong way to view..."
You mean wrong morally or wrong in some other way?
I am trying to watch the video...~15 min in. I'm not sure I can watch the whole thing. The weeds are getting pretty deep, so to speak, and I doubt she or the people she's quoting know much more about reality than me, but I may try to go on when the spirit is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 2, 2022 10:24:28 GMT
If I don't ignore it will you engage me in conversation? In the past you make remarks like that then resist conversation so I feel like it doesn't matter if I ignore it or not, there won't be anything more forthcoming. I try to avoid responding to posts that are all about the poster and literally nothing about the topic. Like the one I'm ironically responding to right now. At any rate... Without nature, there is no "natural." Therefore, nature could not have come to exist in a natural way. If you have something to say about that, then yes, we can have a conversation. That assumes the natural came to exist. Why assume that?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 2, 2022 15:44:58 GMT
You mean wrong morally or wrong in some other way? Wrong as in I don't think it's all that useful an analogy to think of God like a hypothetical physical entity when trying to understand why people do or don't believe in him. Sorry you didn't like the video. Probably no point watching the whole thing if it hasn't grabbed you so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2022 17:28:53 GMT
I try to avoid responding to posts that are all about the poster and literally nothing about the topic. Like the one I'm ironically responding to right now. At any rate... Without nature, there is no "natural." Therefore, nature could not have come to exist in a natural way. If you have something to say about that, then yes, we can have a conversation. That assumes the natural came to exist. Why assume that? For the sake of discussion? After all, I was responding to this: I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Infinite regression is often used in debates to avoid the dreaded starting point, but it comes with its own set of problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 2, 2022 19:16:19 GMT
If I don't ignore it will you engage me in conversation? In the past you make remarks like that then resist conversation so I feel like it doesn't matter if I ignore it or not, there won't be anything more forthcoming. I try to avoid responding to posts that are all about the poster and literally nothing about the topic. Like the one I'm ironically responding to right now. At any rate... Without nature, there is no "natural." Therefore, nature could not have come to exist in a natural way.If you have something to say about that, then yes, we can have a conversation. We'll try it once more and find out. Before I respond, I want to make sure I understand your meaning ... Natural means of nature. Without nature, nature could not come to exist naturally? So nature could not produce itself? Do I understand correctly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 2, 2022 19:54:15 GMT
That assumes the natural came to exist. Why assume that? 1) For the sake of discussion? After all, I was responding to this: I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. 2) Infinite regression is often used in debates to avoid the dreaded starting point, but it comes with its own set of problems. 1) Playing Devil's Advocate can sometimes lead to new understandings if the goal is to explore ideas. 2) Sometimes it's turtles all the way down and all one can do is pick a turtle.
|
|
