Truth, Reason and Love

[baby tuckoo]

Perhaps it is "the other board" where people are "on edge", though I know nothing of this other place. I certainly didn't sense any edge here and I never even saw VtF's edited post, which probably just said the same thing as his subsequent in a less measured manner. Even so.

I, too, am puzzled by why Ax would say that, but the rest of his response to your serving, VtF, states my own opinion very well. Yes, your experience is your own and that lends it a Cartesian immediacy that makes it something you can know directly, a quality that enhances its psychic status. But you have tied it to outside events, future events, and their predictability is not something I will cede to any mortal. Without doubting your belief for a moment, I think that the "miracle" of being right "a dozen times" has driven out the quotidian experience.

I won't go as far as Maria, above, in declaring a physical connection with our future selves, but our psyches do indeed work as "advance men" for our physical realities. It is to our benefit that they do so. You've got a good "advance man," VtF.

I do not call belief in god a delusion, nor do I call VtF's belief in his sporadic foresight delusional. Even the most rational of scientists on occasion becomes "married" to a hypothesis or theory that is erroneous, perhaps only in a small way, but wrong. "Delusional" is way too strong a word to describe this misperception of reality. As humans we seem programmed to "marry" in this way. It might be fostered by our desire for surety.

Your hypothesis of "Deity" as a product of the evidence in Nature is very very easy to understand, VtF. Likewise, if you feel the human animal too imperfect to generate the feelings you know to be in your heart, it is not delusional to outsource their genesis. More people agree with you than agree with me on this.

My algorithm for calculating the data is different, however. I believe in Nature but only as a conglomerate of organisms, each with its own agenda, not with a controlling consciousness. I believe in the human animal as capable of generating strong feelings that stand on their own (or can be combined with the distinct though similar feelings of others) and do not point to a force outside ourselves. God, to me, is occasionally a convenient term but never a life force or a prime cause.

I have never had a premonition of the sort you describe, VtF. Perhaps that's why I think it to be a product of your "selective" recall, as Ax says above. This doesn't demean your sensitivity or humanity; if anything, it praises it. You wouldn't be the first to tell me that my own "empathy" doesn't run very "hot."

This branch of inquiry started back on the first thread with someone (was it I?) trying to establish the difference between what one can "know" and what one "believes." Most of us are married to an idea set that partakes of both.

So it should be.

Thanks again, Ax, for carrying the ball. And thanks to VtF for taking a couple of deep breaths, something bt can learn from. Also to yov (the founder) Maria, vison, Prim, Jn, Faramond, Anthy, Cerin (for the great questions) and all the others for squeezing 7 + 5 = 12 pages out of this epistimological quibble.


More? If it weren't for this frigging job of mine, I could do this all day.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, bt (:hug:). I'll be back with a more substantial response, but I wanted to thank you for your measured and very interesting reply.

More?

Absolutely, when you have time? I think that discussions like this can only help us understand each other (and ourselves!!). And that is an encouraging thought!

Edit to add: I should point out that Ax is referring, in part, to an ill-considered post that I made at board77 in a thread entitled "Why You Gave Up Your Faith:

I prefer the face of reality. It's not pretty most of the time, and kind of hard to the touch, but so much more satisfying than the face of invisible creators.

My experience is so different. I see the "hand of God" (for lack of a better way of putting it) manifested in so many ways that it became impossible for me to ignore my own perceptions, despite my agnostic/atheistic history.

Of course, as I was told elsewhere, I probably am just deluding myself.

That last part of that was actually very much made in jest, and ironically, it was at that point that I realized that I had the right head space to return to this discussion (you are right, bt, that my original post pretty much said the same thing as the one I made today, almost in the same words, but it was written when I was in a bad mood, and I knew that it was a bad idea to try to pursue the discussion in that head space). But I didn't really think through how that would come across to other people, and, rightfully so, Ax took a bit of offense at what appeared to be my cross-board snarking. I apologized to him there, and I repeat the apology here as well, both to him, and to bt, as well as anyone else who may take offense. I hope that my ill-considered action does not derail this this excellent discussion and that it can continue (hopefully with Ax's excellent contributions).

[baby tuckoo]

No offense here. It's rather difficult to offend the baby.


I too hope Ax returns.


I had a very active dream life last night. I remember it fairly well, though the people and places today are as vapor. The emotions of the dream moment, though, were real, and most things in dreams have figurative validity. I can't call my dreams "delusions," not until I begin to take them literally and confuse them for events that are not dreams. When I base my actions and my world view on input from dreams, then I am delusional, but the dreams are no less real. Many artists and prophets have inhabited that territory. Many have paid the psychological and legal cost of squatting there.


In most cases, products of our active imaginations are only misdemeanor delusions. Most of us know where we live.


The coda to this thought occured to me in the bath just now. No, I didn't shout "Eureka."

Some people believe that their personal (or narrow) interpretation of this dream world should be the basis of social regulation for the rest. They indeed are delusional. Religion deals with the spirit and the soul, which are "dream" entities. Acceptable social ethics can be established without supernatural reference.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've just been listening to a fascinating program on NPR called "Einstein and the Mind of God". I was not surprised at all to learn that Einstein had a very similar perspective about the infinite as I do. Despite not be a practitioner of any particular faith (including the Judiasm was his familial legacy) and not believing in the Judeo-Christian God per se, he was a deeply spiritual man whose scientific ideas reinforced his spirituality, rather then opposed it. For those who are interested, the program can be accessed at: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

I think it is well worth checking out.

I'm kinda surprised that no one commented on this. It really is a fascinating program, regardless of what your specific beliefs (are lack thereof) are. Einstein was such an interesting man.

Here is a thought that I have been playing around with, which I don't know is helpful or not. It seems to me that the major difference between those people who tend to be more likely to believe in some kind of higher power, and those who tend to be less likely to so believe, is the willingness to accept something that is inherently beyond his or her understanding. I know I am not putting this particularly well, but if I wait to find just the right words, I'll probably never put the thought out there at all. So hopefully you my friends can help refine the idea, or at least let me know if you think there is any value at all in exploring it.

What do you think?

[nerdanel]

Here is a thought that I have been playing around with, which I don't know is helpful or not. It seems to me that the major difference between those people who tend to be more likely to believe in some kind of higher power, and those who tend to be less likely to so believe, is the willingness to accept something that is inherently beyond his or her understanding. I know I am not putting this particularly well, but if I wait to find just the right words, I'll probably never put the thought out there at all. So hopefully you my friends can help refine the idea, or at least let me know if you think there is any value at all in exploring it.

What do you think?

Ack. I had a whole long post on this that disappeared into the ether. Let me capture the main points in bulletpoint format.

- I don't like your formulation insofar as it (unintentionally?) makes nonbelievers sound quite egotistical, and I don't quite think it captures the heart of the matter. I would say that a nonbeliever is someone who refuses to accept the existence of "something that is inherently beyond his or her understanding," in the absence of credible proof that said "something" exists.

- "Credible proof" means different things to different people. You, V, have described several experiences throughout your life that, to you, are convincing evidence of the supernatural at work. (I know you haven't used quite that language, and I apologize for the awkward paraphrasing.) However, I'm sure you can understand, then, that (1) some people have simply never had those experiences and (2) other people have in fact had similar experiences, but believe that they are instances of natural, rather than supernatural, forces at work.

- You asked bt whether he thought you delusional. Although you didn't direct the question at me, it caused me to think just as much as though you had. After all, in this cross-board discussion, I have identified overwhelmingly with bt, Ax, Demo, and Lidless (though I don't endorse everything that any of those people wrote.) In the interest of full honesty, my initial reaction was yes, I have to believe that you are deluding yourself, or else compromise my worldview, which is incompatible with the Divine interaction with this world that you suggest.*

However, I think I understand the matter better, now. I can accept that you have had experiences that I have not, and that you interpret those experiences as evidence of God. Perhaps I will experience the same at some point in my life -- or perhaps, I will never have such an experience (or perhaps, as I described above, I will have similar experiences but attribute them to natural forces). None of these scenarios diminishes the validity of your interpretation of your experiences. But, I hope you can appreciate that others have not experienced (and perhaps never will experience) the "credible proof" that you have. And it could be that those people are truly open to the idea that something exists that is beyond their comprehension...but simply have been given no reason to think that such a thing exists. (*cue crappy pop music* Just give me a reason to believe... )

*To time out for a second: I've stated many times that I'm truly agnostic in that I can't figure out whether I even believe that God exists. However, I do take one firm position: if God exists, then I refuse to believe (and I do recognize the choice inherent in that statement) that God interacts with this world in a systemic, day-to-day way. That is my resolution to the "why bad things happen to good people" conundrum: that whether or not God exists, said bad things (and their good counterparts) are wholly divorced from God. I reject as repugnant the notion that all of the incomprehensible pain and suffering that exists throughout this world is part of some larger Divine plan - and here we perhaps come to the egotism of which you speak. Because earthly suffering is on a rationally incomprehensible scale, I choose to reject the notion that said suffering might be according to the Master Plan of some divinity...might be carefully orchestrated or condoned by a divine hand (at least, in the absence of some credible proof that this is the case. ) So, whether or not I believe there is a God, I will not believe (barring experiences that resonate with me as credible proof) that God interacts directly with the physical world, and I read your posts to suggest that you do believe this.

[baby tuckoo]

NERDANEL*




*Achieves her majority . . . and her attitude. You are next.*



Soon at a theatre near you.


Or a bar. Drinks on bt.

[Primula Baggins]

Nel, your solution to the "why bad things happen to good people" conundrum is very much like mine. I cringe when people talk a lot about how their faith has led them to this or that blessing or piece of good fortune—because, of course, the world is full of people just as good who suffer all sorts of "unfair" (if life were about fairness) tragedies, and also full of people who commit or support evil acts who live comfortable, secure lives and die in peace.

What I would add to your statement that God does not interact directly with the physical world is "except through the actions of human beings." I believe that God's hands in the world are our hands, working to bring about what God wants for the world (peace, justice, mercy. . . ). (And I would add, I believe that it doesn't matter to God whether that good work is done in God's name, or in accordance with another faith, or out of human decency with no reference to faith at all.)

[anthriel]

Well, I am glad that Sir V brought that up, because I have thought something like that before, but ALSO knew that there was no way I could phrase it carefully enough.

I don't think it's about nonbelievers being egotistical, although I can see where it might be interpreted that way (and hence my concern in talking about it!) I think it has to do with some people really needing to make sense of things, in their own mind, to order things carefully, in order to really count those things as REAL.

I tend to think about... oh, I don't know, describing how television works to a person from the 12th century. (And I tend to think that the person from the 12th century would not be terribly different than we are, as far as their intelligence quotient... I don't think people have changed all that much in mental ability, even though we THINK we're smarter. We just have more complex things to accept as normal!)

It's not that television is impossible, we all know that it is a very possible thing, but I believe that that 12th century person would never have believed such a far-fetched tale. Because it would be, from their point of view, delusional. There was nothing that they had ever experienced that could lead them to believe such a thing could exist at all, ever. And yet here we are.

A lot of things are possible, and even potentially happening right now, that OUR sum total of life experiences would lead us to believe were impossible.


Fact is? You don't know what you don't know. You just don't.

[baby tuckoo]

Edited for content.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

nel, thanks for your honest and (as always) thoughtful response. You know, I almost included a caveat that my statements were not meant as a value judgment on either side of the equation, even if they seemed to be. But I thought that such a caveat would sound condescending, and so I left it out. I don't like my formulation much either, but I felt that even a poor effort at expressing these nebulous thoughts was better then no effort at all. I trusted that the bond that exists between us (the larger us) would be sufficient to smooth over any bumps that my awkward formulation might cause, because I truly do believe that it is a bond that is based upon mutual trust, respect and, yes, love.

I would say that a nonbeliever is someone who refuses to accept the existence of "something that is inherently beyond his or her understanding," in the absence of credible proof that said "something" exists.

But my very point was that the "believer" does not require "credible proof". I am not so arrogant as to suggest that what I feel inside myself constitutes some kind credible proof of anything. The very nature of belief requires a leap of faith, sometimes even in the face of logic.

Perhaps I will experience the same at some point in my life -- or perhaps, I will never have such an experience (or perhaps, as I described above, I will have similar experiences but attribute them to natural forces). None of these scenarios diminishes the validity of your interpretation of your experiences. But, I hope you can appreciate that others have not experienced (and perhaps never will experience) the "credible proof" that you have.

For whatever it is worth (and it isn't really worth much, because our life experiences were too different for any reasonably coherent comparison), when I was your age I was far further on the non-believer spectrum then you are now. But I want to make something clear, or at least clearer then the muddy picture that I have painted thus far. It has not been the feelings that I have describe where I know inside myself, for instance, that a dear friend had cancer, when I profoundly hoped that she did not, that caused me to turn to a belief in a higher power. It has been much more nebulous factors that have led me to that belief, that leap of faith. It has been little factors that could easily be passed off as coincidences. It has been awe at nature's beauty, and the incomprehensible hand and mind of artists like van Gogh or Mamady Keita (when you say "attribute them to natural forces" to me that is just another way of saying "attribute them to God"). Most of all, and most inexplicable, it is in learning to Love that I have come to "know" God. I simply cannot accept that Love could come from any other source.

*To time out for a second: I've stated many times that I'm truly agnostic in that I can't figure out whether I even believe that God exists. However, I do take one firm position: if God exists, then I refuse to believe (and I do recognize the choice inherent in that statement) that God interacts with this world in a systemic, day-to-day way. That is my resolution to the "why bad things happen to good people" conundrum: that whether or not God exists, said bad things (and their good counterparts) are wholly divorced from God. I reject as repugnant the notion that all of the incomprehensible pain and suffering that exists throughout this world is part of some larger Divine plan - and here we perhaps come to the egotism of which you speak. Because earthly suffering is on a rationally incomprehensible scale, I choose to reject the notion that said suffering might be according to the Master Plan of some divinity...might be carefully orchestrated or condoned by a divine hand (at least, in the absence of some credible proof that this is the case. ) So, whether or not I believe there is a God, I will not believe (barring experiences that resonate with me as credible proof) that God interacts directly with the physical world, and I read your posts to suggest that you do believe this.

Now we come to the true heart of the matter. I also don't believe that God interacts with this world in a systemic, day-to-day way, on any level that human beings are capable of comprehending. I only believe that there is "some larger Divine plan" in the sense that, since It is beyond our comprehension, in order to talk about It at all we have to use terms that are within our comprehension, as paradoxical as that may be. This is why, to me, the Book of Job is the most important part of the bible, indeed the only part of the bible that has directly influenced my beliefs. The whole point of the Book of Job is that the ways of the Lord are beyond human comprehension. Job teaches me that the only way that I can make sense of the fact that bad things do happen to good people is the fact that there is a reason why these bad things happen to good people, but that that reason is beyond my comprehension. But there is no credible proof that such a reason exists.

It requires a leap of faith.

[Jnyusa]

Voronwë,

Re your links to the radio broadcasts about Einstein, I'm very much interested in listening to these, but each is nearly an hour long and I'd like to wait until I can listen to each uninterrupted. Einstein's journals have been published in several volumes, and many years ago I read a volume entitled Out of My Later Years (the journals might have been repackaged differently since then). It is tremendously interesting to be able to see inside the personal thoughts of someone like Einstein who is out there at the boundaries of human understanding of the world.

Meanwhile, just to be the perennial odd-person-out, I continue to disagree with the fundamental distinction between knowing and believing which b.t. would like to draw. Although I agree that it is possible to distinguish among brain processes, in my opinion these are differences of class and not of kind.

Also, I took a few moments last night to read the part of this conversation that was taking place on B77. As far as specific beliefs about the nature of godheads is concerned, I do not believe that there is a God as such. But the longer I've lived on earth the more convinced I've become that the universe is way more than materiality. We are only touching the hem of the skirt, as it were, when we play with our theories of material causality.

Like Voronwë, I consider the Book of Job among the most profound books of the Bible, even though, as Jewel pointed out on B77, it's not clear that it actually belongs in the Hebrew Bible. The guts of it appear to have been repackaged with Jewish props at the beginning and the end ... in any event, the appearance of God and the Devil are simply there to give context within a particular belief system. The story is not about God or the Devil. And it is not about why bad things happen to good people either, in my opinion. (I'll differ with the V-man on that one.)

Most of the Bible is history or practicum ... with a bit of poetry and a creation myth thrown in ... I take an anthropological view of nearly everything found there and don't think that any of it, really, has much to do with God. The presence of a divine personage simply posits a source for the inspiration, for the nationhood, for the unfolding of histories, etc. All the early written records of human development interweave human and divine events ... this is a genre, so to speak. But when we come to Ecclisiastes and Job, there's some real existential stuff going on there. This is a different kind of story, and among the earliest (I suspect) that attempt to answer the questions that modern people expect to have answered by their belief systems.

We were going to have a group read of the Book of Job, weren't we? We should resurrect that thread.

Jn

[Cerin]

It has been much more nebulous factors that have led me to that belief, that leap of faith. It has been little factors that could easily be passed off as coincidences. It has been awe at nature's beauty, and the incomprehensible hand and mind of artists like van Gogh or Mamady Keita (when you say "attribute them to natural forces" to me that is just another way of saying "attribute them to God").

I think this is the key. I think it is a combination of personality, attitude and experience, that causes some people to react to these instances as evidence or suggestion of a creator; for others these instances simply do not inspire that kind of awareness, or, that small stirring within them that might waken with encouragement into acknowledgement of a creator, is stifled at the outset by the kinds of mental and moral questions that nel mentioned.

Voronwë, I agree that this is where the factor you mentioned comes into play -- that is, the ability to accept something that is beyond our understanding. To some people, circumventing the mechanism of rational thought, especially where it involves questions of morality, by saying that an apparent moral contradiction is beyond their ability to understand, is tantamount to abandoning their moral foundation. For such people the challenge of faith represents a line in the sand that they cannot cross without feeling they are leaving their integrity behind. I think it is almost like, to attempt an analogy, a soldier following an order he believes is morally wrong. (This is not, of course, to suggest that people of faith are like soldiers who perceive orders to be morally wrong and follow them! Rather, it is simply that the perceived moral complexities do not, for them, represent the edge of the abyss.)

[yovargas]

I think it is a combination of personality, attitude and experience, that causes some people to react to these instances as evidence or suggestion of a creator

That statement made me curious - V-man, if I may ask, do you believe in a creator?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course you can ask, yov; it's a good question. The short answer is "yes". But the more I think about it, the more I realize how difficult it is for me to even begin to formulate a longer answer. Certainly, I believe that some higher power caused the Big Bang (if there really was a Big Bang), that some higher power "created" the spark of life and "caused" it to evolve into a sentient beings (not necessarily just humans). Just as certainly, I don't take the biblical accounts of creation literally (or even figuratively, really).

[Frelga]

Meanwhile, just to be the perennial odd-person-out, I continue to disagree with the fundamental distinction between knowing and believing which b.t. would like to draw. Although I agree that it is possible to distinguish among brain processes, in my opinion these are differences of class and not of kind.

If I say I entirely agree with you, will that make the two of us even-people-out?

Certainly, I believe that some higher power caused the Big Bang (if there really was a Big Bang), that some higher power "created" the spark of life and "caused" it to evolve into a sentient beings (not necessarily just humans). Just as certainly, I don't take the biblical accounts of creation literally (or even figuratively, really).

I started a book called God and the Big Bang but had to abandon it, not having the brainpower to spare. It looks at the creation and evolution from the position of Jewish mysticism and makes a point that the two are remarkably in sync.

According to the writings of sixteenth century kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, the universe was created out of nothingness from a single point of Light. The nothingness is called the Endless World. The Endless World was filled with infinite Light. The Light then restricted itself to a single point, creating primordial space. There is no information beyond this point. Therefore, the point is called "the beginning." After the contraction, the Endless World issued forth a ray of Light (energy). This ray of Light then expanded rapidly. All matter emanated from that point.

Sixteenth century, folks. Rabbi Luria was no physicist, but by following a line of purely spiritual inquiry he and others came up with a hypothesis that is very similar to the modern scientific theories.

[Sassafras]

Pardon the intrusion:

Caveat: Am very tired and have not read through the entire thread.

Voronwë wrote:

It has been little factors that could easily be passed off as coincidences. It has been awe at nature's beauty, and the incomprehensible hand and mind of artists like van Gogh or Mamady Keita (when you say "attribute them to natural forces" to me that is just another way of saying "attribute them to God"). Most of all, and most inexplicable, it is in learning to Love that I have come to "know" God. I simply cannot accept that Love could come from any other source.

Now, this is interesting to me because although I have (and do) experience wonder and sometimes awe with the, as you say, little things ... I have also in my past been privileged to feel a sort of ecstasy on a few occasions and I have called them 'spiritual' for lack of a better word. And yet, unlike many, my interpretation of these profoundly moving experiences do not lead me into a belief of a creator, a god or a higher power. Rather I prefer to think that I've been able to connect with the sentience of the planet itself and life as a whole .... knowing it as neither good nor bad but something that just is.

There are many things beyond my comprehension in this existence but I still don't think that means the universe has a creator as a first cause.

Of course there is zero empirical proof either way but let's just say that as I age I am more and more convinced that the concept of God is the invention of man. That, or my brain lacks the necessary components that would allow me to 'believe'.

[Athrabeth]

Sassy, I think you're a Taoist.

I'll be back later.......hopefully.

[Griffon64]

*digs Sass' sig pic*

Erhm, now to validate my uninvited appearance in a thread of such fine discussions

I liked Anth's post. I've jabbered on, earlier in this thread, about the peril of thinking we understand the universe, or even thinking we're capable of understand it. A system doesn't have to be all that complex before your human mind cannot fit it all in. We do manage to understand fairly complex systems through using tools of the mind, such as abstraction and analogy, of course.

But often, like Anth says, we just don't know.

To quickly hook onto Sass' post as well, I have had some of the experiences talked about in this thread, where people mention things like feeling awe and feeling love as pointing to a higher power, and thus a creator, too.

Those feelings, for me, hint at something out there that I do not and cannot understand, that is bigger than me. But, for me, they also point to a creator. I cannot describe why ( which is why I'd say it is something I believe, instead of something I know. )

Is it, maybe, because I find the whole system, of our planet and solar system as I see it, simply too intricate and yet simple at the same time, to believe it came about through anything other than a creator designing and making it? Maybe. I think about how we describe the world around us. Seems like mathematical equations and physics quickly become too tangled when we try to describe the universe in detail. I sometimes think that may mean that the whole universe is really simple, but we simply do not have the tools and perspective to see the simplicity. ( You should see a beginner programmer code something that will take an experienced guy maybe 80 lines of code. The beginner often produces a 1000 line plus heap of tangled, convoluted statements as he or she grapples with understanding new concepts. )

Back to whether those feelings point to a creator, in my case the simple answer is that I have found enough mappings between the described manifestations of my chosen faith and the things I felt, to believe that my chosen faith is not, at its core, man-made. I do not adhere strictly to the dogma of my faith and for all I know I may yet be zapped for it; instead I instead try to apply what is described as the main underpinnings of my faith in my life, everyday. It just makes sense to me, that way.

Because it is such a personal thing, I don't try to thump it on others, and when challenged to describe or defend my views in very concrete terms, I'll pull up short too. But it is what I believe, and in this world, I am very glad that I have a solid foundation to stand on. My faith have helped me through some pretty rough spots!

I also agree with Prim's last post about how God may interact with the world. I do not present this belief of mine as canonical in any fashion, though. It is merely a way that I try to make sense of something I can't understand, and hence, it is only my abstraction, my analogy, applied to try and explain something I do not fully know.

[anthriel]

Oh, Griff, I almost erased that post just now, thinking it must really be dumb.

But it can't be dumb if my Griffster agrees with it!

[Primula Baggins]

I almost erased mine, too. And changed my mind for the same reason.