Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[PureX]

I think that I tend to have more interest in what actually is true than in a comforting illusion.
Maybe you don't have that much intention of putting a perceived truth to the test if an illusion feels good enough…?

What part of "actually is true" does't apply to my criteria of an idea "working" in actual life application?

It's your life, just do what seems to work then.

How is what works not what's "actually true"? You have never explained this. Or how you can know that it's not actually true even though it actually works.

Nonsense, you can't shift the burden of proof that way. If I claim that you owe me a million dollars then would it be your job to show me that you didn't or mine to show that you do?

When you claim that something is (almost certainly) untrue even though believing it's true actually works for millions of people, you are responsible for backing up your claim. I, on the other hand, have not claimed that what I believe is true (or even almost certainly true), but only that my choosing to believe that it's true works for me, and that it seems to work for many millions of other human beings. I am not postulating any truth-claims, I'm only pointing out observed and observable facts. So, the onus is on you.

What if it works for you but not for me, are there two truths or is it that you just don't care what is true so long as it works well enough?

Then it works for me but not for you. And there are a number of reasons why that might be so. But the fact that it is so does not support the contention that the idea is "untrue". It supports the contention that the idea can be misunderstood, and/or misapplied.

Well, if we both independently went to the Grand Canyon (say) then we can both experience it in a similar way, right?

How similar is "similar"?

You really do let yourself get caught up this idea of same/similar/different as some sort of pathway to truth. And it's just not. Everything is similar to everything else. And everything is different from everything else. So the concept of similarity/difference is a relative concept. Which means that both are true simultaneously; and it just depends upon context/perspective which represents our position at any given place in time, and in any given context.

Everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is different. Everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is the same. And everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is unique. That's the paradox of Truth. It's bigger than we are, so to us, it becomes relative, and therefor it often becomes paradoxical.

Assume away then but I simply assume something doesn't exist until I am reasonably convinced otherwise.

Well, that's just another way of saying that you're letting your bias toward skepticism own you to the point of being irrational.

There are just too many spurious and vacuous claims around for me to try to work them all out.

Yet, you do spend inordinate amounts of time on this one. So why not set aside your bias and explore it reasonably and fully?

For me one of the apparent physical functions of the brain involves an otherwise metaphysical thought process. I see no reason why such imaginings should be going on somewhere else outside the brain, while you haven't even begun to show how it could be so, therefore I don't see that the onus is mine to show that it isn't, I just assume that it isn't.

Your own brain is giving you ample proof that it is generating an imaginary conceptual universe that you perceive as "reality". And that even the idea of truth, itself, is a part of that conceptual universe. So not only do you have proof, but this proof is so omnipresent to your human experience that you apparently are having trouble recognizing it at all … sort of like a fish might have trouble recognizing water. There is no 'onus of proof' on me, because I'm merely pointing out something that for we humans is self-evident. Or ought to be, if we are relatively intelligent.

Doesn't all that rather subjectively depend on what is deemed to "work" rather than what is true?

Because we are all living in our own conceptual reality. And because "objective truth" is a concept existing within that reality, the truth, for us, remains both subjective, and therefor relative. We cannot escape this. That "objective reality" that you imagine to be the truth 'apart from you' is itself a concept that you are generating within your own mind. And is itself therefor both relative and subjective to your own mind.

Once again, we encounter that paradoxical nature of "truth".

The real truth doesn't care about our faulty perceptions of it since it is surely independent of human subjectivity.

The real truth includes our faulty perceptions, misunderstandings, and idealizations. It does not exist "independent of" or "apart from" them, as our limited concept of it leads some of us to imagine.

It will still be the truth regardless of what we might like to think it is, because it is.

There is no "truth" without our conceiving of it. There is only inconceivable being. (Sounds like a definition of "God", doesn't it?)

 

[quip]

You seem unaware of the shades of grey in your black and white truth or opinion binary choice. It ranges from figment of imagination or 'private revalation' through causal, repeatable observation, ending with rigorous repeated observations that are consistent with a comprehensive theory.

Yes, in a sense they are all just opinions. But then again, that would be giving unreasonable levels of equivalence to the private revelation end of the scale, wouldn't it?

:dizzy:..........:help:

 

[PureX]

You seem unaware of the shades of grey in your black and white truth or opinion binary choice. It ranges from figment of imagination or 'private revalation' through causal, repeatable observation, ending with rigorous repeated observations that are consistent with a comprehensive theory.

Yes, in a sense they are all just opinions. But then again, that would be giving unreasonable levels of equivalence to the private revelation end of the scale, wouldn't it?

So that I don't have to rewrite a whole dissertation on the relationship between conceptual relativity and practical "truth", perhaps you could go back and read the last few pages of my exchange with Alwight.

To try and sum up quickly, I contend that because we humans are not born "knowing the truth" of anything, we have to postulate (imagine) possibilities, and try them out. If they "work" for us, we hold them as being true (even though we don't know that they are true) until we discover a different concept of what is true that 'works better' for us. The point being that for we humans, the "truth" is what works for us until we find something that works better.

And this remains true even for those who imagine that through science, they are discovering some 'truth beyond themselves'. They aren't. Because science is just another method of determining 'what works' for us. It simply helps us to eliminate some of our desire-based bias, so that it increases our effectiveness in this endeavor, and it allows us to explore beyond the range of our own senses and immediate needs. The endeavor, however, remains basically the same.

And, if the truth is what 'works' for us (as I contend), and the concept of "God" works for millions of people, then "God" is the truth for those millions of people. Now, if the concept of "God" doesn't work for you, that doesn't make the concept untrue (except to you), which is what atheists keep trying to content. In fact, it's more likely that the concept doesn't work for some people because they don't effectively understand it, or they don't apply it to their life, or perhaps they misapply it. Or, maybe it just doesn't work for everyone. We aren't all the same, after all.

 

[gcthomas]

Please define 'works for me' and how that can be measured / judged.

 

[PureX]

Please define 'works for me' and how that can be measured / judged.

That depends on who we are and what the concept being applied is. Who we are determines our goals and our method of application, while the idea/concept being applied determines what is possible as an outcome.

In this case we are talking about the concept of "God". Which is a rather broad and open-ended concept. So each of us will determine for ourselves what we think that concept embodies, and from that, how it might be applied in our lives. Then, whether it 'works' or not will depend on the outcomes we desire relative to the outcomes we get.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, thank you for pointing out my problem TH and what I assume too.

I appreciate you appreciating me taking you at your words.

However when dealing with this life I think that priority should mainly go to that which is in some way noticeable for having at least some evidence to it.

No, you want more than that or you'd be satisfied with witness, which is itself evidence and you'd be persuaded by the overwhelming testimony of the majority of mankind as to the existence of God, however one relates to Him in particular and then begin the process of considering which illustration of that underlying truth is in accord with your best understanding.

Instead, you're open to anyone who can measure it for you with a penny weight scale.

But yes if all there is, is an otherwise empty assertion from someone who probably has no more clue than I do about what is true, then I don't go and assume it is true anyway, so shoot me.

Wouldn't be my argument. I might offer testimony as to the impact of faith within the context of my life, the objective superiority of the proposition in terms of how it relates to everything from human psychology to biology and the inherent benefits of a community of faith, but I'd never rest on an empty assertion.

I can always come up with my own unsupported metaphysical notions if I need any (and I probably have below..).

But then you'd know you weren't offering yourself truth, which would be a little self defeating. And as between competing ideas would represent another lesser choice.

TH, unlike you my deductive and processing powers are very limited and need to be rationed out. If I prefer to investigate only that which seems to have some signs of substance then yes I'm guilty.

Nothing like an open mind, al. lain:

You owe me a million dollars too btw, will you be investigating that or just going to settle up? :readthis:

Do you really want to know why that isn't a parallel or are you just making chit-chat?

Again obviously I don't have your copious capacity for investigating all forms of gods, instead I tend to limit myself to only those gods who seem to be having some physical effect on life as I know it. lain:

Again, it really doesn't require a Herculean effort, but it does require some and given the importance of the answer I'd think as priorities go it should fare better than, say, repartee on a chat board.

If as I do you accept Darwinian evolution as a fact of life then nothing is off-limits, provided it is possible and it works. If the human line survived better for having some innate mental traits and perhaps including a tendency to accept a hierarchy, real, supposed or supernatural, then why not?

Have you never considered yourself to be a victim of Darwinian evolution before TH?

I thought something like that for around thirty years, al.

Always fun bumping elbows with you. :cheers:

 

[alwight]

I think that I tend to have more interest in what actually is true than in a comforting illusion.
Maybe you don't have that much intention of putting a perceived truth to the test if an illusion feels good enough…?

What part of "actually is true" does't apply to my criteria of an idea "working" in actual life application?

The "actual truth" is the aspiration but not something that is always convenient or helpful.

It's your life, just do what seems to work then.

How is what works not what's "actually true"? You have never explained this. Or how you can know that it's not actually true even though it actually works.

Again, what is actually true should the aspiration, it isn't necessarily something that exists to help. If however just a belief in a "higher power" (not any direct empirical assistance which could possibly be put to the test) has helped you in a crisis, perhaps combined in that 12 step program, then belief is the only actual truth here, not the supposed "higher power". The truth regarding a "higher power" has not been resolved because of your belief and nor your apparent subsequent recovery.

Nonsense, you can't shift the burden of proof that way. If I claim that you owe me a million dollars then would it be your job to show me that you didn't or mine to show that you do?

When you claim that something is (almost certainly) untrue even though believing it's true actually works for millions of people, you are responsible for backing up your claim. I, on the other hand, have not claimed that what I believe is true (or even almost certainly true), but only that it works for me, and it works for many millions of other human beings. I am not postulating any truth-claims, I'm only pointing out observed and observable facts. So, the onus is on you.

You again seem to be missing my point which is partly about belief alone being the only truth, which I have never claimed hasn't worked for people btw, but also the clear inescapable fact is, if I am allowed to conclude that only one belief could logically be true, that most religious belief is not based in actual truth and is certainly thereby technically untrue, regardless of any beneficial sidelines.
By the same token I think it reasonable to believe that the truth is that there is no deeper truth to any religious belief or their deities and that humans are generally inclined to have such beliefs whether they are moulded by their local religion or are perhaps more personal.

What if it works for you but not for me, are there two truths or is it that you just don't care what is true so long as it works well enough?

Then it works for me but not for you. And there are a number of reasons why that might be so. But the fact that it is so does not support the contention that the idea is "untrue". It supports the contention that the idea can be misunderstood, and/or misapplied.

Then how do you know that you didn't simply find your own way through which you have misattributed, since testable evidence doesn't seem to matter much to you?

Well, if we both independently went to the Grand Canyon (say) then we can both experience it in a similar way, right?

How similar is "similar"?

You really do let yourself get caught up this idea of same/similar/different as some sort of pathway to truth. And it's just not. Everything is similar to everything else. And everything is different from everything else. So the concept of similarity/difference is a relative concept. Which means that both are true simultaneously; and it just depends upon context/perspective which represents our position at any given place in time, and in any given context.

Everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is different. Everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is the same. And everyone's experience of the Grand Canyon is unique. That's the paradox of Truth. It's bigger than we are, so to us, it becomes relative, and therefor it often becomes paradoxical.

Shouldn't we be guided by empirical experience and perhaps other people's similar experiences of the same place, or should we just believe only what we like regardless because we think it works?

Assume away then but I simply assume something doesn't exist until I am reasonably convinced otherwise.

Well, that's just another way of saying that you're letting you bias toward skepticism own you to the point of being irrational.

Without evidence scepticism is totally justified imo, if that is my bias so be it.

There are just too many spurious and vacuous claims around for me to try to work them all out.

Yet, you do spend inordinate amounts of time on this one. So why not set aside you bias and explore it reasonably?

I am perhaps biased to responding to whatever is addressed to me.

So how do we explore without some empirical evidence?
Do I put myself into a trance or chant a mantra for hours?

For me one of the apparent physical functions of the brain involves an otherwise metaphysical thought process. I see no reason why such imaginings should be going on somewhere else outside the brain, while you haven't even begun to show how it could be so, therefore I don't see that the onus is mine to show that it isn't, I just assume that it isn't.

Your own brain is giving you ample proof that it is generating an imaginary conceptual universe that you perceive as "reality". And that even the idea of truth, itself, is a part of that conceptual universe. So not only do you have proof, but this proof is so omnipresent to your human experience that you apparently are having trouble recognizing it at all … sort of like a fish might have trouble recognizing water. There is no 'onus of proof' on me, because I'm merely pointing out something that for we humans, is self-evident. Or certainly ought to be, if we are relatively intelligent.

Intelligent and frail enough to go looking for a supernatural guardian and protector perhaps?

Doesn't all that rather subjectively depend on what is deemed to "work" rather than what is true?

Because we are all living in our own conceptual reality, And because "objective truth" is a concept existing within that reality, the truth, for us, remains both subjective, and therefor relative. We cannot escape this. That "objective reality" that you imagine to be the truth 'apart from you' is itself a concept that you are generating within your own mind. And is itself therefor both relative and subjective.

And once again, the truth become paradoxical.

I see no need to construct more paradoxes than are empirically evidenced.

The real truth doesn't care about our faulty perceptions of it since it is surely independent of human subjectivity.

The real truth includes our faulty perceptions, misunderstandings, and idealizations.

But that doesn't make them true.

It will still be the truth regardless of what we might like to think it is, because it is.

And we will still be living in our own conceptual universes, conceiving of truth as if it were ours to own and control.

Or wish we could?

 

[alwight]

Well, thank you for pointing out my problem TH and what I assume too.

I appreciate you appreciating me taking you at your words.

Don't mention it TH I sometimes need to have the real truth officially pointed out to me.

However when dealing with this life I think that priority should mainly go to that which is in some way noticeable for having at least some evidence to it.

No, you want more than that or you'd be satisfied with witness, which is itself evidence and you'd be persuaded by the overwhelming testimony of the majority of mankind as to the existence of God, however one relates to Him in particular and then begin the process of considering which illustration of that underlying truth is in accord with your best understanding.

Instead, you're open to anyone who can measure it for you with a penny weight scale.

I witnessed that you owed me a million dollars below which for some reason I rather suspect you that you don't accept my testimony TH. :shocked:
Yes if it can be measured then I am more biased to think that it exists.

But yes if all there is, is an otherwise empty assertion from someone who probably has no more clue than I do about what is true, then I don't go and assume it is true anyway, so shoot me.

Wouldn't be my argument. I might offer testimony as to the impact of faith within the context of my life, the objective superiority of the proposition in terms of how it relates to everything from human psychology to biology and the inherent benefits of a community of faith, but I'd never rest on an empty assertion.

That wasn't my contention with PX who apparently isn't prepared to risk empirical evidence raining on his parade whereas you are it seems.

I can always come up with my own unsupported metaphysical notions if I need any (and I probably have below..).

But then you'd know you weren't offering yourself truth, which would be a little self defeating. And as between competing ideas would represent another lesser choice.

I simply look for what seems to as closely match the truth to the evidence as possible. If there is no evidence then there is a problem.

TH, unlike you my deductive and processing powers are very limited and need to be rationed out. If I prefer to investigate only that which seems to have some signs of substance then yes I'm guilty.

Nothing like an open mind, al. lain:

I perhaps don't want to risk it falling out.

You owe me a million dollars too btw, will you be investigating that or just going to settle up?

Do you really want to know why that isn't a parallel or are you just making chit-chat?

I am kind of hurt that you won't simply accept my testimony?

You Again obviously I don't have your copious capacity for investigating all forms of gods, instead I tend to limit myself to only those gods who seem to be having some physical effect on life as I know it.

Again, it really doesn't require a Herculean effort, but it does require some and given the importance of the answer I'd think as priorities go it should fare better than, say, repartee on a chat board.

That's easy for you to say, but I can see millions of people nevertheless believing in the "wrong" gods around the world, so I have concluded that most people simply prefer to believe in gods albeit circumstantially and that the real truth however remains an unknown and perhaps unknowable.

If as I do you accept Darwinian evolution as a fact of life then nothing is off-limits, provided it is possible and it works. If the human line survived better for having some innate mental traits and perhaps including a tendency to accept a hierarchy, real, supposed or supernatural, then why not?

Have you never considered yourself to be a victim of Darwinian evolution before TH?

I thought something like that for around thirty years, al.

Always fun bumping elbows with you.

Thanks TH, I can always mix the serious and the whimsy with you. :e4e:

 

[PureX]

The "actual truth" is the aspiration but not something that is always convenient or helpful.

It's also not 'never' convenient or helpful. And of those two possibilities, I would reasonably assert that we seek "actual truth" that is convenient and helpful far more often than we seek actual truth that isn't either of those.

Again, what is actually true should (be) the aspiration, it isn't necessarily something that exists to help.

Yeah, but I think that's an irrelevant distinction.

If however just a belief in a "higher power" (not any direct empirical assistance which could possibly be put to the test) has helped you in a crisis, perhaps combined in that 12 step program, then belief is the only actual truth here, not the supposed "higher power".

Well, what we've been discussing for several pages, now, is 'belief in a higher power' rather than the objective existence of a god. I have long since ceded that I have no knowledge of the objective existence of God. And I don't even know that that would entail. (And so have you, of course.) So that's not really at issue, here. What is at issue is the concept of a "higher power", and how believing in that concept 'works' for people (though not currently for you). Most folks call that "higher power", "God" but for the sake of this discussion I think we're just as well to leave it a "higher power".

There are two crucial aspects to the function of this belief: one is the effectiveness of faith, itself, and the other is the objectives to which that effectiveness is being applied. If I conceive of this higher power as an omnipotent magician who's sole purpose is to do my will, placing my faith in that concept will not likely 'work' for me. In that this higher power is not likely to magically grant my every whim. And since this conception of a higher power doesn't work for me, I would choose not to place my faith in it.

Point being that this isn't just about the 'placebo effect' of faith. It's about focussing that faith on exactly those areas of my existence and being that find me coming up short. Thus, the term "higher power": a power/force that's greater than myself. A power/force that perhaps can do or help me do that which I cannot do for myself, alone.

And everyone comes up short in life. In all sorts of ways. That's a given. So for everyone, there is a need for this "higher power" that might make up the difference, or that might help them to transcend their own shortcomings. And this is why so many people choose to "believe in God". They have found that believing in this higher power does indeed actually help them to transcend their own shortcomings. Not all the time, and not in every way they would wish, but their belief does work for them. And so they continue to engage in it. And why not? You have no proof that their belief is unfounded, and they have their own experience to tell them to keep on believing.

The truth regarding a "higher power" has not been resolved because of your belief and nor your apparent subsequent recovery.

"Resolved" how? Do you mean it has not been established that a "higher power" objectively exists? That depends. There are lots of 'powers' greater than ours. They certainly exist. So what isn't resolved? That these powers are the expression of some sort of 'embodied being'? I can resolve that! That's just a convenient way of conceptualizing them for people. I use it myself, sometimes, even though I know it's just a convenient, overly simplistic conceptualization. So what's not resolved? Why it doesn't work for you? I don't think you've ever understood it well enough to actually try it, to be honest. But maybe it just can't work for everyone. I don't know.

You again seem to be missing my point which is partly about belief alone being the only truth, which I have never claimed hasn't worked for people btw, but also the clear inescapable fact is, if I am allowed to conclude that only one belief could logically be true, that most religious belief is not based in actual truth and is certainly thereby technically untrue, regardless of any beneficial sidelines.

Why would you conclude that only one belief could logically be true? Existence is far greater than we are, in scope, in depth, in complexity, and probably in import. Which makes our experience of it very limited, and certainly relative. Which makes our perception of it often paradoxical. Logic can resolve some of these paradoxical perceptions, but many it can't. So I see no reason to assume that there can only be "one true belief". In fact, it seems very logical and reasonable to assume the contrary: that existence will always present us with many different and even conflicting "truths", simultaneously. Not because existence is a multiplex (though to us, it is), but because we cannot grasp it except via our own relative and limited contexts.

By the same token I think it reasonable to believe that the truth is that there is no deeper truth to any religious belief or their deities and that humans are generally inclined to have such beliefs whether they are moulded by their local religion or are perhaps more personal.

There is logically no such thing as a "deeper truth". I think you may be referring to a deeper understanding of truth. But like everything else with we humans, that, too, is limited and relative. If we really want to understand the truth, the first thing we need to understand is that we're making it up. The truth is simply 'what is'. But that's a phenomena far beyond our physical and intellectual comprehension. Leaving us to imagine what it might be from the tiny fragments of it that we can experience and understand. So basically, the accusations that you keep trying to level at religious belief and practice are accusations that apply to all human beliefs and practices.

I agree that some religions 'work better' than others overall. Just as some areas of human study produce better overall understanding than others. And some methods of human engagement are overall more effective than others. But this doesn't make any of them more true or less true. It just makes them more positive and/or effective, or less positive and/or less effective.

Then how do you know that you didn't simply find your own way through which you have misattributed, since testable evidence doesn't seem to matter much to you?

I don't know. And neither do you. But believing in my 'higher power' works for me, and I take that as pretty strong evidence in support of my continuing to believe as I do.

I don't really care much about being "wrong" in my understanding of Reality and Truth, because as a human being, I'm almost certainly wrong about a great many things I think are real and true. And as long as I remain human, this will remain the case.

I do put great stock in being as HONEST as I can be about these things, however. Because honesty is as close to Reality and Truth as we humans can get. And honesty requires skepticism and doubt, so I respect your appreciation of those, I really do. But I also think that they have their limits, just like everything else does, and we need to know when it's wise to set them aside, and just trust in hope.

Shouldn't we be guided by empirical experience and perhaps other people's similar experiences of the same place, or should we just believe only what we like regardless because we think it works?

It's not an 'either/or' choice. Logic and experience are fine tools. Exceptional tools, even. But we also have imagination, and intuition, and faith, which can outreach logic and experience, and can also be hugely effective tools. The trick is to stay open-minded, and willing, so that we can best apply those tools to the problems before us that will give us the best outcomes.

So how do we explore without some empirical evidence?

You use you intuition and imagination, because they can outreach logic and experience. And sometimes you just have to apply blind faith.

Do I put myself into a trance or chant a mantra for hours?

That has worked pretty well for a lot of other people throughout the centuries. Don't knock it. Something similar helped my through the earliest days of sobriety, when my mind was "squirming like toad". :chuckle:



I want to say that I greatly appreciate your calm, patient responses through this fairly long dialogue. I don't know you, but to me, this shows you to be someone with a good balance between a strong intellect and a kind spirit, and therefor someone who has much to offer others, including me. And I am grateful for the opportunity share thoughts and ideas with you.

:cheers:

 

[Hedshaker]

Please define 'works for me' and how that can be measured / judged.

Also, it seems to work much better if you believe it first. Start off believing it and Bam! It all makes perfect sense from the get go, and there must be something to it cause it works for millions of people.

I just wish it would work for the National Lottery is all :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

If however just a belief in a "higher power" (not any direct empirical assistance which could possibly be put to the test) has helped you in a crisis, perhaps combined in that 12 step program, then belief is the only actual truth here, not the supposed "higher power".

Well, what we've been discussing for several pages, now, is 'belief in a higher power' rather than the objective existence of a god. I have long since ceded that I have no knowledge of the objective existence of God. And I don't even know that that would entail. (And so have you, of course.) So that's not really at issue, here. What is at issue is the concept of a "higher power", and how believing in that concept 'works' for people (though not currently for you). Most folks call that "higher power", "God" but for the sake of this discussion I think we're just as well to leave it a "higher power".

It's marginally better than "Flying Spaghetti Monster" anyway.

There are two crucial aspects to the function of this belief: one is the effectiveness of faith, itself, and the other is the objectives to which that effectiveness is being applied. If I conceive of this higher power as an omnipotent magician who's sole purpose is to do my will, placing my faith in that concept will not likely 'work' for me. In that this higher power is not likely to magically grant my every whim. And since this conception of a higher power doesn't work for me, I would choose not to place my faith in it.

It would be nice to have a genie in a lamp.

Point being that this isn't just about the 'placebo effect' of faith. It's about focussing that faith on exactly those areas of my existence and being that find me coming up short. Thus, the term "higher power": a power/force that's greater than myself. A power/force that perhaps can do or help me do that which I cannot do for myself, alone.

I think we can always achieve much more when we believe that we can, even a delusion may work, which might explain why I never achieved much. :idunno:

And everyone comes up short in life. In all sorts of ways. That's a given. So for everyone, there is a need for this "higher power" that might make up the difference, or that might help them to transcend their own shortcomings. And this is why so many people choose to "believe in God". They have found that believing in this higher power does indeed actually help them to transcend their own shortcomings. Not all the time, and not in every way they would wish, but their belief does work for them. And so they continue to engage in it. And why not? You have no proof that their belief is unfounded, and they have their own experience to tell them to keep on believing.

I accept that the right applied motivation can produce more successful people than those without it, but it rather depends on what you call "success". I'm simply very suspicious of people who invoke a supernatural, whether they be clairvoyants, psychic surgeons or faith healers, they are all bogus afaic until I'm convinced otherwise and just like Uri Geller they don't stand up to proper scrutiny.

The truth regarding a "higher power" has not been resolved because of your belief and nor your apparent subsequent recovery.

"Resolved" how? Do you mean it has not been established that a "higher power" objectively exists? That depends. There are lots of 'powers' greater than ours. They certainly exist. So what isn't resolved? That these powers are the expression of some sort of 'embodied being'? I can resolve that! That's just a convenient way of conceptualizing them for people. I use it myself, sometimes, even though I know it's just a convenient, overly simplistic conceptualization. So what's not resolved? Why it doesn't work for you? I don't think you've ever understood it well enough to actually try it, to be honest. But maybe it just can't work for everyone. I don't know.

It doesn't particularly matter if it works for me or you or not, the issue here is actually whether an omnipotent being who for some reason cannot be seen exists. That is what I doubt.

You again seem to be missing my point which is partly about belief alone being the only truth, which I have never claimed hasn't worked for people btw, but also the clear inescapable fact is, if I am allowed to conclude that only one belief could logically be true, that most religious belief is not based in actual truth and is certainly thereby technically untrue, regardless of any beneficial sidelines.

Why would you conclude that only one belief could logically be true? Existence is far greater than we are, in scope, in depth, in complexity, and probably in import. Which makes our experience of it very limited, and certainly relative. Which makes our perception of it often paradoxical. Logic can resolve some of these paradoxical perceptions, but many it can't. So I see no reason to assume that there can only be "one true belief". In fact, it seems very logical and reasonable to assume the contrary: that existence will always present us with many different and even conflicting "truths", simultaneously. Not because existence is a multiplex (though to us, it is), but because we cannot grasp it except via our own relative and limited contexts.

I simply have a problem with only one version of god being true, I really don't see how a supposed plethora of deities would make anything about it any more rational or likely. If the universe was a divine creation was it done by committee? Why wouldn't they each have a universe of their own? Besides most people seem to at least restrict their gods down to manageable proportions at least, more often only one. But surely only one godly supernatural environment can be the case even if it contains multiple gods. Clearly it's human beings who have designed gods not the other way around.

By the same token I think it reasonable to believe that the truth is that there is no deeper truth to any religious belief or their deities and that humans are generally inclined to have such beliefs whether they are moulded by their local religion or are perhaps more personal.

There is logically no such thing as a "deeper truth". I think you may be referring to a deeper understanding of truth. But like everything else with we humans, that, too, is limited and relative. If we really want to understand the truth, the first thing we need to understand is that we're making it up. The truth is simply 'what is'. But that's a phenomena far beyond our physical and intellectual comprehension. Leaving us to imagine what it might be from the tiny fragments of it that we can experience and understand. So basically, the accusations that you keep trying to level at religious belief and practice are accusations that apply to all human beliefs and practices.

Very few people apparently are capable of much Critical Thinking but I try but don't always succeed but I'm at least aware of it and consider it a good thing.

I agree that some religions 'work better' than others overall. Just as some areas of human study produce better overall understanding than others. And some methods of human engagement are overall more effective than others. But this doesn't make any of them more true or less true. It just makes them more positive and/or effective, or less positive and/or less effective.

I think you should just accept that you are an agnostic atheist like the rest of us.

Then how do you know that you didn't simply find your own way through which you have misattributed, since testable evidence doesn't seem to matter much to you?

I don't know. And neither do you. But believing in my 'higher power' works for me, and I take that as pretty strong evidence in support of my continuing to believe as I do.

I don't really care much about being "wrong" in my understanding of Reality and Truth, because as a human being, I'm almost certainly wrong about a great many things I think are real and true. And as long as I remain human, this will remain the case.

I do put great stock in being as HONEST as I can be about these things, however. Because honesty is as close to Reality and Truth as we humans can get. And honesty requires skepticism and doubt, so I respect your appreciation of those, I really do. But I also think that they have their limits, just like everything else does, and we need to know when it's wise to set them aside, and just trust in hope.

Perhaps since there is nothing much we can do about whatever the ultimate truths are, why worry be happy? There is nothing to fear but fear itself, right? I don't expect to find any comfort in gods and it has never bothered me, but I can see that some do.

Shouldn't we be guided by empirical experience and perhaps other people's similar experiences of the same place, or should we just believe only what we like regardless because we think it works?

It's not an 'either/or' choice. Logic and experience are fine tools. Exceptional tools, even. But we also have imagination, and intuition, and faith, which can outreach logic and experience, and can also be hugely effective tools. The trick is to stay open-minded, and willing, so that we can best apply those tools to the problems before us that will give us the best outcomes.

I've been wrong far too often to trust my own intuition, which is why I trust reason, logic and testable conclusions.

So how do we explore without some empirical evidence?

You use you intuition and imagination, because they can outreach logic and experience. And sometimes you just have to apply blind faith.

I really don't think so, see above, and I hadn't read this first.

Do I put myself into a trance or chant a mantra for hours?

That has worked pretty well for a lot of other people throughout the centuries. Don't knock it. Something similar helped my through the earliest days of sobriety, when my mind was "squirming like toad". :chuckle:

Hipnosis at least seems genuine but I have never been hipnotised. I gave up smoking many years ago which was tough enough. At the time I had a drinking buddy at work who became an alchoholic, I used to try keeping up with him, but for some reason I never became addicted as I was to cigarettes. Giving up booze was easy for me, I can't explain it.
But then again I haven't actually given up booze or needed to, I can have a few social drinks and have beers in the fridge.

I want to say that I greatly appreciate your calm, patient responses through this fairly long dialogue. I don't know you, but to me, this shows you to be someone with a good balance between a strong intellect and a kind spirit, and therefor someone who has much to offer others, including me. And I am grateful for the opportunity share thoughts and ideas with you.

:cheers:

Thank you PX, I'll buy you a drink in hell perhaps. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Don't mention it TH I sometimes need to have the real truth officially pointed out to me.

Sometimes the best of us are bias blinded...the trick is convincing the other guy it's him.

I witnessed that you owed me a million dollars below which for some reason I rather suspect you that you don't accept my testimony TH.

Because it's an empirical matter and you can't present empirical data that I'm incapable of refuting. So...that a liar or a madman might escape initial notice and be allowed to give testimony isn't a case against the weight and value of testimony, but is instead a case against liars and madmen.

Yes if it can be measured then I am more biased to think that it exists.

Which invariably leads me back to the problem of an empiricist attempting to seek proof by a means that isn't suited to it.

That wasn't my contention with PX who apparently isn't prepared to risk empirical evidence raining on his parade whereas you are it seems.

Why the heck not?

I simply look for what seems to as closely match the truth to the evidence as possible. If there is no evidence then there is a problem.

Seems reasonable, depending on how you judge the evidence and approach testable hypothesis.

That's easy for you to say, but I can see millions of people nevertheless believing in the "wrong" gods around the world, so I have concluded that most people simply prefer to believe in gods albeit circumstantially and that the real truth however remains an unknown and perhaps unknowable.

I'd bet on any given day an alarming number of people are getting wrong answers on math exams.

Thanks TH, I can always mix the serious and the whimsy with you. :e4e:

If God didn't have a sense of humor at least one of us wouldn't be here...and possibly more. :shocked:

:cheers:

 

[PureX]

I accept that the right applied motivation can produce more successful people than those without it, but it rather depends on what you call "success". I'm simply very suspicious of people who invoke a supernatural, whether they be clairvoyants, psychic surgeons or faith healers, they are all bogus afaic until I'm convinced otherwise and just like Uri Geller they don't stand up to proper scrutiny.

For me, there is a crucial difference between the metaphysical and the supernatural. The supernatural defies nature, and exists apart from it, while the metaphysical transcends nature, springing from within it. I do not believe in a 'supernatural being' in the sense that there is some self-actuating entity standing apart from nature, and defying natural processes at will and whim.

I do, however, believe there are transcendent realms of existence beyond those we know, that if we could better perceive and understand them, would explain to us the source and purpose of existence. And very likely would give us the ability to shape the course of existence (including our own) far more purposefully and effectively than we do, now.

It doesn't particularly matter if it works for me or you or not, the issue here is actually whether an omnipotent being who for some reason cannot be seen exists. That is what I doubt.

That's not an issue for me because I understand that conceptual image of God to be a myth: a re-presentation of an idea or complex of ideas that are difficult to grasp, being made more easily grasped through a simplistic representation, or collection of them. It's a common tool used by ideological writers and story-tellers, all the time.

It is disconcerting to see adults who ought to know better treating these myths as if they were factual reality, but I recognize that adult intellectual sophistication, like everything else we humans perceive, is relative. Just a few hundred years ago almost no one could read a single book. So considering that, I guess I should be impressed by how far we've come in such a short span of human history, rather than disparaging how little we've advanced from being superstitious primitives.

I simply have a problem with only one version of god being true, I really don't see how a supposed plethora of deities would make anything about it any more rational or likely.

Then it's you who is behind the curve on this one. Because most religions have for centuries envisioned one ultimate 'god-hood' through a multiplex of different 'demigods', each intended to represent an aspect of 'god-hood' as it is experienced by man in this world. Hinduism and Shinto are classic examples of this. But it's been commonplace all throughout history. There were gods of love, gods of wealth, gods of the air, earth, and sea. There were gods of mercy and gods of mirth. On and on. But in almost every instance of cultures with these multiple god-images, they were understood to be different expressions of a single overall Divine Realm, or Great Spirit, or Atman, or some other ultimate god-hood that is usually conceived of as being beyond our understanding.

Even the trinity in Christianity is a very similar 'god-hood' multiplex. Where each 'specter' of the trinity represents a different manifestation of the 'god-hood'. A god-hood that is beyond our grasp and understanding, otherwise.

There is no reason for you to have such difficulty with all these demigods when you understand that they, like all of mankind's gods, are mythical representations of an inexplicable god-hood. That "higher power" that's otherwise beyond our grasp and understanding.

If the universe was a divine creation was it done by committee?

It depends on the mythology at hand.

Why wouldn't they each have a universe of their own?

Because they are not the ultimate 'highest power'. They are individualized re-presentations of the powers that effect the course of existence.

Besides most people seem to at least restrict their gods down to manageable proportions at least, more often only one.

Actually, there's almost never been only one.

But surely only one godly supernatural environment can be the case even if it contains multiple gods.

That is the common belief. But we humans cannot perceive that environment directly. So we have to invent mythical representations of the ways in which we believe this "supernatural environment" (your term, not mine) effects ours.

Clearly it's human beings who have designed gods not the other way around.

Of course it is. And in many instances, the inventors are well aware of that. Once again you're getting caught up in the fact that Santa Claus is not "real", and completely ignoring the whole phenomena of Christmas. Santa Claus is just a mythical representation of part of a greater ideal, which is itself ritually enacted once a year as "Christmas".

Very few people apparently are capable of much Critical Thinking but I try but don't always succeed but I'm at least aware of it and consider it a good thing.

We humans are a work in progress. No doubt.

I think you should just accept that you are an agnostic atheist like the rest of us.

I do. But I'm choosing to believe in that "Higher Power", anyway.

Perhaps since there is nothing much we can do about whatever the ultimate truths are, why worry be happy? There is nothing to fear but fear itself, right? I don't expect to find any comfort in gods and it has never bothered me, but I can see that some do.

There's a foxhole awaiting us all, sooner or later.

I've been wrong far too often to trust my own intuition, which is why I trust reason, logic and testable conclusions.

I think you're fooling yourself. You trust your intuitions just like the rest of us. Maybe not as much. But you do it.

 

[alwight]

For me, there is a crucial difference between the metaphysical and the supernatural. The supernatural defies nature, and exists apart from it, while the metaphysical transcends nature, springing from within it. I do not believe in a 'supernatural being' in the sense that there is some self-actuating entity standing apart from nature, and defying natural processes at will and whim.

I do, however, believe there are transcendent realms of existence beyond those we know, that if we could better perceive and understand them, would explain to us the source and purpose of existence. And very likely would give us the ability to shape the course of existence (including our own) far more purposefully and effectively than we do, now.
That's not an issue for me because I understand that conceptual image of God to be a myth: a re-presentation of an idea or complex of ideas that are difficult to grasp, being made more easily grasped through a simplistic representation, or collection of them. It's a common tool used by ideological writers and story-tellers, all the time.

It is disconcerting to see adults who ought to know better treating these myths as if they were factual reality, but I recognize that adult intellectual sophistication, like everything else we humans perceive, is relative. Just a few hundred years ago almost no one could read a single book. So considering that, I guess I should be impressed by how far we've come in such a short span of human history, rather than disparaging how little we've advanced from being superstitious primitives.
Then it's you who is behind the curve on this one. Because most religions have for centuries envisioned one ultimate 'god-hood' through a multiplex of different 'demigods', each intended to represent an aspect of 'god-hood' as it is experienced by man in this world. Hinduism and Shinto are classic examples of this. But it's been commonplace all throughout history. There were gods of love, gods of wealth, gods of the air, earth, and sea. There were gods of mercy and gods of mirth. On and on. But in almost every instance of cultures with these multiple god-images, they were understood to be different expressions of a single overall Divine Realm, or Great Spirit, or Atman, or some other ultimate god-hood that is usually conceived of as being beyond our understanding.

Even the trinity in Christianity is a very similar 'god-hood' multiplex. Where each 'specter' of the trinity represents a different manifestation of the 'god-hood'. A god-hood that is beyond our grasp and understanding, otherwise.

There is no reason for you to have such difficulty with all these demigods when you understand that they, like all of mankind's gods, are mythical representations of an inexplicable god-hood. That "higher power" that's otherwise beyond our grasp and understanding.
It depends on the mythology at hand. Because they are not the ultimate 'highest power'. They are individualized re-presentations of the powers that effect the course of existence.
Actually, there's almost never been only one.
That is the common belief. But we humans cannot perceive that environment directly. So we have to invent mythical representations of the ways in which we believe this "supernatural environment" (your term, not mine) effects ours.
Of course it is. And in many instances, the inventors are well aware of that. Once again you're getting caught up in the fact that Santa Claus is not "real", and completely ignoring the whole phenomena of Christmas. Santa Claus is just a mythical representation of part of a greater ideal, which is itself ritually enacted once a year as "Christmas".
We humans are a work in progress. No doubt.
I do. But I'm choosing to believe in that "Higher Power", anyway.
There's a foxhole awaiting us all, sooner or later.
I think you're fooling yourself. You trust your intuitions just like the rest of us. Maybe not as much. But you do it.

Thanks PX, I've noticed that there are atheistic Christians around apparently, some atheists choose to follow Jesus without all the God stuff, does that include you or will you be changing your label anytime soon? :think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

 

[alwight]

Sometimes the best of us are bias blinded...the trick is convincing the other guy it's him.

It's always other people who are biased TH. lain:

Because it's an empirical matter and you can't present empirical data that I'm incapable of refuting. So...that a liar or a madman might escape initial notice and be allowed to give testimony isn't a case against the weight and value of testimony, but is instead a case against liars and madmen.

So I needn't get my hopes up that my coffers will be swollen anytime soon, darn.
Of course it wasn't about the money it's just that my testimony apparently wasn't good enough for you. (sob)
Judge Judy always likes to see evidence rather than relying on what the litigants testify, some people seem to have their own versions of truth.

Which invariably leads me back to the problem of an empiricist attempting to seek proof by a means that isn't suited to it.

I think that for theistic doubt and scepticism to exist it probably only requires poor standards of empirical evidence, which is all we seem to get at best.

I'd bet on any given day an alarming number of people are getting wrong answers on math exams.

I once got the correct answer to a maths question but apparently my working out process was unclear or wrong. I think the idea is that you can show that you know what you're doing and can show others that indeed you do know. In mathematics at least such is possible, not so much religious belief I feel.

If God didn't have a sense of humor at least one of us wouldn't be here...and possibly more. :shocked:

:cheers:

I don't remember any jokes in the Bible TH. :idunno:

 

[PureX]

Thanks PX, I've noticed that there are atheistic Christians around apparently, some atheists choose to follow Jesus without all the God stuff, does that include you or will you be changing your label anytime soon? :think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

No. I'm not an atheist. Like all sensible humans, I am agnostic. But choose to trust in a God of my understanding. And for me, that understanding changes according to need, desire, and ability. It regularly includes the ideology of Christ as I understand it: that the divine spirit of love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity, acting in us and through us to others, will heal us and save us from ourselves. And it regularly includes philosophical taoism: which places the practice of honesty, humility, and spontaneity as those attributes that will help us embody the true nature of our own being, which is after all, the logical purpose of our being here.

 

[alwight]

No. I'm not an atheist. Like all sensible humans, I am agnostic. But choose to trust in a God of my understanding. And for me, that understanding changes according to need, desire, and ability. It regularly includes the ideology of Christ as I understand it: that the divine spirit of love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity, acting in us and through us to others, will heal us and save us from ourselves. And it regularly includes philosophical taoism: which places the practice of honesty, humility, and spontaneity as those attributes that will help us embody the true nature of our own being, which is after all, the logical purpose of our being here.

Each to their own I suppose.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's always other people who are biased TH. lain:

That's just the way you see it...wait. lain:

So I needn't get my hopes up that my coffers will be swollen anytime soon, darn.

If they do and for more than a few hours you should probably consult a physician.

Of course it wasn't about the money it's just that my testimony apparently wasn't good enough for you. (sob)

And my response was to poke a goodly sized hole in the problem of your attempt to parallel. Again, the problem there wasn't an inherent invalidity of testimony but that as with anything not all testimony is of equal weight and some testimony can be invalidated by empirical means.

Judge Judy always likes to see evidence rather than relying on what the litigants testify, some people seem to have their own versions of truth.

Because both parties are invested in a competing narrative. Now if you bring parties to testify on your behalf who aren't buddies and who won't profit personally by the outcome, or those who might but whose reputations are such that their testimony commands respect, you'd be surprised at how a judge will look upon it, apparently.

Doesn't happen a great deal on tv though.

I think that for theistic doubt and scepticism to exist it probably only requires poor standards of empirical evidence, which is all we seem to get at best.

That's all you could have, given empiricism can't address the problem. Or, what would be the objective, empirical standard that, if met would satisfy on the point of the claim?

I once got the correct answer to a maths question but apparently my working out process was unclear or wrong. I think the idea is that you can show that you know what you're doing and can show others that indeed you do know. In mathematics at least such is possible, not so much religious belief I feel.

The point being that any number of people getting a thing wrong doesn't invalidate mathematics. Beyond that, given most people who seek God appear to find some connection to him I'd say those who don't appear to have more in common with the failed mathematics students.

I don't remember any jokes in the Bible TH. :idunno:

How many can you remember from War and Peace? But there is a good bit of humor in the Bible. Job has its share, as a point of beginning. Not all jokes are funny and not all humor is in the form of a joke. Take Congress, for example. Please. :drum:

 

[alwight]

How many can you remember from War and Peace? But there is a good bit of humor in the Bible.

:think:

Job has its share, as a point of beginning. Not all jokes are funny and not all humor is in the form of a joke.

I'd guess that Job would have eventually seen the funny side.lain:

 

[serpentdove]

[Atheists] hope there is no God...

How could they hope differently?

See:

Sentencing for Snobs by Darrell Ferguson