1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm not denying that gnosis can be valuable, etc. What I take issue with is your pragmatic approach to knowledge. I want to know why you think this sort of experientially based knowledge (which just happens to always consist of those (and only those?) experiences that knightmeister finds valuable to people) is the only sort of 'real knowledge'.
More crap on gnosis versus epistemeLEMON
I have no idea why you think this idea to be crap since it is a clearly identified part of psychology and influences education for example. Ever heard of embedding learning through experience , or role plays? Experiential learning versus intellectual learning is a well identified theme . Look at the work of Carl rogers.
Does trying to convince others to taste chocolate improve the experience of tasting the chocolate? People often get a high from seeing other people getting a high or from sharing an experience. It is an evolved mechanism to encourage society forming behavior.
Many experience ideas spread due to the tendency of humans wanting to share experiences. This is so great a tendency that people will often try to convince others to share in the experience even when they know that it may be hazardous to the health (drug use for example). They will often lie or otherwise coerce others to share the experience. This may be a result of guilt at enjoying an experience which you know may affect you negatively which is partially relieved by the knowledge that others are similarly harming themselves.
1 edit
Actually those who base their belief in god on some deeply personal experience are the only ones I have much time for. I doubt those experiences are what those people claim, or rather I can't really attach any meaning to their claims; nonetheless, I can't simply tell them they are wrong.
So-called arguments for god, on the other hand, are invariably terrible.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think a better analogy would have been a nun who studied male genitalia all her life.
The fact that you don't get it tells me everything. I would guess that the difference between experiential understanding and intellectual knowledge is not one you would easily appreciate? The chocolate analogy shows how it's quite possible to know a hell of a lot "about" something but still miss the very essence of what's important about it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn order to delude myself I would have to know that God does not exist first which is not possible. I would not willingly delude myself to have this experience , in any case that would de-value the experience. One could only delude oneself for so long before tripping up on oneself. The experience of God is welded into the whole fabric and not a separate part. Intellect , emotional , experiential , historical as well as practical. The experience is what it is. It can be interpreted in many ways. In comes the intellect to help. I choose the Christian interpretation over (for example) the islamic one because islam has no equivalent theology attached to experiencing the active presence of God. In islam Allah is too remote for a living , intimate presence so immediately it can be ruled out , it doesn't fit.
Are you possibly saying that whether or not God actually exists you will still try to 'experience' him? Would you willingly delude yourself for that 'experience'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you not realise that there is a whole strand of modern Christian thought based around the idea that experience alone is not enough , that faith needs to be grounded in the rational as well?
Does trying to convince others to taste chocolate improve the experience of tasting the chocolate? People often get a high from seeing other people getting a high or from sharing an experience. It is an evolved mechanism to encourage society forming behavior.
Many experience ideas spread due to the tendency of humans wanting to share experiences. This ...[text shortened]... ively which is partially relieved by the knowledge that others are similarly harming themselves.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn relation to God experience is very important. In Christian thought there is the concept of a dead faith as opposed to spirit filled. In dead faith Christians talk endlessly about the "presence" of God and his "life changing love" and sing dull hymns to this effect but sweet FA happens. In spirit filled faith Jesus's words " If a man believes in me I will come to him and me and my father will make our home in him" have much more vibrancy. Experience makes the whole thing come alive. It's like the difference between watching footaball on the TV and seeing a live match. There's a realness and rawness to it. Emotional participation etc.
I'm not denying that gnosis can be valuable, etc. What I take issue with is your pragmatic approach to knowledge. I want to know why you think this sort of experientially based knowledge (which just happens to always consist of those (and only those?) experiences that knightmeister finds valuable to people) is the only sort of 'real knowledge'.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo do you believe that muslims or creationists who you consider to have false beliefs are deluding themselves? Do you think then that they will trip on themselves or that it is not possible for them to exist? I don't quite understand your argument.
In order to delude myself I would have to know that God does not exist first which is not possible. I would not willingly delude myself to have this experience , in any case that would de-value the experience. One could only delude oneself for so long before tripping up on oneself. The experience of God is welded into the whole fabric and not a separat ...[text shortened]... oo remote for a living , intimate presence so immediately it can be ruled out , it doesn't fit.
[edit]
Do you possibly think that your faith is unique and that your claims do not apply to people of other faiths?
Originally posted by knightmeisterFaith in a higher power can't be grounded in the rational. The rational states that there is no reason to believe in God if there is no evidence. And there is no evidence.
Do you not realise that there is a whole strand of modern Christian thought based around the idea that experience alone is not enough , that faith needs to be grounded in the rational as well?
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat do you mean by evidence? Many Christians can see evidence of God doing his stuff every day. I think what you mean is scientific evidence that leads to rational conclusive proof. That is just one way of interpreting the word.
Faith in a higher power can't be grounded in the rational. The rational states that there is no reason to believe in God if there is no evidence. And there is no evidence.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNon-scientific evidence isn't evidence.
What do you mean by evidence? Many Christians can see evidence of God doing his stuff every day. I think what you mean is scientific evidence that leads to rational conclusive proof. That is just one way of interpreting the word.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo do you believe that muslims or creationists who you consider to have false beliefs are deluding themselves? Do you think then that they will trip on themselves or that it is not possible for them to exist? WHITEY
So do you believe that muslims or creationists who you consider to have false beliefs are deluding themselves? Do you think then that they will trip on themselves or that it is not possible for them to exist? I don't quite understand your argument.
[edit]
Do you possibly think that your faith is unique and that your claims do not apply to people of other faiths?
I think it's entirely possible for a creationist (for example) to believe certain things and not trip up by avoiding inconvenient facts or re-interpreting them. I think by oneself I was meaning me. I can't live like that . If someone shows Christianity to be a crock then so be it. I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming so to me creationists struggle because they can't see how it's possible to be Christians and believe in evolution. They share with me a conviction that Christ is the truth but they can't integrate their faith with their science so they bend it.
I know someone who does this. A very sound Christian who would be there for you at the drop of a hat if you were in trouble. Honest as anything.He just can't equate what he knows about God with evolution. He hasn't figured out a way. But he is anything but a liar and in many ways a far better reflection of Christs love than me. At the end of the day its how much he loves that counts not whether he believes the earth is 8,000 years old or not.