12 Jun 13
1 edit
"There are three basic systems of perception (means of learning) among humanity."
"There is the approach of EMPIRICISM, that is, learning by scientific means, experimentation, and by using our human senses (touch, taste, sight, sound, smell). Atheists foolishly use this method of perception when trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Though God can be seen through Empiricism, through the world around us, this witness of God is easy to explain away. You cannot study God empirically and reach any lasting and positive conclusions.
"There is the approach of Rationalism, a system of perception that studies things then reaches conclusion by logic alone. Rationalism focuses along the lines of "I think, therefore I am". Yet Rationalism is a poor system of perception to use in learning about God for it is rooted in the finite. God is infinite, high above man. Rationalism can prove that there had to be a Creator, for all higher reason must have a higher Source, yet Rationalism is too firmly rooted in humanism to be effective.
"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception have their basis in Faith. No one can learn a vocabulary without faith. Higher mathematical theory started out as faith. When Einstein proposed E=MC2 he had no absolute proof of this theory, but his faith in it caused him to seek to prove that theory as true."
Note: Link first quoted in its entirety in "an ancient dilemma..." || http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm090_5.htm
______________________
Empiricism; Rationalism; Faith Perception: Of these three basic means of acquiring information (to be assimilated and converted into knowledge), do you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None? Thanks for your comments. (gb)
12 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySorry, but you'll need to actually provide at least some rough working definition for 'faith perception'. Empiricism and rationalism are both rather established in the literature, such as outlined here:
[b]"There are three basic systems of perception (means of learning) among humanity."
"There is the approach of EMPIRICISM, that is, learning by scientific means, experimentation, and by using our human senses (touch, taste, sight, sound, smell). Atheists foolishly use this method of perception when trying to prove or disprove the existence of God o you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None? Thanks for your comments. (gb)[/b]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
But 'faith perception' is a new one for me. Curiously, your article doesn't even say what it is in any clear terms, despite lauding it as the greatest thing since sliced bread and even claiming that all other systems of perception have their basis in it (whatever that means).
EDIT: At any rate, as I understand it, empiricism and rationalism are not "systems of perception". They represent differing theses relating to how we arrive at knowledge.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception have their basis in Faith. No one can learn a vocabulary without faith. Higher mathematical theory started out as faith. When Einstein proposed E=MC2 he had no absolute proof of this theory, but his faith in it caused him to seek to prove that theory as true."
Sorry, but you'll need to actually provide at least some rough working definition for 'faith perception'. Empiricism and rationalism are both rather established in the literature, such as outlined here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
But 'faith perception' is a new one for me. Curiously, your article doesn't even say wha ...[text shortened]... of perception". They represent differing theses relating to how we arrive at knowledge.
Should I assume that you categorically reject these four sentences as an irrelevant rant and/or ambiguous gobbledygook?
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo you have at least a rough definition for what you mean by 'faith perception' or not? This is like the third or fourth time I have asked, going back to the other thread.
[b]"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception have their basis in Faith. No one can learn a vocabulary without faith. Higher mathematical theory started out as faith. When Einstein proposed E=MC2 he had no absolute proof of this theory, but his faith in it caused him to seek ...[text shortened]... categorically reject these four sentences as an irrelevant rant and/or ambiguous gobbledygook?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLook carefully at the word "Faith" and the word "faith" in that passage, and identify whether there is a distinction reflected in the upper case "F" and the lower case "f".
[b]"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception have their basis in Faith. No one can learn a vocabulary without faith. Higher mathematical theory started out as faith. When Einstein proposed E=MC2 he had no absolute proof of this theory, but his faith in it caused him to seek categorically reject these four sentences as an irrelevant rant and/or ambiguous gobbledygook?
The discussion of Einstein reveals a deep misunderstanding of how science is to be used to answer questions. Unfortunately this misunderstanding is also common among people who apply the scientific method to commercial opportunities. People who want their drug to be approved for sale, will have that motivation the writer attributes to Einstein, and professors who want to get published for the fame involved will do the same. But the actual objective of a scientific experiment is not to prove things true, in fact, it can be said that the objective is to prove things to be false. Thus the experiment has to be designed such that if the hypothesis is false, the testing will demonstrate that fact. So, apply that principle to the objects of upper-case Faith -- are there experiments such that an object of "Faith-perception" can be proven false, if it is false?
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloBelief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process. I place my absolute confidence (elpis, in the Koine Greek, i.e., personal faith) in the Unique Son of God, the Risen Christ; God the Father; and the Holy Spirit. Further, my initial faith has expanded to embrace an intellectual perception/appreciation of their shared characteristics and attributes [Co-Eternal; Omnipotence; Omniscience; Absolute Justice + Unfailing Love = Righteousness; Veracity; and Immutability]. And that you exist. (gb)
Do you have at least a rough definition for what you mean by 'faith perception' or not? This is like the third or fourth time I have asked, going back to the other thread.
12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Let's begin with the original post: "Of these three basic means of acquiring information (to be assimilated and converted into knowledge), do you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None?" Then, we'll have a context for your questions. Ok.
Look carefully at the word "Faith" and the word "faith" in that passage, and identify whether there is a distinction reflected in the upper case "F" and the lower case "f".
The discussion of Einstein reveals a deep misunderstanding of how science is to be used to answer questions. Unfortunately this misunderstanding is also common among people who apply the ...[text shortened]... riments such that an object of "Faith-perception" can be proven false, if it is false?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI recognize them as three baskets into which we sort things, but the things sorted into them could be sorted in other ways. It is like the 16-category Meyers Briggs test, into which we sort people like there are only 16 kinds.
Let's begin with the original post: "Of these three basic means of acquiring information (to be assimilated and converted into knowledge), do you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None?" Then, we'll have a context for your questions. Ok.
That said, all three are operative, for acquiring information but for conversion into beliefs, which may be true or false by some standard of truth or falsity. The standard of truth or falsity may vary: "Is it logically consistent, is it visibly sensible, is it in this here Holy Book?
A fourth way to acquire information is genetic: DNA encodes and passes information that affects beliefs, for example, it informs birds how to built nests. In this case the test of truth is the pragmatic theory of truth, the nest gets filled with the bird couple's eggs.
12 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357"I recognize them as three baskets into which we sort things"... baskets? With what or by which means do you, JS357, personally, perceive or grasp that which you subsequently place in these baskets?
I recognize them as three baskets into which we sort things, but the things sorted into them could be sorted in other ways. It is like the 16-category Meyers Briggs test, into which we sort people like there are only 16 kinds.
That said, all three are operative, for acquiring information but for conversion into beliefs, which may be true or false by some st t of truth is the pragmatic theory of truth, the nest gets filled with the bird couple's eggs.
"16 kinds of people" in an estimated world population exceeding 7 billion? What do 16 psychological categories have to do with a universe of information in yottobytes x infinite in terms of human perception?
"A fourth way", please clarify the genetic parallel between us (you and me) and birds.
Thank you for your reply.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI recognize your inquisitive nature but do not feel inclined to explain these things to you. There are better places you can go to study this, than to me.
"I recognize them as three baskets into which we sort things"... baskets? With what or by which means do you, JS357, personally, perceive or grasp that which you subsequently place in these baskets?
"16 kinds of people" in an estimated world population exceeding 7 billion? What do 16 psychological categories have to do with a universe of informatio ...[text shortened]... rify the genetic parallel between us (you and me) and birds.
Thank you for your reply.
13 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI don't understand. Could you please explain how your belief that I exist formed in you "without the benefit of" your senses? That's surely false, since the evidence of my existence comes to you through the internet, which you experience through various senses. So, I don't know what you mean.
Belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process. I place my absolute confidence (elpis, in the Koine Greek, i.e., personal faith) in the Unique Son of God, the Risen Christ; God the Father; and the Holy Spirit. Further, m ...[text shortened]... Justice + Unfailing Love = Righteousness; Veracity; and Immutability]. And that you exist. (gb)
As far as your "faith perception" as it relates to God, I think you probably have in mind something like sensus divinitatis. As far as I know, there is no actual evidence that such a thing exists.
If this is what you mean by 'faith perception', then my answer to your hypothetical question in the other thread (which was Would it be fair to make the logical assumption that the empirical basis for your ancestral knowledge was preceeded by one of faith perception? ) is no.
13 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks.
I don't understand. Could you please explain how your belief that I exist formed in you "without the benefit of" your senses? That's surely false, since the evidence of my existence comes to you through the internet, which you experience through various senses. So, I don't know what you mean.
As far as your "faith perception" as it relates to God, I ...[text shortened]... sis for your ancestral knowledge was preceeded by one of faith perception?[/i] ) is no.