@sonship saidI see I have not really approached an answer to your question here either. I'll try again.
@avalanchethecat
[quote] The mind is a complex thing. The subjective experience of consciousness gives one the impression that it is much more simple than it actually is. There are drives and motivations under the surface that we may never even become aware of. The media, advertisers and governments make use these uncertainties to try to control us, and they do a much better ...[text shortened]... estion I had.
We have a good understanding but it is difficult to explain? Is that what you meant?
Conscience appears to be a product or a part of consciousness. Consciousness itself may be illusory, a clever trick to collect together a group of processes in a way which has resulted in a subjective experience which may have little or no relationship to the actual processes taking place in our minds. Certainly people are capable of acts which they later, on reflection, come to regret but which seemed like a good idea at the time. For most people, conscience doesn't arrive fully formed. Like ethics and morals it is developed over time based on our experiences and knowledge accumulated.
No, I meant exactly what I said. The science of human psychology is a vast field and incorporates different approaches and opinions. You want me to explain the whole subject to you?
You said "a good understanding". If you meant someone else has a good understanding and you trust them, that's a matter of your trusting another authority. I thought by " a good understanding" you could at least lay down the basics.
It's not like there's just one book you know.
Yes, I know the feeling very well.
Further, there are still many questions and areas of uncertainty, not to mention entire concepts and processes about which we as yet have very little understanding and or consensus.
So rather than a good understanding we really are with a residue of very little understanding? I thought it was a slam dunk without the Bible.
The biblical view of good and evil is not a popular or indeed useful part of it, however.
Popular could be irrelevant. That it rings true in our experience is another.
We may prefer a more "popular" explanation, which so far you seem to say
someone else knows about. You're not to ready to give the basics of though.
And you should be sceptical of a lot of people. They lie, for various reasons, often with your best interest as the foremost concern.
So true.
Now in human history is there anyone who you might regard as having exception integrity and trustworthiness, honesty and pure motives?
I have someone like that. But I read about Him in the Bible. He is Jesus of Nazareth.
Is there someone else who you would consider way more honest to have his or her word relied upon? Who?
If you are interested in understanding how people can be so easily manipulated, I recommend "The Century of Self" (2002), a series of films by Adam Curtis.
I was interested and still am in you explaining why our conscience is keen about the good and the evil, yet we lack the life power to carry OUT the illumination of our conscience.
Manipulating people only exacerbate the dilemma rather than explain this weakness.
It's by no means a complete grounding, but it will give you some insight into the current state of the subject.
You said we have a good understanding of the stated problem. But you direct me off to someone else I should trust. So you trust that that person has a good understanding and can explain? In the mean time beware of being taken for a ride by deceivers.
Why do you do what you hate?
Why do you fail to do what you know is noble and good?
@sonship saidToo much! Pick a point and we'll deal with it one by one. It's much more interesting that way.
@avalanchethecatNo, I meant exactly what I said. The science of human psychology is a vast field and incorporates different approaches and opinions. You want me to explain the whole subject to you?
You said "a good understanding". If you meant someone else has a good understanding and you trust them, that's a matter of your trusting another authority. I ...[text shortened]... vers.
Why do you do what you hate?
Why do you fail to do what you know is noble and good?
Firstly, I'm not suggesting that you trust ANYBODY. I certainly wouldn't expect you to trust my opinion on these matters. I was offering you a data source which gives a good overview of a complex field.
Secondly, you are not trusting the person you claim to be trusting. You're trusting what some men wrote about that person. You are taking the word of a handful of pre-scientific writers whose backgrounds and context you know next to nothing about. Like it or not, we're both referring to models which attempt to explain human behaviour. Your model requires that you ignore data from any other source. Mine allows me to consider all data, and makes predictions regarding how people may behave given certain triggers, predictions which have again and again been shown to be statistically quite accurate indeed. Your model requires that you accept your source material as completely true. That immediately suggests that it is deeply flawed, to my mind. If someone publishes something which questions some widely held tenet, I am free to compare the two viewpoints and modify my model accordingly. You don't have that luxury. You are obliged to weigh anything you encounter against something that you already 'know' is true. You cannot even pretend to be objective. I can at least try to be.
As I said, in my experience, conscience is learned, along with morals and ethics. One acts as one acts, apparently under conscious control, but evidence strongly suggests that in fact much of what we think of as conscious control of our impulses and actions is actually post-hoc reasoning. When we contemplate our actions consciously, we are better able to understand the wider consequences. That may invoke regret, and that is what informs our conscience. Probably. Further, when you analyse so-called 'evil' actions, you will almost invariably find them motivated by what the actor thought, rightly or otherwise, were good or at least, not overtly bad intentions.
"Why do I do what I hate?" I don't, as a rule.
"Why do you fail to do what you know is noble and good?" I give it my best shot, but I'm imperfect, as are we all. I'm better at it now, as age and experience have taught me many lessons. Same as you, I would hope. As I said, two models. Mine doesn't have any infinite quantities in it.
1 edit
Firstly, I'm not suggesting that you trust ANYBODY.
I think you are suggesting all along that I trust you, to begin with.
I certainly wouldn't expect you to trust my opinion on these matters.
If it is logical and well reasoned I might.
Why not?
I do reserve the right to compare it with the book you say doesn't count.
I was offering you a data source which gives a good overview of a complex field.
Secondly, you are not trusting the person you claim to be trusting. You're trusting what some men wrote about that person.
Actually, the analysis of why we are weak and cannot do as our conscience knows is perhaps most clearly written by Paul in Romans 7. But this is the book which you discount as having nothing significant to play.
Jesus, is an example of one man in history who was NOT plagued by the problem outlined by Paul in Romans 7.
You are taking the word of a handful of pre-scientific writers whose backgrounds and context you know next to nothing about.
This bothers me a little bit. The implication is that people in the first century could not be just as skeptical as people today. I don't think skepticism was born with the industrial revolution or the scientific age.
Anyway, if God did communicate with man, He would do it in a way that its relevance stands the test of time and speaks across many ages.
I just don't think in every case just because we know a lot of technology that two thousand years ago folks believed any old thing about themselves of the world around them. This attitude smacks of modern arrogance.
And we also realize much ancient wisdom and knowledge has been LOST with modernization. And plenty of people are scrambling around to re-discover lots of things.
Like it or not, we're both referring to models which attempt to explain human behaviour.
I gather that what you said we have a good understanding of, that statement is exaggerated. We are still studying models to figure it out.
Your model requires that you ignore data from any other source.
We haven't talked about what I believe.
You brushed my source off the table up front.
So why should I assume you understand what I see being taught in the Bible?
It could be your strawman which you are destroying.
Mine allows me to consider all data,
You didn't do much to state "your's".
You said its complex.
You pointed to someone else's publications.
I don't know what your reasons ARE for the behavior / conscience struggle.
You said, people can trick you so beware.
That may be true. But it didn't explain the conscience / moral failure paradox.
and makes predictions regarding how people may behave given certain triggers, predictions which have again and again been shown to be statistically quite accurate indeed.
Statistical predictions just show amounts measured.
They don't really get to the cause.
Your model requires that you accept your source material as completely true.
Not really.
It is specific to why we cannot always carry out the good we know to do and why we often do the evil we know not to do.
The bible speaks of "the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience. It includes a spiritual component to the total human nature which you may not acknowledge. Paul speaks of a power called sin in a personified way which on general principle reacts negatively against the law of God.
Your psychologists dealing with the soul of man, may completely miss the spiritual component of the problem. In therefore are at a disadvantage at both the analysis and the solution.
I think you should give at least equal time to hear some things from the Bible and not quickly disregard them.
That immediately suggests that it is deeply flawed, to my mind. If someone publishes something which questions some widely held tenet, I am free to compare the two viewpoints and modify my model accordingly. You don't have that luxury. You are obliged to weigh anything you encounter against something that you already 'know' is true.
I am compelled to compare what the revelation of the Bible says to my experience and conclude - "You know, that DOES make a lot of sense."
That's what I did. And it was relieving.
You have to get a accurate assessment of the human problem.
And the solution can then be applied (IF there is one).
And there is. And His life demonstrated victory OVER the whole problem of the lack of self control.
You cannot even pretend to be objective. I can at least try to be.
I can be objective. And I also can be eager to grasp for the solution when it is practically presented to me. That's what I have done as a follower of Jesus.
I think I must be on the right track.
He must have known exactly what He was talking about.
And Paul also, who really diagnosed the problem and PIONEERED into the solution.
As I said, in my experience, conscience is learned, along with morals and ethics. One acts as one acts, apparently under conscious control, but evidence strongly suggests that in fact much of what we think of as conscious control of our impulses and actions is actually post-hoc reasoning. When we contemplate our actions consciously, we are better able to understand the wider consequences.
Plenty of very intelligent wrong doers knew exactly what they were doing.
A clear understanding of that was not enough to stop their crimes.
I think you have had the same experience.
I think you have looked back and thought in anguish "Now WHY did I do that?"
But you clearly knew what you were about to do was wrong. And you couldn't seem to resist the temptation.
Something dragged your down.
That may invoke regret, and that is what informs our conscience. Probably. Further, when you analyse so-called 'evil' actions, you will almost invariably find them motivated by what the actor thought, rightly or otherwise, were good or at least, not overtly bad intentions.
Something is wrong with mankind.
What is it?
In the book that you don't think if God trying to communicate with us there is something called "the law of sin and of death". It is a strong law. Nothing can defeat it except the nature of God imparted into us by a rebirth of our spiritual component.
Then a stronger law called "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" is strong enough to subdue "the law of sin and of death".
You say I have no objectivity. That's not the case. However when I see practically something DOES work, I am much more prone to believe I have come upon truth.
"Why do I do what I hate?" I don't, as a rule.
I think we could line up a few people from you past life who would say that what you did to them they hated, if you didn't at the time.
The same has happened to you. You may still wonder why some people don't get it that what they did to you was just wrong, evil. And what is obvious to you as their victim you cannot understand why they have no similar feeling about their offense.
"Why do you fail to do what you know is noble and good?" I give it my best shot,
We all tried that.
Was your best shot good enough?
Sometimes, some significant times, it clearly was not.
And thus a stain of failure remained on your character.
Me to.
I am no better.
I do believe there is a way out. And that is from God become a man to be our Savior.
but I'm imperfect, as are we all. I'm better at it now, as age and experience have taught me many lessons.
That may be true.
You have been through "the school of hard knocks" and some wisdom has come as a result. I do not dispute that.
But you still get dragged down by something.
Same as you, I would hope. As I said, two models. Mine doesn't have any infinite quantities in it.
If there is God do you think God would be perfect?
Or do you think God would need to learn some things from those God created?
Ie. The effect ended up being greater than the cause.
I believe we have in history the record of a Perfect Man.
His version of Who He is is God and man completely united.
I have been convinced this is the case.
I listen to Him. And I listen to His Apostle Paul who pioneered in the experience of this Person's salvation and teaching.
@avalanchethecat
I only replied to your post kind of paragraph by paragraph. I did not introduce 40 new points really.
Try this one, as it seems to be your main stumbling block.
My so called "stumbling block" is what you haven't really answered.
When I try to get you to elaborate you say I am introducing too many additional points.
So you leave me unanswered to my feeling and turn to question to me.
Of course this takes you out of defense and puts the burden of explanation on me.
The "good understanding" was not all that clear.
That "stumbles" me a bit.
I understand that to be the examiner is more comfortable when you really don't have that much of a "good understanding" of something.
I don't feel like taking the bait quite yet.
I'd rather re-read over what you said so far to see if I missed something of the understanding you said is had on the matter. Maybe I missed it.
On your question, to put me on examination instead of you, I think much of what I described is undeniably our experience. That is one reason I think the Bible is true.
By what basis do you hold the bible to be true?
@sonship saidThe 'good understanding' of what makes people tick - which as I have already said is by no means complete, but there is broad consensus among those who study such things - is our modern discipline of human psychology. It doesn't involve inherited sin, gods-made-human, infinite qualities or miracles.
@avalanchethecat
I only replied to your post kind of paragraph by paragraph. I did not introduce 40 new points really.Try this one, as it seems to be your main stumbling block.
My so called "stumbling block" is what you haven't really answered.
When I try to get you to elaborate you say I am introducing too many additional points.
So you leave me ...[text shortened]... at is one reason I think the Bible is true.
By what basis do you hold the bible to be true?
3 edits
The 'good understanding' of what makes people tick - which as I have already said is by no means complete, but there is broad consensus among those who study such things - is our modern discipline of human psychology. It doesn't involve inherited sin, gods-made-human, infinite qualities or miracles.
Why then do you not do what you know is good and do what you know is wrong?
Why is not human behavior perfectly in cooperation with human conscience?
"Beware of manipulative people" [paraphrase] is no answer to that problem.
That only shows some people can cash in on this human weakness.
A "good understanding" should be able to be explain a concise summary.
@sonship saidAs I understand it, our illusion of consciousness makes sense to us of a whole mess of often conflicting drives and impulses and gives us the impression of a coherent narrative. Often, our actions, although quickly rationalised through the filter of consciousness after the fact, are driven by impulses we may not even be aware of at the time, or indeed, ever.
@avalanchethecatThe 'good understanding' of what makes people tick - which as I have already said is by no means complete, but there is broad consensus among those who study such things - is our modern discipline of human psychology. It doesn't involve inherited sin, gods-made-human, infinite qualities or miracles.
Why then do you not do what you know i ...[text shortened]... n on this human weakness.
A "good understanding" should be able to be explain a concise summary.
As I understand it, our illusion of consciousness makes sense to us of a whole mess of often conflicting drives and impulses and gives us the impression of a coherent narrative. Often, our actions, although quickly rationalised through the filter of consciousness after the fact, are driven by impulses we may not even be aware of at the time, or indeed, ever.
Would it not be true then, to know that consciousness is an illusion we would have to be able to step totally outside of consciousness to see that?
Who has removed themselves from consciousness to be able to be aware that consciousness is not real but an illusion?
@sonship saidWe don't really know that consciousness is an illusion. We can only say for sure that there is good evidence to suggest this. If it is, is it even possible for the conscious mind to perceive that illusion directly? Is it possible to step outside consciousness, and if so, is it possible to think coherently having done so? I have wondered if perhaps the purported 'higher states of mind' experienced during the practice of meditation involve the trancendence of this illusion. I don't know if there are answers to these two questions, but I do know that I don't have them.
@avalanchethecat
[quote] As I understand it, our illusion of consciousness makes sense to us of a whole mess of often conflicting drives and impulses and gives us the impression of a coherent narrative. Often, our actions, although quickly rationalised through the filter of consciousness after the fact, are driven by impulses we may not even be aware of at the time, or indee ...[text shortened]... themselves from consciousness to be able to be aware that consciousness is not real but an illusion?