12 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHell, even I’m “riddled with faith!” 🙂
Most of what you cite involves the superstitions of people who were without knowledge of the Living God. We do not see the progression of knowledge you describe (at least not at such crude levels of unsophistication) in the Bible. Analogies notwithstanding, the Bible never describes thunder as God bowling, for instance.
[b]And, many people -- Starrman utterly apart from God.
Don't let them fool you. They are all still riddled with faith.[/b]
However, my faith, while not being totally un-biblical (in terms of the root concept, not the direction toward which it is aimed) is undoubtedly more Buddhist. For me, faith is an existential stance or attitude of unconditional confidence. By “unconditional,” I mean it is not tied to any belief or beliefs—not even some expectation that things will “turn out well” in the end. It’s just a richer way to live than its real opposite, which is not doubt but anxiety.
Again, for me, it’s not trust in a set of beliefs or propositions—it’s simply an existential attitude. That may not be what someone else means by the word—and is unlikely to be what is found in the dictionary. No matter. (Though I’ll have to find the Buddhist term; it’s lost in the gray matter somewhere.)
13 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioRealizing that I am not as bright as some around here, I have no shame in admitting that I'm scratching my head wondering what you are objecting to, exactly.
I don't have time for a full reply, but as a theist, even I object to this
bogus claim. 'God' has not plagued mankind from his inception; 'God'
has only been around for about 3500 years. Before that, it was 'gods,'
and before that it was 'something.' And, even today, there are things
competing with 'God;' just ask the billion or so members of the Hind ...[text shortened]... . As we
learn more, said answer has been less and less satisfactory.
Nemesio
According to the non-theists, the delusion of God (gods, something) has plagued man the entirety of human history. Are you objecting to the thought of God as a plague or are you making an issue of the timeline of Scripture?
As we learn more, said answer has been less and less satisfactory.
Well, as theist, I object to such a completely bogus claim. There is a vocal minority who wish to claim that scientific knowledge is eliminating the 'need' for God. There are far more who see it otherwise. Of course, the vocal minority will sniff that those who 'cling' to such a belief are either incapable of accurately interpreting the available information or (in the extreme) accuse the same of intellectual dishonesty.
13 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdFor me, faith is an existential stance or attitude of unconditional confidence. By “unconditional,” I mean it is not tied to any belief or beliefs—not even some expectation that things will “turn out well” in the end.
Hell, even I’m “riddled with faith!” 🙂
However, my faith, while not being totally un-biblical (in terms of the root concept, not the direction toward which it is aimed) is undoubtedly more Buddhist. For me, faith is an existential stance or attitude of unconditional confidence. By “unconditional,” I mean it is not tied to any belief or beliefs—not ev ...[text shortened]... matter. (Though I’ll have to find the Buddhist term; it’s lost in the gray matter somewhere.)
Not at all trying to tell you when to add more tarragon, but you have described very accurately what I consider to be the pre-requisite to valid faith. As with you, I abandoned all to consider all. My only quest: truth. Where you and I depart, you get meaning from blank-white pages; I need words.
13 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell put. The only disagreement I might make is to say that I don’t get meaning from the blank-white pages, and I think we are the ones who write the words (maybe this time at least I’m understanding your metaphor correctly?).
[b]For me, faith is an existential stance or attitude of unconditional confidence. By “unconditional,” I mean it is not tied to any belief or beliefs—not even some expectation that things will “turn out well” in the end.
Not at all trying to tell you when to add more tarragon, but you have described very accurately what I consider to be the pre-requi ...[text shortened]... nly quest: truth. Where you and I depart, you get meaning from blank-white pages; I need words.[/b]
Well, I should also say that I don’t think the pages are blank-white (which is a confusion caused by the Buddhist phrase “empty mind”; really, the base-ground is simply a present mind before adding anything to basic awareness, which is always being aware of something).
To change metaphors, part of the Zen message is simply: “Don’t paint wings on the clouds.” I’m less rigorous; I say, “Go ahead and paint wings, but (1) don’t forget that you are the one doing the painting, and (2) if I see a cloud with wings, I’ll assume somebody painted them there.”
14 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou'll have to help me out here. Are you here suggesting--- or beginning to suggest--- that a believer would/could not have personal and inter-personal integrity outside of the information of standards derived from God?
[b]So you're telling me that your position toward God; your faith; the whole consortium of inclinations and dispositions thereof; has nothing to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects?
You'll have to help me out here. Are you here suggesting--- or beginning to suggest--- that a believer would/could not have p n, propelled by fear and propogated by guilt could be so fulfilling and life-affirming![/b]
No. I'm sort of at a loss as to how one arrives at that from what I posted. There I was just trying to get you to acknowledge the blatantly obvious: that your faith does have a lot to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects. In fact, your faith does have a lot to do with tending to the existential 'needs' I listed previously, doesn't it? This is broadly relevant to my thesis here, which I have stated at least a couple of times previously: that what you call the "need for God" is reducible to basic considerations that really have nothing inherently to do with some agent 'God'.
Surely, even the most ardent of atheists will insist that the 'delusion of God' has 'plagued' maknkind from his inception. If that ain't universal, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that is.
No, belief in some divine agent God is not universal, nor has it ever been. And, certainly, even within the community of such believers it has never universally been the case that its members converge on one and the same conception of the divine agent. Not that it even matters, anyway. Let's suppose that it were true that belief in some God were universal among humans. How, again, does that in itself bear relevance to the question of whether or not God actually exists? Or if the "in itself" there is too restrictive, then provide also the ancillary considerations that go along with said one to support the conclusion that God exists.
Hard to believe that something wrought by ignorance, nurtured by imagination, propelled by fear and propogated by guilt could be so fulfilling and life-affirming!
I usually try to be pretty careful with my words. You'll notice there that I only conceded that your faith provides you with what you yourself take to be such things as I listed. I also went out of my way to clarify that I don't think your faith actually provides you with such things in any non-ersatz way. Basically, it wasn't a compliment. And anyway, my point there seems utterly lost on you. I don't know: I feel like I am just depositing my thoughts into the abyss of a blank stare. Again, I think my points there bear relevance to my general thesis above.
14 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrGood luck. I hope you're well too. Your intended time frame actually matches my own as well (again, God willing).
I'm on chapter 4 of 6, and will be done (God willing) by Spring. I'll be on the market next fall. I hope all is well with you and yours. Keep up the great work!
14 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdI like this post.
To change metaphors, part of the Zen message is simply: “Don’t paint wings on the clouds.” I’m less rigorous; I say, “Go ahead and paint wings, but (1) don’t forget that you are the one doing the painting, and (2) if I see a cloud with wings, I’ll assume somebody painted them there.”
What would you say to the person who spots a cloud that is wearing pants, yes; but further he swears that the cloud is also busy undergirding all of normativity?
15 Oct 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloA dashing, mustachioed cloud,
I like this post.
What would you say to the person who spots a cloud that is wearing pants, yes; but further he swears that the cloud is also busy undergirding all of normativity?
gird in underwear and pantaloons,
dances deftly by in the sky,
turns a daring pirouette—and croons.
15 Oct 07
Originally posted by LemonJello... that your faith does have a lot to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects.
You'll have to help me out here. Are you here suggesting--- or beginning to suggest--- that a believer would/could not have personal and inter-personal integrity outside of the information of standards derived from God?
No. I'm sort of at a loss as to how one arrives at that from what I posted. There I was just trying to get you to acknowledge t ...[text shortened]... Again, I think my points there bear relevance to my general thesis above.[/b]
And that's different from what my summary... how, exactly? That my pursuit of meaningful relationships/projects is now informed by my faith, and apart from my faith, I couldn't have them? If not, then you are apparently attempting (in a very round about manner) to equate those pursuits with the need for God. The insinuation is that somehow man wasn't able to achieve these relationships in the past, and therefore imagined a God. You claim that these pursuits are all reducible from man's need for God, but haven't yet given any support for the idea.
In fact, your faith does have a lot to do with tending to the existential 'needs' I listed previously, doesn't it?
As stated, as a believer, my faith informs my perspective of everything in life, just as your world view informs your perspective of life.
No, belief in some divine agent God is not universal, nor has it ever been.
You're either kidding us or yourself.
Let's suppose that it were true that belief in some God were universal among humans. How, again, does that in itself bear relevance to the question of whether or not God actually exists?
Seriously? You're seriously asking this question now 100 threads after the initial statement? Go back and read the first few posts to the thread.
I feel like I am just depositing my thoughts into the abyss of a blank stare.
Dumbfounded at your obtuseness is more like it. Apparently the only honest discussions you engage in are with yourself.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to the non-theists, the delusion of God (gods, something) has plagued man the entirety of human history. Are you objecting to the thought of God as a plague or are you making an issue of the timeline of Scripture?
Well, if you refuse to acknowledge macro-evolution, then you will certainly refuse to acknowledge
my objection. At some point in evolutionary history, proto-humans developed the capacity to
ask 'why' and 'how' as well as the predisposition to answer that question. Somewhere else, or
perhaps at the same time, humans developed the ability to anthropomorphize. Unsuprisingly,
saying that 'God did it' is but a short step away.
Well, as theist, I object to such a completely bogus claim. There is a vocal minority who wish to claim that scientific knowledge is eliminating the 'need' for God. There are far more who see it otherwise. Of course, the vocal minority will sniff that those who 'cling' to such a belief are either incapable of accurately interpreting the available information or (in the extreme) accuse the same of intellectual dishonesty.
I didn't say it is eliminating the so-called 'need' for God. I'm saying that the answer 'God' or
'gods' sufficed for lots of times when it wasn't the answer. You don't have to read five pages
of any mythos to find a myth that spuriously claims to be a scientific explanation for something.
I cited a few (e.g., what is the sun?) to illustrate that. If you want, pick a mythological system,
and I'll find an aetiological explanation for something that isn't true (of course, you'll say that
'Creation' is accurate or any other pseudo-scientific claim that your Scriptures make, so
pick another one). Either that, or concede that this point is in fact true.
This helps to demonstrate that the need is not for 'God/gods' specifically, but a need for answers.
If it were a 'need for God/gods,' then we would be made uncomfortable as a species when
a non-God answer replaces the God answer.
And, I don't know about you, but I'm comfortable with the idea that a non-anthromophic
ball of gas comprising hydrogen in the process of fusing as opposed to a glowing backpack on
the back of a man riding a mule being chased by a bear.
Nemesio
17 Oct 07
6 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFirst of all, I want some more clarification. When I asked you earlier to clarify exactly what you mean by the "need for God", I think you actually provided a couple of different (but maybe related) notions (page 5). Let's look at each in turn.
[b]... that your faith does have a lot to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects.
And that's different from what my summary... how, exactly? That my pursuit of meaningful relationships/projects is now informed by my faith, and apart from my faith, I couldn't have them? If not, then you are apparently attempt ore like it. Apparently the only honest discussions you engage in are with yourself.[/b]
For one, you seemed to state the "need for God" is an aching "craving for" some agent, God. I don't think such a craving can reasonably be construed as a need, so I think you were notionally confused there. Further, cravings for this world to be something other than it appears are the basic building blocks of deep-rooted suffering. Basically, we need cravings like we need earthquakes and hurricane seasons. Speaking pragmatically, this is one reason why I think your approach is so ineffective: in attempting to alleviate existential hardships, you only succeed in reinforcing a chief problem. So I don't understand your claim that the "need for God" is a "craving".
For two, you seemed to state that the need for God is an "emptiness caused by the absence of" this agent, God. Now, at face value this too fails to make sense to me. One of your primary premises is that the "need for God" exists among humans. But since you yourself have now stated that this "need for God" is caused by the absence of God, it follows from this primary premise that God is absent. Again, this doesn't make sense given that you're trying to argue ultimately to the conclusion that God exists.
So I need more clarification: again, what exactly do you mean by the "need for God"?
If your claim is basically that we have some vague "hole" in our lives that only God (or belief in him) can fill, you're simply wrong about that. As normative agents, yes we have a "need" to imbue our lives with meaning and to fill our lives with genuine content. But, no, the god construct is not requisite for that.
You're either kidding us or yourself.
You have to be joking. What part of "universal" do you not understand? The belief in one god-as-agent is not even close to universal. How many atheists are there? How many Buddhists are there that don't posit the existence of a divine agent? How many people have held to multiple gods? How many people have a conception of divinity (maybe something like a ground of being) that doesn't ascribe agency in the way you do -- or just doesn't ascribe agency at all? Sure it's universal in your evangelical community, but...
You're seriously asking this question now 100 threads after the initial statement?
I assume you mean 100 posts. And you bet I am. I still cannot figure out exactly what argument it is you are trying to advance; or in other words what argument you are trying to reference to Lewis. I even tried to put down an argument for you to facilitate discussion, but I'm not sure if you agreed with my formulation. Now, you did state that knightmeister fairly well summed up the argument you have in mind. But he outlined a terrible, obviously fallacious argument, so I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you still maintain that knightmeister well summed up the argument you are trying to advance? If so, then quit wasting everyone's time. If not, what's the argument, exactly?
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloFurther, cravings for this world to be something other than it appears are the basic building blocks of deep-rooted suffering. Basically, we need cravings like we need earthquakes and hurricane seasons. Speaking pragmatically, this is one reason why I think your approach is so ineffective: in attempting to alleviate existential hardships, you only succeed in reinforcing a chief problem.
First of all, I want some more clarification. When I asked you earlier to clarify exactly what you mean by the "need for God", I think you actually provided a couple of different (but maybe related) notions (page 5). Let's look at each in turn.
For one, you seemed to state the "need for God" is an aching "craving for" some agent, God. I don't think ...[text shortened]... g everyone's time. If not, what's the argument, exactly?
Camus meets Zen. 🙂