Originally posted by twhitehead"Which book at your university used that phrase." Hardly singular; various and many there and during the decades since. Try Googling "means of human perception/empiricism, rationalism, faith/categorical definitions/ or some abbreviation.
I use whatever terminology I know and try to use the best amongst that set. I am not saying your terminology is wrong, I just find it strange. I googled it and couldn't find any other references to that term whereas empiricism and rationalism immediately give me their wikipedia pages.
I am just curious as to where you got the phrase. Which book at your university used that phrase?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNope, nothing comes up. Maybe you could assist me with one reference?
"Which book at your university used that phrase." Hardly singular; various and many there and during the decades since. Try Googling "means of human perception/empiricism, rationalism, faith/categorical definitions/ or some abbreviation.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere's one, twhitehead, that was at the top of the menu list: Thread 153656 (pages 1-3) Thanks for your interest. -Bob
Nope, nothing comes up. Maybe you could assist me with one reference?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTo its a term you made up and all that talk of books at university was lies? Or am I not understanding you?
Here's one, twhitehead, that was at the top of the menu list: Thread 153656 (pages 1-3) Thanks for your interest. -Bob
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease set aside the jaundiced, combative tone. We're having a casual conversation, purpose of which is to enhance mutual understanding (not winning or the approbation of likeminded friends). Here's the direct quote which served as the OP:
To its a term you made up and all that talk of books at university was lies? Or am I not understanding you?
"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
Thread 153483
______________________
'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)'
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think you are being slightly disingenuous here, gb. The Empirical approach can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Empiricism deals in fact and you cannot explain the beauty of the world around us, the wonder of the snowflake by attributing a creator, in just the same way as you cannot disprove a creator by coming up with evolution by natural selection.
"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 Go ...[text shortened]... o explain away. You cannot study God empirically and reach any lasting and positive conclusions.
"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."
Faith is the spur that drives people forward to discover Truth. However, it can be misplaced and cannot be a system of perceiving absolute Truth. When men had Faith that the World was the centre of the Solar System, they were subsequently shown by Empiricism to be placing their faith inadvisably. Likewise with the atom, which was considered the ultimate block, likewise the Earth being flat etc, etc. Man has Faith in God which is absolutely fine - so long as you understand by that that they have the spur to believe in God. Nothing else. No truth.
Does this make sense?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThats what I thought too, but you seem to be deliberately giving me the runaround.
Please set aside the jaundiced, combative tone. We're having a casual conversation, purpose of which is to enhance mutual understanding
I still don't see a single reference to the term 'faith perception' other than yourself using it on this forum.
What did you mean when you refered to reading books at university? Did you mean you had seen that terminology in a book, or was it some sort of sarcasm?
Originally posted by Pianoman1Yes, sense indeed. With respect to Empiricism, we agree. In this summary, the author seems dismissive of the fact that observation of "the world around us" often stimulates an awareness of something or someone greater than ourselves. Similarly with Rationalism, by which the possibility of a greater spirit being or 'god consciousness' has been deductively or inductively reasoned by objective examination of academic information and/or philosophical rationales. Perhaps Merriam Webster or Oxford Dictionary definitions would have delineated these three means of perception in a less intrusive way. Perception of any hard fact or absolute truth by means of faith stands or falls on the authority worthiness of its source.
I think you are being slightly disingenuous here, gb. The Empirical approach can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Empiricism deals in fact and you cannot explain the beauty of the world around us, the wonder of the snowflake by attributing a creator, in just the same way as you cannot disprove a creator by coming up with evolution by natur ...[text shortened]... hat that they have the spur to believe in God. Nothing else. No truth.
Does this make sense?
Does this reply make sense?
Originally posted by twhitehead"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception..."
Thats what I thought too, but you seem to be deliberately giving me the runaround.
I still don't see a single reference to the term 'faith perception' other than yourself using it on this forum.
What did you mean when you refered to reading books at university? Did you mean you had seen that terminology in a book, or was it some sort of sarcasm?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo essentially you made up the phrase 'faith perception' and have just wasted my time because you didn't want to admit it. If you had just said that in the first place, I would have happily accepted the terminology and continued the discussion.
"Finally, there is the approach of Faith. This is an absolute system of perception because all other systems of perception..."
Originally posted by twhiteheadApparently we have no common ground, twhitehead. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
So essentially you made up the phrase 'faith perception' and have just wasted my time because you didn't want to admit it. If you had just said that in the first place, I would have happily accepted the terminology and continued the discussion.
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHere is my take on that word 'faith' as applied to science: Religious folk want to put that word out to equate scientific curiosity with a religious feeling. For instance, in my own case, I invented what I call the fret ruler. What it does is to take a quick measure of a guitar, mandolin, dulcimer, banjo, etc., any stringed fretted instrument, and see if the frets are in the right place to minimize mistuned notes being played. When I perfected my device, in the folk music circles at festivals where there are instrument dealers, I was known as the 'Fret Nazi'🙂
Please set aside the jaundiced, combative tone. We're having a casual conversation, purpose of which is to enhance mutual understanding (not winning or the approbation of likeminded friends). Here's the direct quote which served as the OP:
"There are three basic systems of perception (means of learning) among humanity."
"There is the approach of ...[text shortened]... ledge), do you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None? Thanks for your comments. (gb)'
But the generation of that device first started out as a mental exercise, looking mentally at the various length instruments from the small ones like Uke's or mandolins to the really long ones like the Pete Seeger banjo which has a really long neck, maybe a foot longer than a guitar.
So I am visualizing all these instruments and I ask myself, are these sizes all proportional?
Now the fretboard follows a relatively simple rule, the 12th root of 2. That is what allows us to play fretted instruments with the minimum of mismatch between perfect chords and the imperfect but close ones on a guitar or mandolin.
A quickie on the numbers: the 12th root of 2 is approx. 1.059 and its important inverse, 0.9438.
Looking at the longest fret, the first fret on the fretboard, the next fret is at 0.9438 of the distance to the first fret, so if you have a one meter long fretboard, 1000 mm, the first fret at 1000 mm puts the second fret at 943.8 mm and the third at 890.7 mm and so forth and at the 12th fret it will be found to be EXACTLY at 500 mm which corresponds to the harmonic, 2 times the frequency of the sound at fret # 1.
Ok, so I visualized all that and wondered if I could stretch a small fretboard proportionally, would it then match the frets of a longer fretboard?
All that mentally. So I went to a sewing shop and got some of that stretchy stuff on the top of men's underwear, about an inch wide, and took it and put it on a mandolin and marked with a sharpie, all the fret positions onto the cloth.
Then took the cloth and was able to stretch it out onto a guitar and lo and behold, my mental supposition was absolutely correct! The frets matched perfectly. I had made the worlds first fret ruler!
Now when I first visualized the problem, and asked myself the question of proportionality of fretboards and then went to a sewing shop to actually construct my fret ruler, it wasn't 'Faith' that drove me to that point.
It was flat out curiosity. That is a totally different emotion than faith.
I HAD ZERO FAITH IN MY SUPPOSITION. I had the curiosity to see if my supposition was in fact correct and it turned out by experimentation that my original visualization was totally correct.
That had absolutely nothing to do with faith. That was totally curiosity driven, a completely different proposition.
And I feel the result, of course much more earth shaking, E=MC^2 was also the result of intense curiosity NOT FAITH.
In fact, big Al was holding his ass till Eddington showed the stars position having changed in accordance with relativity in 1919. Till then it was just curiosity to see relativity pass its first big test. He was holding his breath. That is not faith, faith gives you a feeling, sometimes false, of certainty. There was ZERO certainty in Einstein about relativity. He could think to himself, I'm pretty certain this is all true but....
He could relax only after 1919, a full 15 years after his wonder years of 1905 and 06.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, GB was assuming you would read the link he posted to the bottom and notice that there was another link there:
So essentially you made up the phrase 'faith perception' and have just wasted my time because you didn't want to admit it. If you had just said that in the first place, I would have happily accepted the terminology and continued the discussion.
http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm090_5.htm
That is the page he copied and pasted the whole thing from.
So no, he did not make up the phrase himself. But neither did he get it from any university text book (if he ever claimed to have).
The difficulty I suppose is that this site is clearly written by people who have faith that 'faith' is a valid means of gaining knowledge. So we are still looking at a circular argument here.
--- Penguin