Do We Need Faith?

[Truth in love]

Neither of these relate to a spontaneous mystical experience. I neither knew it would happen or thought it would work because I had never heard of a mystical experience or heard of anyone that had had one at the time I had my first. I was in my early teens at the time.

You would do well to do a bit of research into what a spontaneous mystical experience is before speaking on the subject.

You've spent the past 2 day denying basic human functioning and want to lecture me on spontaneous mystical experiences??? That is funny.

 

[cladking]

Pray tell….what in religion is proven?

I don't want to go too far afield here nor do I want to support belief in anything. But I believe religion is merely reality from a human standpoint but twice removed. Nothing can be "proven" because reality doesn't work this way and because it is more than infinitely complex. The complexity of every event from almost any perspective is so large a number it can't even be expressed. There isn't enough room on the cloud to express the odds against anything even using scientific notation. Yet, reality always is unfolding against such staggering odds. THIS is the only possible "big picture" provided by reductionistic science but not all science is reductionistic. All other life forms use a different science that works on logic and sees reality only in terms of itself. A bird doesn't see reality in terms of abstractions and experiment. It acts on what it knows and experience is a large factor in all of its behavior. It can extrapolate and interpolate knowledge and experience. It communicates what it knows and in terms of reality itself. Its knowledge would become a "religion" if birds lost the ability to see reality directly. Of course without technology they would quickly become extinct as well.

Many tenets in religious thought are internally consistent and can be tied to reality directly or indirectly. This hardly proves religion is "right" or "wrong" but in my experience everything that is internally consistent is always intentional and relevant. Insights about humanity should be of interest to all of us because it helps us make important decisions based on logic instead of "feelings". It helps us make decision consistent with good outcomes and improvement in ourselves and the commonweal.

Mixing science and government doesn't work because the exact same people who own government also own science. Nobody cares about the commonweal, reality, or the future any longer but only about the owners.

 

[Truth in love]

So, no, then, to my question. You don't make a distinction between justified and unjustified belief. It's all the same thing to you. I suspect that you're in the majority there. I also suspect that most of that majority doesn't know what a justified belief is, or what makes a belief justified. If so, I guess such people can't know why the critical thinker only values one of those.

This reminds me of the people who are unaware that there is such a thing as expertise, and that not all opinions are equal. If they are unaware that there is an alternative way of deciding what is true about the world that simply choosing what you prefer to be the case and believing that, then one assumes that everybody else is guessing as well, and my guess is as good as yours. This is why there is a Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which I think falsely describes the victims as having an overinflated sense of his own competence, when in fact he has an extreme underestimate of what is actually going on in those other minds he equates himself with. It's not that he sees himself as elevating himself to the ranks of the cognoscenti, he's unaware that there is such a thing. He's not raising himself to their level. He's lowering them to his because he does not know about this higher radically different and far more effective way of knowing.

I'm a contract bridge instructor. I'll often ask new students to rate their skill level. It's remarkable how many beginners rate themselves as intermediate or advanced. They see themselves as about halfway there in their bridge educations. This, too, is Dunning-Kruger. It's not so much about having an inflated view of one's expertise as not recognizing what can be known and is known by others.



That doesn't matter to the critical thinker, who decides for himself which beliefs are justified, including the beliefs of others.



But that's not the claim. The claim is that it takes no faith to believe that the sun will probably rise in the morning. It's a justified belief, justified by past experience seeing the sun rise.

You are projecting your version of justified belief. I decline to accept.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Sure, with the current level of scientific knowledge we can compute the time the sun comes up to many decimal places but of what real value is that if even on the ocean the apparent sunrise is dependent on tides imparted by the sun and moon and even by mars when it is nearby?

Grasping at straws still eh?
You are aware, that thanks to astronomy were can very precisely and reliably forecast tides, yes?

It’s apparent you’re not knowledgeable about celestial navigation.
How do you think mariners of old figured out where they were and how to get to where they were going?
I’ll give you a hint; It concerns local solar noon and the ability of keeping precise time for longitude along with solar angles for latitudes.
All brought to us by?….You guessed it…science!
Of course today we have satellite navigation,
surely you’ve heard of gps?
It takes all these variables you’re stumped by into account for you.
Again…brought to us through science and technology.
Sure beats set of to sea with only a hope and a prayer….wouldn’t you say?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Experts can't even agree on what has already happened because in most real ways even understanding events is a sort of backward prediction.

Tell me about how all the religions agree?

 

[cladking]

I never said they could be.

My fault. You misunderstood. When I said, "All questions can not be answered by science." what I meant was that if something is a question then it can not be answered by science. What I shouldda said was "No question can be answered by science". We can compute sunrise to many decimal points but there is virtually no practical benefit.

 

[cladking]

Grasping at straws still eh?
You are aware, that thanks to astronomy were can very precisely and reliably forecast tides, yes?

No that would be you.

Sure tides can be predicted but we can't predict the waves on the tide. This would make an enormous impact on apparent sunrise if the observer is in a trough between waves.

Again…brought to us through science and technology.
Sure beats set of to sea with only a hope and a prayer….wouldn’t you say?

I stand corrected. We really do know everything finally. Homo omnisciencis has always believed we know everything but the last thing we learned was the last thing there was to know. What's the score of tomorrow's big game?

No one ever sailed inside a whale to the moon either. I don't see your point. How does science or technology affect the appropriateness or truth of religion?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

There are no answers to any practical questions like whom to marry or how life arose and the only predictions possible are like a parlor trick that work because we can model experiment and apply a quantified logic called mathematics.

You seem to be in a quandary about who to marry, sorry to hear it; emotions can be such messy things.
They do have a tendency of leading us to bad conclusions sometimes and preventing us from seeing reality in many instances.
Wouldn’t you say?

As to how life arose/arises…. science is working on it.
One of the last gaps for God to hide in, for the moment.

Sad to see you equate science and math to
“parlor tricks”.
Is it because your jealous your God can’t even manage that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You've spent the past 2 day denying basic human functioning and want to lecture me on spontaneous mystical experiences??? That is funny.

If you’ve spent 2 days responding to my posts and have done nothing but attempt to invalidate what I said and failed at each attempt because your responses are lacking anything of substance.

Reply to this or don’t. In either case, I think we’re done here.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Perhaps someday this can be done but the chances of developing the technology that will see it coming in time are very slim. Something massive enough to replace every species on earth might not be seen until mere hours before it hits.

Perhaps you missed it in the previous post…
We already have the technology and are actively using it. Something “massive enough to replace every species on earth” is already being tracked, they’re easy to see….it’s the smaller ones that are a bugger.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

To each his own. Frankly, I find it pretty frightening that the only rules for many of our leaders are "greed" and "the odds of getting away with it".

Wow, holy non sequitur Batman!

 

[cladking]

Sad to see you equate science and math to
“parlor tricks”.
Is it because your jealous your God can’t even manage that?

I tend to think it's because I know how they work. I also know that if you understand theory then invention just "arises in your mind like a lily from the Nile". Math shows a simple manipulation of logic can create great complexity. Who could imagine that 2 + 2 could lead to such grandeur despite the fact there aren't two of anything at all in existence because no two things are identical. Math is quantified logic manifested as an abstraction (yes, you heard it here first).

If God exists I have no doubt He is further manifestation of logic or the origin of logic and reality.

Even the invention of hypothesis and experiment have many aspects of being a parlour trick but it's really technology that is on autopilot. New experiment leads many to the same creation.

In ancient science the process was described as "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation". Reductionistic science tends to hide its metaphysics from most practitioners. In part because anomalies cause dissonance and discomfort but mostly because it is based on simple axioms and experimental interpretation is is always paradigmatical. We don't even know if we don't understand how it works. Many people believe science works on "intelligence" but I seriously doubt there exists a referent for this word.

Yes! Technology arises like magic. It arises in individuals which are the basis of all life, all thought, and all creation (unless there are Gods).

As to how life arose/arises…. science is working on it.
One of the last gaps for God to hide in, for the moment.

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't even comment when I said we know the tiniest fraction of everything that exists and now you just blithely state that the origin of life is the only thing we don't know!!!!!!! I guess this rules out that we'll have a debate.

 

[cladking]

Wow, holy non sequitur Batman!

A hundred years ago most people answered to their conscience but these have been going away just as fast as faith. I seriously doubt these trends are coincidental!

 

[cladking]

Perhaps you missed it in the previous post…
We already have the technology and are actively using it. Something “massive enough to replace every species on earth” is already being tracked, they’re easy to see….it’s the smaller ones that are a bugger.

And if you missed it I pointed out that almost all new discoveries are made by amateurs with little telescopes. This is because the professionals and big telescopes aren't sweeping the sky but looking for specific things. A body large enough to cause all new life on earth is as tiny as 200 miles across and might not be seen until it is quite close.

200 mile diameter bodies can be seen with a telescope weeks before they hit but only if you're looking where they are. They can quite easily sneak up on us through coincidence alone.

 

[sun rise]

The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 156)

This is a different concept of faith than you are used to, I'm sure.

The same sentiment is in the Bible, the Jewish Tikkun Olam and many other places.

 

[sun rise]

A child exists the mother gave birth to it and physically nurtures it. These things are falsifiable, No faith needed

That wasn't my question It was not about atheism or the opposite but about something more fundamental. A believer would answer the question I asked with "yes". An atheist could find meaning without invoking God. So I was asking what kind of atheist you are - one that sees humanity as a mere collection of biological forces or one that finds meaning beyond biology: I of course have an agenda but not a proof that God exists agenda.

Is a mother's love for her child was solely due to oxytocin or if there was a meaning beyond treating the parent-child bond as mere biology.

 

[ChristineM]

That wasn't my question It was not about atheism or the opposite but about something more fundamental. A believer would answer the question I asked with "yes". An atheist could find meaning without invoking God. So I was asking what kind of atheist you are - one that sees humanity as a mere collection of biological forces or one that finds meaning beyond biology: I of course have an agenda but not a proof that God exists agenda.

Is a mother's love for her child was solely due to oxytocin or if there was a meaning beyond treating the parent-child bond as mere biology.

It is my belief that development in the womb where the fetus takes its needs from the mother. The pain of childbirth, nirturing and raising the child fortifies the mothers love for a child. All these actons can be observed.

 

[cladking]

You are projecting your version of justified belief. I decline to accept.

NO! I AM NOT.

I am saying NO BELIEF is justified and belief in "SCIENCE" is far more dangerous than belief in God or faith.

"Science" is not a belief system but without the understanding of how and why it works it can ONLY be modeled as a BELIEF SYSTEM in every individual. There is no "law of gravity" or any other "law" to which reality is beholden. We merely observe that masses attract one another. This is apparently universal and constant but it is no "law". It's OK to call it a "law" since it's just a word but only so long as you don't believe it is known to be universal and constant.

Most people including many scientists and Peers are highly mystical. They extrapolate and interpolate everything and most people for the last 4000 years have believed we finally know everything.

We do not!




Edited to add; I mistakenly thought this post was addressed to me. My error.

 

[ChristineM]

belief in "SCIENCE" is far more dangerous than belief in God or faith.

I see you used the dangerous sciences of quantum mechanics and several other disciplines to post that.

 

[cladking]

I see you used the dangerous sciences of quantum mechanics and several other disciplines to post that.

Are you suggesting that believing in science is justified?