Do You Find Ietsism a Likely and/or Plausible Belief?

[amorphous_constellation]

I agree with you statement to the extent that it is indeed frustrating not to know, and like anyone else I would love to know… but that doesn’t mean I want to claim to know, when I don’t; (and nobody really does until you are well and truly dead - and maybe not even then. (God, I hope not!)

If you think you know, because your parents told you, you teacher told you, your rabbi, your… (you get my drift) then good for you… at least you can stop searching for the truth. In a way, I am jealous of that, as it must give a cert peace in that certainty. But I just don’t have that… I have some things I personally have experienced and which form a basis for my own personal belief system, but it doesn’t neatly fit in a predetermined box of somebody else’s design.

So, I would replace the ‘we are surely’ in your last sentence with ‘we might be’, and although I agree that might Bea good goal, I can also understand if someone would say: “No, you are not supposed to know or even look for it, you HAVE TO act purely out of faith… that what your elders etc. tell you is the one and only truth, no if or buts about it… they know best.” I don’t feel that way at all personally, but if you do, and that makes you and the people around you happy (and it harms no one else) then good for you!

I guess if I were to try to refine my view from then, I might say that a goal might be to be sated with only the certain amount of knowledge that one is allotted, or that one can learn. But a problem with that, is that one would need to find such way of viewing it to be acceptable, and perhaps one cannot fully do that, unless the times are a lot more static than they are. I think the last couple centuries have perhaps been restless in a fairly unique way, and I venture to say that perhaps people are wondering about what the human condition is exactly, more than they did previously, though they always had wondered a fair deal

 

[sew.excited73]

It is a likely belief and I know quite a few people who believe in "something". It is a case of wishful thinking and not accepting the harsh reality of the physical world.

I think saying it’s wishful thinking, goes for any belief system really, so you are not wrong, but ‘not accepting the harsh reality’ is not accurate … ‘the harsh reality’ (as I assume you to mean it) is merely one possible truth… but it could also be a harsh reality that there is more to reality than atheists think… none of us really know… we can ONLY believe when it comes to this stuff. That might change in the future, but humanity has certainly not figured it out with 100% certainty.

 

[sew.excited73]

I like this statement better: "You don't know until you do know." And so, if anyone believes there are "transcendent" aspects of the universe, they should be looking to find out if they are correct. Devise tests, poke at the nooks and crannies, look under all the rocks, etc. And if they aren't willing to do that to come up with anything useful to present along with their hypotheses? Then they should probably stop talking about it.

Oh trust me, I do. The difference is… I look under ALL ‘nooks and crannies’ and don’t stop at the ones other people are seemingly satisfied by (maybe because they are fed up or it’s too hard to not agree with their family or whatever other reason). I keep looking and not taking other people’s word for it, but check their claims and take what I perceive as true and leave what I don’t think is true. Just like everyone else I imagine… but others seem to be satisfied with the answers they are given faster than I am… maybe I should just call myself ‘irreligiously stubborn’ instead - lol

 

[Madsaac]

Are you saying that any imaginary belief that comes from that thing in between your ears is okay as long as it makes people feel better?

In general, yes I think so. Don’t you?

I think that some imaginary religious beliefs are harmful to people because they prevent people from seeing the truth

This is true but at what level, hence the thousands of discussions on this matter

 

[sew.excited73]

I'll assume we mean the same thing by words like transcendent, mundane, and reality.

I find it nearly inconceivable that ietsism is not accurate.
Humans have been developing our awareness and comprehension for all of human history. As our tools and methods have become more sophisticated we've discovered things that were unimaginable for most of human history.

Once, everyone "knew" that creation consisted of a gigantic, solid, flattish plane called Earth. It had a blue dome over it and the relatively small sun scooted across the sky every day. This was due to our limited perceptions and reasoning powers. We've gotten a lot more sophisticated since then. Truth that was beyond imagination then is taken for granted now. Earth is a tiny speck of mostly molten rock hurtling through a void, held in orbit around the sun by the same gravity that causes rain to fall. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy. And all of it is hurtling through a void more vast than ancients could conceive. 2000 years ago such understanding of Creation would have been transcendent.

I fully expect that as human awareness and sophistication continues to expand there are huge leaps of understanding yet to be made. I fully expect that they will include concepts we would now consider transcendent. I sincerely doubt that the materialist universe we are currently able to understand is all there is to understand. Just as there was more to the cosmos than people could learn with the naked eye. It's vastness and intricacy, awe inspiring as they are, was beyond their abilities.
Tom

You hit the nail on the head Tom!
In 50 years time, things that are called ‘paranormal’ now, might be explained and thus become relatively normal… or… no one might ever be able to get to the bottom of it all because it is impossible. But the impossibleness is just so unfathomable for most people, like you cannot ever grasp an ‘infinite universe’ as you can never get to the end of infinity!

 

[sew.excited73]

And since it's also aligned with agnostic belief then I can say that it's more plausible than atheism.

Theism would assert that they are sure a God exists.
Agnostic would assert they aren't sure.
Ietsism would assert that probably not a God but something there.
Atheism would assert they aee sure something doesn't exist.

Bur how can you ever be certain of that? Unicorns are always claimed not to exist by respectable science. Yet not only the Wesr had unicorns, but there was also the Qilin/Kirin of China and Japan. And until narwhals were understood, such horns were found, and understood as proof.

Obviously, some sort of horned creature inspired the unicorn.

Very close! I would not say ‘probably not a God’ I would say ‘possibly not a God’… but that’s just me, another ietsist might find possibly too soft and agree more with your definition. In fact, last year, or maybe next year I would agree wholeheartedly myself - lol - such is life as an ietsist, we’re flexible that way. Haha

 

[Madsaac]

Yes, quite possibly. But maybe there’s more than that and your brain is just a receiver part of your hardware (body) and your mind/personality is just the software to interpret information coming in… not just from the 5 senses, but also that 6th sense we all have (but maybe less developed in some, or just called ‘coincidence’/‘intuition’ by some)

Yes, you could be right but that software is still your brain.

 

[sew.excited73]

Of course, since it doesn't mean anything, you don't have a worse description, either.

That's the problem that I so often find -- people love to describe their favourite fantasy in essentially meaningless terms. That tells me everything I need to know about them, but of course it also makes it impossible for me to argue against.

Why do you need at argue against? Sometimes you can agree even with your worst enemy on either a basic thing or on something you both don’t know.

 

[sew.excited73]

Yes, you could be right but that software is still your brain.

As I said, I look at the brain and all it synapses as the hardware… much like a radio receiver, and the information is like the wavelength of the radio station. Your mind is the dial, which connects the certain synapses, so the message can be received from that ‘channel’ or ignored if you tune out and focus on a different channel, as the case may be. So not quite like Daniel Dennet’s hypothesis, but close.

 

[Trailblazer]

… but it could also be a harsh reality that there is more to reality than atheists think… none of us really know… we can ONLY believe when it comes to this stuff.

That's true, we can only believe..... Most of my fellow believers believe that the afterlife is going to be so much better than this life, but I am a skeptic so I am not convinced of that, and better for whom?

That might change in the future, but humanity has certainly not figured it out with 100% certainty.

I don't think it will change in the future, but nobody knows the future except God.
God has kept the nature of the afterlife under His hat since time began so I suspect it will continue to be a mystery.

 

[Trailblazer]

In general, yes I think so. Don’t you?

No, I don't think so. I think we should want to know the truth whatever it is, even if it is a harsh cold reality.

This is true but at what level, hence the thousands of discussions on this matter

Certainly some imaginary religious beliefs are worse than others and more damaging to individuals and to society....
It is relatively harmless to believe that Jesus rose from the dead but it is very harmful to believe that Jesus is going to return to earth since that keeps Christians waiting forever and meanwhile this world is going to hell in a bread basket!

 

[Trailblazer]

You hit the nail on the head Tom!
In 50 years time, things that are called ‘paranormal’ now, might be explained and thus become relatively normal… or… no one might ever be able to get to the bottom of it all because it is impossible. But the impossibleness is just so unfathomable for most people, like you cannot ever grasp an ‘infinite universe’ as you can never get to the end of infinity!

When I talk about the paranormal I am not referring to the afterlife, since I consider that a given.

I never thought much about the paranormal until it happened to me a couple of years ago for the first time, and it continues to happen periodically... This is something for which there is no 'normal' explanation.
If you want to know what I am referring to you can send me a private message.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you could be right but that software is still your brain.

I would say that the brain is the hardware and the soul is the software running on the brain.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do you need at argue against? Sometimes you can agree even with your worst enemy on either a basic thing or on something you both don’t know.

Well, once again I disagree. @BSM1 said: "I have described 'God' as the known and the unknown; also the knowing and the not knowing."

That is the very definition of a "Deepity." It seems to say a lot, but actually says nothing at all.

However, it does contain within it a claim -- unstated, but a claim never-the-less: the existence of 'God.' And based on all of the evidence available to me, that is a claim I cannot accept.

 

[Heyo]

I think saying it’s wishful thinking, goes for any belief system really, so you are not wrong, but ‘not accepting the harsh reality’ is not accurate … ‘the harsh reality’ (as I assume you to mean it) is merely one possible truth…

It is a logical necessity that there is only one truth. All logical operations are unambiguous, and, applied correctly, only one conclusion can be reached from more basic truths.

but it could also be a harsh reality that there is more to reality than atheists think… none of us really know… we can ONLY believe when it comes to this stuff. That might change in the future, but humanity has certainly not figured it out with 100% certainty.

Yep. Scientists like to call their beliefs "axioms", but it is just an assumption that reality is real and that the universe is orderly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What evidence to you have for these statements?

Look at the word meaning and then only desciribe it using evidence as per objective evidence per natural science.

In more technical terms not all words have objective referents or even physical referents.

 

[sew.excited73]

That's true, we can only believe..... Most of my fellow believers believe that the afterlife is going to be so much better than this life, but I am a skeptic so I am not convinced of that, and better for whom?

I don't think it will change in the future, but nobody knows the future except God.
God has kept the nature of the afterlife under His hat since time began so I suspect it will continue to be a mystery.

Most likely you are right, however, there’s also a reasoning that says: “Just because something has always been one way, it doesn’t mean it will always stay that way.”

I mean, we seemingly have free will to change our minds, why not God too? Especially so, even. God, how boring it must be for him if everything he did stayed exactly the same aaaall the time! He probably wants to changed things up a bit and “See how they react if I change just this little thingy here… and maybe that there. *rubbings his hands* Right, let’s see how that goes!”

 

[sew.excited73]

When I talk about the paranormal I am not referring to the afterlife, since I consider that a given.

I never thought much about the paranormal until it happened to me a couple of years ago for the first time, and it continues to happen periodically... This is something for which there is no 'normal' explanation.
If you want to know what I am referring to you can send me a private message.

By paranormal I include the afterlife at the moment, as it is as yet unexplained. I also include God itself and all his angels, basically anything people believe in that science has yet to prove really exists.

And yes, I would love to hear your personal story (and share mine, if you are interested) but don’t know how to PM on here?

 

[sew.excited73]

Well, once again I disagree. @BSM1 said: "I have described 'God' as the known and the unknown; also the knowing and the not knowing."

That is the very definition of a "Deepity." It seems to say a lot, but actually says nothing at all.

However, it does contain within it a claim -- unstated, but a claim never-the-less: the existence of 'God.' And based on all of the evidence available to me, that is a claim I cannot accept.

Ok, so if instead of the words they chose, they said: “God is everything“ Would you still disagree with them?

 

[sew.excited73]

It is a logical necessity that there is only one truth. All logical operations are unambiguous, and, applied correctly, only one conclusion can be reached from more basic truths.

Yep. Scientists like to call their beliefs "axioms", but it is just an assumption that reality is real and that the universe is orderly.

Only one truth is real… is that so? How about ‘perspective’? How about Schroedinger‘s cat? How about Schroedinger’s Friends? How about ’spooky action at a distance’?

Science itself is fallible too. Scientists ‘update’ their hypothesis aaall the time. And that’s a good thing (in my humble opinion.) Religions do this too, but far, far less often.