No faith?

[suzy smith]

But as we've covered already, what you assume to be facts and proofs and how they are translated by the mind into "truth" is a very unsure pathway. You assume the mind can be free from influence, while at the same time evaluating itself by itself and the reliable evaluator of reality. The truth of the world to a child of six is not the same truth of the world to an adult of 60, even though they are looking at the same "facts".

I was just reading this written by Evelyn Underhill which oddly underscores what I have been getting at (this is my first reading of her),

"It is immediately apparent, however, that this sense-world, this seemingly real external universe—though it may be useful and valid in other respects—cannot be the external world, but only the Self’s projected picture of it. It is a work of art, not a scientific fact; and, whilst it may well possess the profound significance proper to great works of art, is dangerous if treated as a subject of analysis. Very slight investigation shows that it is a picture whose relation to reality is at best symbolic and approximate, and which would have no meaning for selves whose senses, or channels of communication, happened to be arranged upon a different plan. The evidence of the senses, then, cannot be accepted as evidence of the nature of ultimate reality: useful servants, they are dangerous guides. Nor can their testimony disconcert those seekers whose reports they appear to contradict."​

It appears to me that the surety of what you or I think and reason, is itself an illusion of reality. And when we are able to perceive reality outside that single apparatus of cognitive thoughts, we see those themselves for what they are. Until then, they are the only set of eyes we look through, and therefore are unable to see those eyes as eyes. To argue for their supremacy without any other perspective but their own, is like arguing the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says so. It's self-referential.

I can't agree with you when you say ‘ facts and proofs and how they are translated by the mind into "truth" is a very unsure pathway’. I would give up and just amuse myself with doing the dishes and reading romantic paperback books if that were true. I certainly wouldn't allow my mind to be influenced my the things you promote. And that is the gulf that separates us I think.

I can see and accept the possibility that what we see is not the real world. Maybe we are all just part of a computer game like that film the matrix?
What I do draw the line at is accepting for one moment that organized religion holds the answers. Go down that road and I might just as well believe in the tooth fairy. And she seems much nicer than the God of the Bible to me.

I will accept the facts as I see them until something or someone shows me I am wrong.
An absurd argument was presented to me on another forum last week. ‘You can’t prove gravity’ he said. O.K. I said, so ‘if I drop a hammer on your head from a great height will you not move out of the way then?’

No offence but when you say ‘ when we are able to perceive reality outside that single apparatus of cognitive thoughts’ I walk away from your argument. That’s not reality to me.

I may seem to give a simple argument here but that’s how I see it…….now back to the b****y dishes.

 

[Windwalker]

I can't agree with you when you say ‘ facts and proofs and how they are translated by the mind into "truth" is a very unsure pathway’. I would give up and just amuse myself with doing the dishes and reading romantic paperback books if that were true.

Or the alternative is you would continue looking for understanding, to better explore and realize the nature of reality, rather than just giving up because you don't have the answers so easily accessible as previously believed to be the case.

I certainly wouldn't allow my mind to be influenced my the things you promote. And that is the gulf that separates us I think.

What exactly is it you believe I am promoting, and what are these things you imagine I mean? You originally assumed I was saying let your emotions override reason, and that wasn't what I was saying. So now what is it you imagine I'm saying?

I can see and accept the possibility that what we see is not the real world. Maybe we are all just part of a computer game like that film the matrix?

That's actually not a bad analogy, in some regards. It's not the world isn't real, but that how we interface with it, give the illusion that that interface is the actual, real world. That's the point you are missing. The perceptual knowing of it shifts as consciousness itself is opened to a new set of eyes. It's the same world. But a different experienced reality of it. It's not "unreality", it's real reality. Getting in touch with reality, is what it's all about.

What I do draw the line at is accepting for one moment that organized religion holds the answers.

Oh, well I wouldn't claim that, but I also wouldn't dismiss everything out of hand simply because it doesn't square with a current mode of thinking. There is a lot of bathwater, to be sure. A lot that was relevant to a different culture and time and mode of thinking. But there is also a baby in the bathwater, just as there is any system of thought. I am annoyed by those who see the bathwater and throw out everything along with it, whether that is in systems of religion or in systems of science. My motto is to transcend and include, bringing forward the best of what it offers, while purging the bathwater.

Go down that road and I might just as well believe in the tooth fairy. And she seems much nicer than the God of the Bible to me.

See? You only see bathwater. You only see literal mythic symbols as either true or false. There is no middle way understanding available to you?

I will accept the facts as I see them until something or someone shows me I am wrong.

No one can tell you what the matrix is. You have to experience it for yourself. Take the red pill and leave the world of illusion. We need to quit looking for authorities outside ourselves to tell us what to believe in.

No offence but when you say ‘ when we are able to perceive reality outside that single apparatus of cognitive thoughts’ I walk away from your argument. That’s not reality to me.

Of course it's not. It doesn't fit the reality your current framework of mental truths creates for you. You actually, literally, must step outside that framework. Want to know how? Practice meditation. Stop the stream of thought, and see what you see. Take the red pill.

"Wanting nothing, with all your heart
stop the stream.

When the world dissolves,
everything becomes clear".

~Buddha

​

I may seem to give a simple argument here but that’s how I see it…….now back to the b****y dishes.

The truth is known in doing dishes as well.

 

[idav]

No, its facts, proof, using our brain to filter out the ‘unreasonable’
And emotion and intuition can be a very poor road to reality if we are not careful.

This assumes emotions can never be reasonable. There is quite a difference in haphazardly guessing and giving an educated guess for something. And further it is entirely different thing to put faith in any guess even if its a good one. So we reason what we believe to be true.

 

[suzy smith]

This assumes emotions can never be reasonable. There is quite a difference in haphazardly guessing and giving an educated guess for something. And further it is entirely different thing to put faith in any guess even if its a good one. So we reason what we believe to be true.

Did I say emotions can never be reasonable?

 

[suzy smith]

It is not reason that alone informs, but all aspects, all perceptions, all knowing from all areas of our lives.

So in times past when man looked at the sun and thought it was a God because he didn't have the 'proof' back then that it is in fact just a small star he was, according to your reasoning.....right!
Or was his perceptions wrong perhaps? One of us is missing the point here me thinks?

 

[Windwalker]

So in times past when man looked at the sun and thought it was a God because he didn't have the 'proof' back then that it is in fact just a small star he was, according to your reasoning.....right!
Or was his perceptions wrong perhaps? One of us is missing the point here me thinks?

Yes, you are missing the point. There is more than one mode of thinking about something, not just the scientific one. Was he right from a scientific perspective that the sun is a literal god? Of course not. But as a symbol of a giver of life, is he wrong? No. To him it is a god.

Why must all understanding of reality be scientific? Is this rational?

 

[idav]

Did I say emotions can never be reasonable?

I did catch on to your "if we're not careful" so I don't think you said that in so many words. What I was getting at is reason is separate from belief. If you reason that god does not exist, for example, it doesn't mean having to put belief into said non-existence. Same for reasoning some sort of creative force, nobody has to invest belief in it. Just depends on how sure the individual is that they actually have the truth. Faith is simply being sure you have the truth, whatever that may be to the individual.

 

[suzy smith]

Yes, you are missing the point. There is more than one mode of thinking about something, not just the scientific one. Was he right from a scientific perspective that the sun is a literal god? Of course not. But as a symbol of a giver of life, is he wrong? No. To him it is a god.

Why must all understanding of reality be scientific? Is this rational?

To him it is a god.....but he was wrong! And we know he was wrong. Why? because of science.
You are right, there is more than one way of thinking about something. And then we look at the scientific evidence to see if we are right.
If you really want to believe in religion you have to go outside of science? good for you but I wont.

I don't think I am missing the point.
I am however having a good debate with all you nice people.

 

[Windwalker]

To him it is a god.....but he was wrong!

If a god is understood as that power which gives life, then how is he he wrong? It is a god, even if scientifically it is a ball of nuclear reaction of compressed gasses. Was he trying to understand it scientifically, or symbolically?

You are aware of what symbols are? That's what God is. Not a Yeti, not a mammal, nor a fish, etc. A symbol points to something beyond the object itself. Science doesn't look at symbols. This is really simple.

And we know he was wrong. Why? because of science.

No, you claim he is wrong by you misusing science by not recognizing symbols. Here, give this a look over and see if any of this makes sense to you: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

You are right, there is more than one way of thinking about something. And then we look at the scientific evidence to see if we are right.

This is ludicrous. Do you look to science to tell you if you should take this job versus that job, choose this lover versus that lover, go to the movie or stay home and do dishes, etc? How are you processing these choices in life, and through what sort of data collection? Have you ever heard the phase, "This really speaks to me"? According to science, you must be hallucinating!

Maybe we live in a symbolic reality? God is not a Yeti. Science does not look at God, or any other symbolic truth we use that does not have material correlates. I'm actually surprised any of this needs to be explained, considering every human alive lives with and through these on a daily basis.

If you really want to believe in religion you have to go outside of science, good for you but I wont.

Not at all. I find no incompatibility between them. But then again, I seem to be more aware of what goes on in the human experience, at least at a conscious level so that I can reason them nicely together, rather than living unaware of what goes on in myself through an overemphasis on the rational (trust me, I used to imagine or wish I was Spock too at one point in my life).

I don't think I am missing the point.

But you are.

 

[suzy smith]

If a god is understood as that power which gives life, then how is he he wrong? It is a god, even if scientifically it is a ball of nuclear reaction of compressed gasses. Was he trying to understand it scientifically, or symbolically?

You are aware of what symbols are? That's what God is. Not a Yeti, not a mammal, nor a fish, etc. A symbol points to something beyond the object itself. Science doesn't look at symbols. This is really simple.


No, you claim he is wrong by you misusing science by not recognizing symbols. Here, give this a look over and see if any of this makes sense to you: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance


This is ludicrous. Do you look to science to tell you if you should take this job versus that job, choose this lover versus that lover, go to the movie or stay home and do dishes, etc? How are you processing these choices in life, and through what sort of data collection? Have you ever heard the phase, "This really speaks to me"? According to science, you must be hallucinating!

Maybe we live in a symbolic reality? God is not a Yeti. Science does not look at God, or any other symbolic truth we use that does not have material correlates. I'm actually surprised any of this needs to be explained, considering every human alive lives with and through these on a daily basis.


Not at all. I find no incompatibility between them. But then again, I seem to be more aware of what goes on in the human experience, at least at a conscious level so that I can reason them nicely together, rather than living unaware of what goes on in myself through an overemphasis on the rational (trust me, I used to imagine or wish I was Spock too at one point in my life).


But you are.

We must agree to disagree. Thank you for a good debate my friend.

 

[Windwalker]

We must agree to disagree. Thank you for a good debate my friend.

So then you do base your views on things other than scientific proofs. Nice to see.

 

[nazz]

Theists have faith in God but I don’t!
Why not?

Maybe you have no good reason to believe?

 

[suzy smith]

Maybe you have no good reason to believe?

Spot on.

 

[dantech]

Spot on.

So this was the purpose of this thread? Interesting. I learned a lot

Thanks.

 

[suzy smith]

So this was the purpose of this thread? Interesting. I learned a lot

Thanks.

Your welcome