This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

Topic: Subforum suggestion  (Read 13752 times)

nhendrickson

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285 (since 2012)
  • Thanked: 11x
Re: esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion)
« Reply #120 on: November 13, 2012, 12:39:25 pm »
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner.  Life interfered.

Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly.  I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically.  It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of.  We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art.  In most people, one is more dominant than the other.  I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people.  I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.  

At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic.  A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox.  For some reason, I can.  Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian.  I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally.  I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living.  Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places.  If I do something wrong, I did it.  Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do.  That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".

That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.

As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously).  It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives).  Situational irrationality isn't exactly choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'.  For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').

Sometimes I question my own beliefs.  Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs.  If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny.  If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.  

It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws".  Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith".  There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.

Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs.  If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe.  Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.

A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones).  Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs.  They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons.  Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.  
   Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically.  Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons. :o

So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9.  All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority).  Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.

I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though.  It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing.  I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion.  Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief.  Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives.  What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational).  If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.

I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief.  If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation.  If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.

Yes, some part of it experiential.  A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me.  Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations.  Sometimes I even found them.  But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity.  I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being.  For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth.  Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.

I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all.  In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?

If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.

clickers

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2584 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Subforum suggestion
« Reply #121 on: November 13, 2012, 01:05:55 pm »
You're entitled to that. There should not be a debate about this.

jcribb16

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 5309 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 72x
Re: esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion)
« Reply #122 on: November 13, 2012, 03:05:23 pm »
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner.  Life interfered.

Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly.  I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically.  It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of.  We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art.  In most people, one is more dominant than the other.  I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people.  I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.  

At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic.  A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox.  For some reason, I can.  Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian.  I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally.  I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living.  Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places.  If I do something wrong, I did it.  Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do.  That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".

That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.

As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously).  It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives).  Situational irrationality isn't exactly choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'.  For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').

Sometimes I question my own beliefs.  Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs.  If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny.  If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.  

It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws".  Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith".  There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.

Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs.  If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe.  Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.

A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones).  Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs.  They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons.  Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.  
   Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically.  Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons. :o

So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9.  All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority).  Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.

I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though.  It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing.  I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion.  Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief.  Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives.  What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational).  If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.

I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief.  If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation.  If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.

Yes, some part of it experiential.  A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me.  Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations.  Sometimes I even found them.  But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity.  I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being.  For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth.  Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.

I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all.  In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?

If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.
I would like to thank you for your comments I highlighted in bold and underlined. 

vp44

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2927 (since 2012)
  • Thanked: 65x
Re: Subforum suggestion
« Reply #123 on: November 13, 2012, 04:00:18 pm »
I think that you guys turned this suggestion thread into a debate and discussion. What do you think. I suggest maybe continue the conversation in the debate forum. Just a suggestion. Thanks :thumbsup:

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion)
« Reply #124 on: November 13, 2012, 10:48:39 pm »
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner.  Life interfered.

No need to apologize; reply as you can or wish, (presumably, life intereferes for everyone).

I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief.  If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation.  If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.

'Oddly', if some are making the conscious decision to intentionally hold a superstitious belief for which there is no objective substantiating evidence, then they are choosing to be irrational, (since such a choice doesn't fall under the definition parameters of a "rational" choice).  That's fine, as far as making a decision for/against rational logic and people are relatively-free to make such a choice.  Pardon the implicit conclusion based upon the previous premise; which would be that a conscious choice to be irrational is unlikely to be a contributing aspect of self-awareness.


Yes, some part of it experiential.  A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me.  Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations.  Sometimes I even found them.  But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity. 

Actually, you are contending that such vague, (and subjective), expereiences are being interpreted as going "beyond mere coincidence or serendipity", (note that under the burden of proof obligation for making that initial claim, I could await supporting evidence or, move on after countering that such an assertion remains unsubstantiated and basing one unsubstantiation upon another is a logical fallacy).


I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being.  For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth.  Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.

Those would be considered as unsubstantiated hearsay, would they not?  The validity or veracity of 'testimony' can be subjected to examination by reason/logic in that, if any logical internal inconsistancies, (or lies), mutually-exclusive assertions or, obscuring vagueness are revealed by that 'testimony', the witnesses' veracity falls into question/doubt.


I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all.  In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?

No, since such "hunches", "gut feelings" or "intuitions" turn out to be cues not noticed consciously but, processed subconsciously, (and since the conscious mind isn't nominally aware of the underlying logical processing, it interprets the 'sudden' conclusion as an intuitive gut feeling hunch).  There is significant hard evidence in support of such a contention and I'd be glad to provide it, (unless others look it up before then), in exchange for your supporting non-ambiguous evidence in regards to 'spiritual experientialism'.

If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.

Ack; well, using the search feature and typing in such parameters as "religious belief burden of proof blind faith", etc. yields interesting results, (I wouldn't want to pick only the threads/post where religious adherents' contentions are refuted by non-religious logic, nor would it be equitable to present only those posts where religious adherents are evangelizing unopposed).  That said, maybe I can find an 'even' cross-section.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Subforum suggestion
« Reply #125 on: November 13, 2012, 10:49:26 pm »
I think that you guys turned this suggestion thread into a debate and discussion. What do you think. I suggest maybe continue the conversation in the debate forum. Just a suggestion. Thanks :thumbsup:

In a rare cosmic coincidence; I agree - it's now a D&D thread.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

nhendrickson

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285 (since 2012)
  • Thanked: 11x
Re: Subforum suggestion
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2012, 10:33:38 am »
Do we need to notify a moderator and asked that it be moved then?  Or do they monitor the threads on a regular basis?  I'll refrain from further comment until I know the proper protocol since I'm the relative newbie here.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Subforum suggestion
« Reply #127 on: November 14, 2012, 01:14:06 pm »
Do we need to notify a moderator and asked that it be moved then?  Or do they monitor the threads on a regular basis?  I'll refrain from further comment until I know the proper protocol since I'm the relative newbie here.

Threads are monitored by moderators on a regular basis and sometimes they'll move a thread to a more appropriate forum however, this thread does appear in the Debate & Discuss subforum of Off Topic too, (since the discussion is currently unrelated to the Suggestions forum).

esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion) 
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 01:52:49 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4467 Views
Last post January 16, 2009, 01:21:08 pm
by Stealth3si
2 Replies
2253 Views
Last post February 18, 2008, 01:31:02 pm
by jhndav435
7 Replies
3391 Views
Last post February 28, 2008, 02:09:13 pm
by tjones911
22 Replies
3782 Views
Last post December 20, 2012, 05:46:40 pm
by Flackle
1 Replies
981 Views
Last post December 16, 2015, 10:08:10 pm
by oldbuddy