BS: Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 06:54 AM

Dr Ozlinsky notes:

those who sneer at others' faith/beliefs/haircut

are compensating for their own deep lack of faith - in themselves.

why try to continually prove superiority?
only those who feel inferior on some level need to do this.

*grin*

(first time I've grinned on mudcat)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 05:09 AM

I actually read all this thread! I was pretty sure that what Jerry had in mind was the chance for people to just say what was in their hearts and minds on the subject. Wouldn't just stating one's case for their faith or lack have been more to the point? Chances are no one here is likely to change one's own thoughts, no matter how much is written and rewritten, debated, and how often jokes are injected to lighten things up. But it seems to be fun for some of you to try. Never mind, I learned a bit more about some of you, which is a good thing...Thanks..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:34 PM

Wal, boys, I ain't gonna say it is so, an' I ain't gonna say it ain't. Old medicine man once tole me, if the only person you listen to is yer horse, the whole world looks like a saddle. Bodies are kinda like horses from that perspective, see wot I mean? Limited frequency set, but more'n willing to assert they got the whole damn spectrum wrapped up, when they don't. Kinda like them lawyer types from Masserchusetts, Ah reckon! Small spectrum but high amplification, if yez takes mah meanin'...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:26 PM

I mean absolutely no derision or ill will to anyone who has a faith-based life. You out there who know me best are well aware that my own personal life and situation bares that out. It just comes down to this: Faith has always seemed to me like wishful thinking.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:01 PM

I can now DO a barred F, Amos...I take my autoharp and push on the bar that says 'F'.... Come see us in October, and we'll compare which is easier... (some good stumps for speeches there, too!)

I see your point about "adding one little postulate", just as I see Two Bears' point about "opening my heart & mind" and "working with universal lifeforce energy"...but that feels to me very much like 'throwing the dart, and then drawing the bullseye', that is, asking me to alter my 'mood' in order to see, rather than showing me something that works, no matter WHAT my mood.   ....I strongly support the basic idea of Occam's Razor, and what you and Two Bears suggest smacks of pluritas way beyond necessitate.

(been working late at my lathe, and I sure could use an OOB right now!...will single malt scotch help?)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:59 PM

Only thing I aim to throw your way is a barred F chord or so, Bill!!

And really the gap is not that great. I think a scientific hypothesis that runs into a brick wall can justify adding one element to cover a wide range of phenomena, just as, for example, was once done with the luminiferous aether before Mitchelson-Morley stepped in. It was a good working hypothesis. Didn't prove true but it helped align more data than without it.   

Take all the associated phenomena that material science cannot yet explain, including those you mention and the occasional case history of telepathy and maybe an OOB or two and p'raps even a case of verifiable reincarnation (there are plenty that might be, in the literature) and for ALL those unexplainable phenomena you add one little postulate to your world view that says exisitence has matter, space,, energy, time and life-force, or spiritual nature to it -- one lousy little addendum...and all of a sudden, all those weird things fall into line nicely.   Thus, a more elegant model, IMNSHO! :>) Just as energy has characteristics like, say, charge, current strength, number of joules, etc., so might life force have its own characteristics -- maybe affinity is one. Maybe understanding or something like that -- knowing -- is a measurable quality? An awful lot of unknown territory there, for sure.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM

well, I'm not sure that what the Dalai Lama believes is any more relevant than what Amos believes...or Bill, for that matter. (other than a succinct expression by one who has spent many years considering the issue)

And, yep, I guess we do reach a point where we can say very little more to each other on the matter. You say "You may feel that if you just add enough complexity to a material system, self awareness and knowing will arise..." and I say, "well....maybe so, I don't know"..and I am willing to NOT know.

I do know that stuff happens today that was once thought to be the work of devils or spirits by 'less enlightened' cultures long ago, and stuff STILL happens in the brain that we are not sure about. My first wife had a Caesarian section under medical hypnosis many years ago...she was told not to feel pain, and she didn't....and others under hypnosis have been told a stick is a red-hot iron, and they scream and blisters arise when they are touched. I also know of bio-feedback, where the brain/mind does things to control responses that are not 'usually' of concious volition......What this tells me is that there is SO much to be studied and learned about that material bunch of neurons and synapses in our heads. It does NOT tell me that I should believe in the most interesting suppositions put forth by those who will not wait for answers. *shrug* You may find it hard to believe, but I would LOVE to be proved wrong...if I can have an explanation of how it works that doesn't rely on poetry and linguistic weaving to clarify the matter. If your point is that it MUST use those images and poetic constructs because it is, by definition, unknowable in traditional physical terms, AND not demonstrable to those who will not, like me, 'open my mind' and believe in order to see....then we are at a gen-you-wine 1st order impasse!

I do feel, however, that the discussion is not a useless endeavor, even with no particular resolution. I have learned a lot about various viewpoints, and where to read further....and the very process of typing out these points allows me to stop and consider just what it is that I DO think, and makes me choose my words carefully and refine my ideas. As long as we agree not to throw bricks when we meet someday..*grin*, I consider it time well spent to debate with someone who thinks...even if not exactly like me!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM

Two Bears....I hardly know where to begin, and as I say, time is limited....but in all your detailed replies (which are NOT what I was seeking), I see one theme repeated.."I, Two Bears, have seen and experienced much of the phenomena you refer to, and I state that they
-----

    I HAVE have many weird and unexplainable encounters.

-----
work!"........You also state that you used to feel otherwise, BEFORE certain experiences, so presumably you know what it feels like for those of us who are not privileged to have such experiences. *little wry smile*
-----

    I used to be EXACTLY like you demanding proof; but when one has an OBE, and has experiences that defy description; it changes you.

    Though we disagree regarding paranormal experiences; I DO understand where you are coming from.

-----
about Randi...I think I read on his site that the $$$$ IS in escrow! I will go read some more.
-----

    It may be in escrow now; but it was not that way when Sylvia Browne and Evelyn Paglini agreed to be tested, and the Unamazing Randi blew a gasket.

-----
was...and whay the outcome was. As to Kirilan photography....I will later look up what I can find on it..(I know the 'basic' claims)..and I will wager that I can find as many de-bunking explanations of it as supportive claims FOR it....just a hunch.
-----

    Oh there are debunkers of Kirlian photography regarding the image of a cut leaf, and a ghost image of the missing half of the leaf shows up. If someone has the skill to remove the leaf and cut the leaf in half and put the half leaf EXACTLY where it has been before, or someone was able to cut the leaf on the plate without moving the half leaf even one milimeter from where the leaf was in the previous image; then that person should be a neuro surgeon.

-----
re: your note to LH at the end..." 1. To the person that is a debunker (Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is made up); no amount of proof is adequate." ....isn't that what BOTH sides say, with "debunker" changed to "adherent" to suit the circumstances? *grin*
-----

    No. Unlike the debunkers; I and other experiences do not ask that you or other people take our word for it.


-----
For my own part, I certainly DO have standards and levels of proof that *I* would consider adequate, but I suspect that you would say
-----

    This reminds me of the young man that goes to visit the Medicine man of the village. The old Medicine man started talking of the Great Spirit, and using manitou to heal others (Manitou is the Osage Indian name for lifeforce energy. (Chinese call this energy ch'i)). The young man interjected and said "I don't believe in God." the old medicine man says "That's OK. He doesn't believe in you either."

    My suggestion is for you to open your heart and mind, and start working with universal lifeforce energy, and either prove or disprove it to yourself.

    I wrote the material on the website http://geocities.com/huna101. If that does not appeal to you; then study Qigong, Reiki, Actualism www.actualism.org, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:33 PM

A quote from the Dalai Lama in The New Scientist series concerning the human mind:

"Now I 'd like to say more about the fundamental nature of the mind. There is no reason to believe that the innate mind, the very essential luminous nature of awareness, has neural correlates, because it is not physical, not contingent upon the brain. So while I agree with neuroscience that gross mental events correlate with brain activity, I also feel that on a more subtle level of consciousness, brain and mind are two separate entities.

Indeed, I believe the automatic assumption in cognitive neuroscience that brain and mind are invariably two sides of the same activity limits the scope of scientific enquiry. That assumption means that science looks for its answers only within an arbitrarily limited framework. With so many new developments and discoveries in brain science, perhaps scientists might break out of this paradigm and expand the parameters brain science has set for itself."

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:03 PM

Well, I said it was shorthand. The "fallacy" comes only from the compression.   If we are going to talk about whether there IS anything other than matter and mechanism in existence, all I can offer is good wishes, in the final analysis. I am at a loss to offer any other model which takes knowing anything in to account. You may feel that if you just add enough complexity to a material system, self awareness and knowing will arise like some Frankenstinan sequela, but I believe that is an absolute cop-out. My own out of body experiences, and those described by many others, indicate to me that there is no question that something more than electrons underlies the simple phenomenon of you, Bill, looking at a picture from a past experience and understanding it, or reading what I write here and understanding that.

But, I have to add in all fairness that identities are like those little wooden dolls that used to be made in China, Russia and Jaspan wher eone nests within another within another.

The boundaries and mechasnisms which define how one shrinks down from one level of identity to another are not fully known, for sure. But I think the general pattern is a good analogy.

It is perfectly possible to have an identity which sees anything beyond the solid as delusion. That keeps things stable and predictable, largely. The reasons for doing so could be many. And from that point of view, of course, any suggestion that there is an alternative would look foppish, or delusory, or threatening, or fraudulent, or stupid depending on the individual turns.

In the final analysis, we may p'raps have to just agree to disagree, and offer the warmest of good wishes.

Dang, some one is asking me to do something productive...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: ChocolateLover
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM

Oh, I envy people with faith. I gave up on the church a long time ago (too authoritarian - and I could see clay feet they were trying to under gold cloth) and gave up on the idea of there being a God or higher spiritual being a few years ago, after my son died and a the subsequent heart searching had gone on for a year or so.

Nowadays I try and live by do as you would be done by . . . I think I'm a better person now, though, than I was then - I spend more time making sure I'm helping those that are struggling than I did before.

ChocolateLover

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM

quick reply before running out the door on errands: (mean of you to be up early and responding so fast!)

"But for sure, one of the capabilities that a spiritual being has in plentiful measure is the ability to paint out wide areas of knowing, in order to enjoy the experience of working through the ignorance and discovering the knowing behind it."

my mind SHOUTS "fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'" (could be a couple others..I need to brush up)..but the claim is stating that there IS a 'spiritual being' in order to make remarks about it!

more later, perhaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:27 PM

Amos...I am startled at your reply about James Randi's motives. You seem to accuse him of engaging in charlatanism hardly better than that which he seeks to expose! It is almost as if you are saying he really knows better, but doesn't care, or won't look at the truth. I sure would like to get HIS response to such an assertion.

"he must be aware that this impulse to convince people they are non-spiritual in nature is harmful, not to say despicable." At WHAT level? From the syntax of the statement, I gather that this is what you believe. Do I, in my ramblings above, fall into the same class of willful deceivers as Randi? Or am I exempt because I don't have a website and foundation? Should *I* know better?

Bill:

This is a complex question, but it deserves the best answer I can offer in brief. What we know and do not know is from the physical system perspective pretty much a function of serial exposure to information through experience and communications. But if you start examing whether there is any way that any knowing can be invested in a physical system you run out of answers very quickly. Information can be recorded, stored, forwarded, switched on and off, but there is a leap in quality, not just speed, complexity or quantity, when you look at "understanding" or "knowing", which are phenomena that machines can't. This raises the question of non-material aspects to the human being. THere is alot of chatter about this in NEw Age circles, of course -- you're not a human being having a spiritual experience, you're a spiritual being having a human experience, and so on. But for sure, one of the capabilities that a spiritual being has in plentiful measure is the ability to paint out wide areas of knowing, in order to enjoy the experience of working through the ignorance and discovering the knowing behind it. Or, another sort of explanation for the same thing, in order to avoid having to face areas of confusion or too much stress or pain. The shorthand for this in human terms is denial. But it is a lot more complex, because it tends to be self-fulfilling. Randi, for example, is going to be hard-put to ever experience any spiritual phenomenon. When his body dies, he may just stay black indefinitely, just because he has tried so hard to refuse acknowledgement of that side of things. Which is his privelege, I am sure.

But at some level, there is always a quiet whisper that a being could listen to, if he chose, at which he knows what he knows, without the coloration of selective blackness or painting out of things. At some level the deserter knows how his abandoned wife feels, but heaps layers of ignoral on top, because he obviously prefers not to look at that side of it.

What drives people in to rampant materialism? I don't mean just healthy intellectual interest in physical things, but in the kind of foaming refusal of any other order of event or entitiy?

My opinion is that it is a long cumulative record of pain: cognitive, emotional, or physical pain, including things like losing love, being beaten by authoritarian teachers, having your certainties overwhelmed by others, being forced to learn thigns you do not understand, and other sorts.

That's the short version.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

Amos,

if someone fails a test on paranormal abilities or even if every claimant for a long time has failed a test for paranormal abilities this means nothing at all regarding compassion, creativity,...

That's completely unconnected. There is no need to believe into anything paranormal or supernatural for these to exist. Let us take intuition as an example. Action control without conscious perception and awareness would be one of recent theories about it. Parapsychologists would rather talk about 'transliminality' but that is basically the same idea. Neither the observable facts nor the subjective experience would go away, only the postulated explanation would differ. Randi's motivation is very different from what you think.

In 1882, the Society for Psychical Research has been founded. After 120 years of collecting reports, atrifacts, photos and doing experiments I consider it a very modest demand that at least one experiment or demonstration should be clear beyond any doubt or even repeatable. Since we are still waiting for that to happen I consider the possibility that actually there may be nothing to it becoming more and more probable.

The trust in 'direct experiences' always makes me smile. In the middle ages, there were many reports about women giving birth to dogs or rats after having been scared by dogs or rats. People have sworn to have seen these things. People have sworn to have seen women riding through the sky on a broom. All these were direct experiences. My direct or less direct experiences waqrn me to mistrust any claims to direct experiences. There are very good reasons not to consider them as a proof.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM

ummmm...wow! I have been answered. As a poor, slow typist, I cringe at the task of replying to all that point by point, and today is full of tasks that preclude detailed responses.

I will, however, say a couple of things.

Amos...I am startled at your reply about James Randi's motives. You seem to accuse him of engaging in charlatanism hardly better than that which he seeks to expose! It is almost as if you are saying he really knows better, but doesn't care, or won't look at the truth. I sure would like to get HIS response to such an assertion.

"he must be aware that this impulse to convince people they are non-spiritual in nature is harmful, not to say despicable." At WHAT level? From the syntax of the statement, I gather that this is what you believe. Do I, in my ramblings above, fall into the same class of willful deceivers as Randi? Or am I exempt because I don't have a website and foundation? Should *I* know better?

Two Bears....I hardly know where to begin, and as I say, time is limited....but in all your detailed replies (which are NOT what I was seeking), I see one theme repeated.."I, Two Bears, have seen and experienced much of the phenomena you refer to, and I state that they work!"........You also state that you used to feel otherwise, BEFORE certain experiences, so presumably you know what it feels like for those of us who are not privileged to have such experiences. *little wry smile*

about Randi...I think I read on his site that the $$$$ IS in escrow! I will go read some more.
Your two examples of others challenging Randi are very brief and don't exactly clarify what was at issue and what Randi's response was...and whay the outcome was. As to Kirilan photography....I will later look up what I can find on it..(I know the 'basic' claims)..and I will wager that I can find as many de-bunking explanations of it as supportive claims FOR it....just a hunch.

re: your note to LH at the end..." 1. To the person that is a debunker (Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is made up); no amount of proof is adequate." ....isn't that what BOTH sides say, with "debunker" changed to "adherent" to suit the circumstances? *grin*

For my own part, I certainly DO have standards and levels of proof that *I* would consider adequate, but I suspect that you would say that I am 'asking the wrong questions' or 'measuring by different standards' or something. I am almost 65 now, and have tried hard for 50 of those years to HAVE the experiences YOU claim to have had.....I think my aura tangled with my karma at some point and relegated my inner conciousness to spiritual Limbo....which is about 57 miles S.E. of Wichita, Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:59 AM

Good stuff, Two Bears. I know Two Bears, guys, and he knows of what he speaks...by direct experience.
-----

Thank you for the kind words Little Hawk; but here are two things to consider.

1. To the person that is a debunker (Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is made up); no amount of proof is adequate.

2. To the people that experience paranormal experiences; no amount of proof is required.

Little Hawk: I used to be EXACTLY like them. If it can't been seen, felt and measured; it does not exist. It took an OBE, and MANY paranormal experiences to open my eyes.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:32 AM

Good stuff, Two Bears. I know Two Bears, guys, and he knows of what he speaks...by direct experience.

Hey, Two Bears, I seem to have lost your phone number. PM it to me or email it or something. I'll call you tonight.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:18 AM

Since God is theoretically (in this guy's opinion, I mean) in charge of everything...he therefore held God as responsible for ruining his life!
----

It's not God's fault that the man did not understand and apply the rules. ;-)

1. is the law of karma, "Ye reap what ye sow" was what the young carpenter said.

2. Like attracts like. His mental state attracted or pushed things away from him.

3. Balance. He works; he gets paid. Ke kills or agents acting on his behalf kills plants and animals so he can eat, etc.

4. Haromony (harmonious environment.

5. Cycles (things goes in cycles) No matter what happens. This too shall pass. Prepare in times of plenty so he will have provisions in times of want,

6. natural laws: Do not walk off a cliff expecting not to fall, Do not jump into the ocean if you do not know how to swim. Do not walk past an aligator expecting it not to act like an aligator, etc.

God always forgives. Man sometimes forgives. Nature NEVER forgives.

and more.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:58 AM

Amos...I will take a look for some of the research you mention. I have read a number of studies in the past that purported to have some significant and interesting statistics.....however, I have also read about this offer from James Randi! He has not had to spend much money recently, as the claimants don't seem to appreciate truly rigid standards for 'proof'....
-----

Do you mean the Unamazing Randi? Evelyn Paglini, Sylvia Brown, Ed Dames Sifu Richard Mooney (Lin Kong Jing Qigong master), and others have challenged Randi to put up or shut up.

Evelyn Paglini, and Sylvia Browne asked Randi to put the alleged million dollars in Escrow before the test. He refused.

Ed Dames asked for Randi to seal a photo inside an envelope (for Mr. Dames to remote view), and for police to hold the photo inside the safe until he either passed or failed.

Sifu Mooney told of his experience with Randi, and posted it on the net.

The Unamazing Randi likes to state "There is no energy field around the human body". I guess he never heard of kirlian photography. On page 20 of "Empowerment Through Reiki" Paula Horan shows kirlian photos of a Reiki master's hands before the treatment, and DURING the treatment.

Randi is a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:44 AM

Look up, if you can still find it, the research series conducted at SRI involving Ingo Swann in tele-perception and tele-kinetic effects. Woth digging in to. I believe Swann has written a couple of books about it. Strong evidence for exterior perception, etc.
-----

Good for you. This is Remote Viewing. They tested Mr. Swann, and many others in a submarine deep in the sea, and in a faraday (SP) cage to see if these mental frequencies could be blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:33 AM

Can those of you who believe in astrology, psychic healing, alternative medicine, witchcraft & magic, Tarot, Ouija boards, demonic possession, alien landings, telepathy, Phrenology, Palmistry, reincarnation, and various versions of spiritual forces manifested by various Messiahs and Prophets really say that your claims are just as good as those of properly done science?
-----

Astrology? No. I believe we create our future by the choices we make.

Psychic healing? ABSOLUTELY! I am an energy healer Actualism, HUNA, Reiki, Seichim, and have studied more than a dozes modalities. In 1980 I was diagnosed with a TERMINAL disease (Drushane Muscular Dystrophy) and was given 6-12 months to live. I went from riding a motorcycle to riding a wheelchair. I have seen FAR too many miracles happen under my hands to ignore them. I have seen nerves, ligaments and muscles regenerate on four minutes. As a matter of fact; I was present to witness FOUR miracles last Novemer 22nd. None are as blind as those that will not see.

Alternative medicine? There is nothing wrong with alternative medicine provided that it is used as a supplement to and NOT a replacement FOR proper health care.

Witchcraft and Magic? Absolutely! I was in pipe circle, and saw this with my own eyes, and I don;t care if you believe it or not. Every time the ceremonial leader gave an offering of tobacco to the 6 directions; Here came a HUGE gust of wind bending over the trees so the sun could shine into the circle of trees. Once upon a time Alberto Villoldo trusted science. He had a Ph.D in Medical Anthropology, and Challenged a Shaman to influence his health negatively, and he tells of his experience at the beginning of his book "Shaman: Healer: Sage. Michael Harner a well credentialed Academic (Ph.D in Anthropology) saw what the Shamans did,and many others.

Tarot? No. The Tarot was designed in the 14th century by Kabbalists to preserve their teachings through the dark ages.

The four suits represent the four elements, the four face cards
represent the four worlds, the cards numbered 1-10 of each suit
represent the 10 sephiroth (spheres of consciousness on the tree of
life. There are 22 cards of the major arcana. There are 22 paths
interconnecting the 10 sephiroth on the tree of life, and there are
22 letters in the Jewish alphabet.

Ouija boards? It is not the board at all, one can paint letters on a smooth board, and use an upside down glass as the planchette. It works by opening the mind to communication from the dead.

Demonic posession? Absolutely! I have done more than my share of exorcisms. I know about 15 different way to do it. The Hawaiian Way, the Native American way, the Catholic way, the protestant way, the Shinto way, etc. I have even gone in places where a Catholic priest as picked up and thrown halfway across the room. Brad Steiger challenged an entity, and he, and two others were picked up in mid air in the presence of several witnesses.

Alien Landings? I have seen four things in the sky (over my life) I believe to be UFOs. I never saw any of them land, or aliens, but I DID see four Air Force jets running away from a UFO, and taking evasive maneuvers.

Phrenology? I have MAJOR doubts of this.

Palmistry? No because if a person changed the way they close their hands consistently; you can force your hand to change the lines in the hand over time.

Reincarnation? ABSOLUTELY!

-----
Or, look at the list above....do YOU believe in ALL of those? And why not? If Tarot is 'valid', why not ghosts? If they are not subject to the usual tests and scrutiny demanded by good science, then why exclude any of them? One of the tenets of logic is that "from a false premise, anything follows", but I see so many claims that, when examined, presuppose accepting something at the beginning that is, by definition, not testable. THEN the claimant will turn around and assert that "science is no better, because it is constantly having to change its theories and revise its answers"....as if the two situations were comparable!
-----

Ghosts ARE valid. Most of the entities (they believe to be demons) people experience are actually earth bound spirits that are kept here by their addiction to drugs or alcohol, attachment to posessions, fear of being punished if they crossed to the realm of spirit. I have encoutered a few demons. When you encounter one; you will be changed.

Two Bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:37 AM

Said another way (from my previous post), we are so enamored with the technological advances and knowledge explosion provided by science that we seem to have given science "done deal" credit for having already solved the puzzle that is the universe. Our faith is absolute and "religious" (maybe blindly religious) in the potential of science to answer all the questions
-----

If memory serves; someone in Congress or the Senats seriously suggested or introduced a bill to close the patent office. in the early 20th century (1903 if memory serves).

Since then; there has been the following inventions. The Airplane. the television, Color Television, Beta Max video tape machines, VHS video tape machines, the computer, memory, Disk drives 8 inches, 5.25, and 3.5 inch disks, hard drives, Zip drives, the Internet Xmodem checksum, Xmodem CRC, Ymodem, Zmodem, and numerous transfer protocols, CD player, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 08:41 PM

Randi's motivation is to demonstrate the basic material nature of all life by taking advantage of the confusion on the subject to nullify any inkling in an individual that there might be some spiritual aspect to our kind.   

At some level he must be aware that this impulse to convince people they are non-spiritual in nature is harmful, not to say despicable. But like any drug-addict, the balance with which to view the problem is not possible to one who is acting it out.

The highest and best of our natures is also the half of ourselves found on the other side of the material/spiritual divide. So if you dedicate your efforts to proving that there is no such side to life, you are pushing pretty hard to suppress the best of which we are capable -- the intutiitive, the creative, the knowing and the compassionate.

The nearest matter and energy come to these qualities is a resonant-frequency tank circuit or the collapse of Galloping Gertie, the twisted and ruined bridge over the Tacoma Narrows. ..a purely mechanistic imitation, with all the understanding of a Panzer tank tread.

That's my story anyway, and I'm sticking to it!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 08:34 PM

I have ALWAYS found that "Faith" is diminished the moment that someone opens their mouth and speaks of it to another person. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:56 PM

oh...and by the way...I REALLY think that careless and ambiguous use of language causes many of the disputes and misunderstandings! "Faith" has been used several ways here....which is ok, as Jerry's question seemed to ask about ways it was used...but people keep arguing about such words as if they had a clear idea of what they were talking about--and they often don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:46 PM

Amos...yes, I suppose you wouldn't care for Randi...but what would you suspect his motives as being? As to the remark: " I believe that non-physical phenomena are important, and should be examined on terms consistent with how they work."..............

I, of course, include in my enquiries about life, one that asks "IS there any such thing as non-physical phenomena, ultimately?"

I know of phenomena like emotions and thoughts...but, when pressed, I would classify them differently--that is, with different nomenclature: perhaps subjective as opposed to objective. When I examine all my experiences, I find nothing that doesn't *seem* to have a physical basis. Some of the items in my experience can be weighed and measured, some can only be...ummmm...experienced. However, even thoughts and emotions can be monitored physically by means of electrodes and readouts. This does not 'explain' exactly how they get there, or what 'love' is and how we are able to have concepts like 'non-physical'...but it does tell me that 'physical' stuff is happening when I have emotions and dreams and ideas.

To underline what Wolfgang said, I have no need (no desire AND no requirement) to invent 'interesting' concepts to explain everything that can't be measured or understood easily. This is not to say the questions are not interesting! I have for many years collected cartoons on "The Meaning of Life", and it is absolutely fascinating to read the various (serious) historical answers in Philosophy and Theology.(I almost had a career in "meddling in everyone else's thinking") It gives me some extra input to what I consider to be the VERY most important element in evaluating life...perspective...the ability to see relationships and origins and details and see how they relate.

I do not claim to be an authority on much (getting close on types of wood)...others, and especially others here at Mudcat, have far greater knowlege of specific fields, but I do try to know 'about' many things and know where to get answers when I need detail.

I am beginning to think that, as interesting as I find these questions that we debate here, it will be extremely rare to find anyone who has their mind changed as a result. I suspect that a predilection for 'faith', belief in the paranormal, and an "interest in unexplicable wonders", like Wolfgang's friend, may be deeply programmed into many people. I have NO idea if it could be genetic, hormonal, or simply a result of complex interactions with 'life' during the formative years. As I said WAY back up there ^, I got my attitudes slowly, and it 'felt' like I was participating in the decision to become a sceptic..*BIG grin*...but maybe I just didn't nurse long enough when I was a baby.

No easy answers, hmmm?...but like Utah Phillips said.."Good, though"

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:00 PM

Well, as long as they don't give God a bad name!! Being God is a rough enough row to hoe without that! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

Speaking of Nietsche and God, Bill, you reminded me...there was some guy who decided to sue God a few years back.   Why? Because his life hadn't worked out like he'd hoped. He hadn't gotten the kind of job, marriage, and other great stuff he'd been hoping and praying for all his life. Since God is theoretically (in this guy's opinion, I mean) in charge of everything...he therefore held God as responsible for ruining his life! He sued the Creator for many millions of dollars.

This idiot actually found a lawyer willing to represent him (in California, I presume), and launched a civil suit against God. It got to court (I forget which level). They chewed on it for awhile, but couldn't figure out how to get God in the witness box. Eventually the judge threw it out. By the way, this same guy didn't just sue God, he also sued the US government, the state government, and several other large entities of that sort. All of them had apparently ruined his life. He got no satisfaction whatsoever. Only his lawyer understood (ha, ha).

He didn't seem to understand the concept of individual free will and responsibility for one's choices and actions.

People like this give other more reasonable people who believe in God a bad name. They should be sued for everything they've got! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Tinker
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:50 PM

And I have to admit that I'm smiling to myself as I type, because my use of the term reduce was not painstakingly chosen, but in hindsight exactly how I act. I have a tendency when something is just outside my range of understanding ( and this includes very mudane issues like refinancings of corporate financials at various rates,terms,and structures, about which I know very little) to pursue understanding like a terrier after a bone. I will tear apart books and web searches looking to scratch the itch with understanding. Some answers are easier to find than others, and I've learnt that sometimes understanding comes when you simply Let the Mystery Be .

And yes, I've had occaision to be annoyed at folks who "reduce" the unknown to things that to me aren't that hard to wrap a sensible explanation around. But I feel most folks have had experiences which don't fit comfortably inside everyday experience,scientific explanation, or religious dogmas. We can push them aside and not think about them until they are forgotten or rationalized, or we can embrace it as part of the yet unknown. I personally perfer the later. It's just my choice.

Kathy

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:46 PM

Wolfgang:

Ah -- sorry for misinterpeting your point. I concur that understanding is in no way a reduction. But I can also appreciate that one way to dampen the beauty of some really impressive event in nature is to analyze it by parts. The numerical frequencies of the spectrum are much less beautiful than the rainbow, no?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:40 PM

"Science for me isn't anything even remotely similar to a faith or religion. John H. seems to think that"

no, he does not. I know my post was too long for a discussion forum (when forum posts exceed two lines they are usually deciphered as saying, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...."). Hence, I can understand your having misread me.

What I said was that when these types of discussions occur and science is brought up (as a contrast to faith) it is usually by people who misunderstand the difference between scientific method and those who have staked their claim to having arrived at their conclusions about the universe through science (and thereby also claiming intellectual highground).

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

Amos, my point was merely a quibble with the word 'reduce' and not with the whole point. That's why I only have cited the part with the word 'reduce'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:00 PM

WOlfgang:

It is unlike you to argue a point taken out of context! The actual statement I applauded was speaking to the quality of faith: "Faith for me is also remembering to fullly grasp and experience life even when I can't reduce it to an understandable and rational explanation . That is not to say --at least I never interpreted it that way -- that one should not seek rational explanation. There is a quiet openness and wonder in the presence of phenomena that appears to exceed one's rational models or known answers. Even scientists need to have the same openness in order to really see new data. But, granted, they don't speak of it in mystic or emotional terms, although Einstein did on occasion. Your companion who wanted to make the green flash mystical was entitled to her sense of mystery, but I prefer your brand of rationalism for most things.

Bill D:

I have spoken of Ingo Swann frequently in threads of this kind because he was a friend many years ago, and I find his discussions of remote viewing and such things persuasive; but I have not submitted his reports to extreme skepticism as James Randi would. I don't think much of Randi, as you can well guess. I distrust his motivation. Much, perhaps, as he would distrust mine, I guess. I believe that non-physical phenomena are important, and should be examined on terms consistent with how they work. I also believe it is perfectly possible to be scientific without being materialistic, another way of saying the same thing, perhaps.   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:42 PM

The meandering of this thread is really interesting. Science wasn't discussed or mentioned before John H. introduced it after one third of the whole thread. And now the reality of paranormal phenomena is discussed. Amos, as usual, mentions Ingo Swann. Yes, he has written his account , titled appropriately The real story. I'm tired of countering all those claims and just cite a parapsychologist, Irwin (1999), An introduction to parapsychology, a man certainly with a lot of sympathies for the paranormal, who writes on p. 317 of his book: That paranormal phenomena exist is at best uncertain. A fine summary in my eyes.
(As usual, I can agree with everything Bill writes about science.)

I'd like to go far back in the discussion to the beginning and add two thoughts:

(1) ...even when I can't reduce it to an understandable and rational explanation That line from Tinker, applauded by Amos, points to one of the biggest splits between humans. When I was sitting with a friend at the West Coast of Clare watching the sunset, she was saying 'Have you seen that the last ray of sunlight looked greenish? Isn't that intriguing' I said 'Yes, I have been waiting for that effect. That is an aftereffect...'. I soon realised she had no interest in any explanation, she only had interest in unexplicable wonders. We didn't stay together. For me, a rational or scientific explanation never is a 'reduction', it is an enrichment of my perception and life. But I know others are different. I think it was Hesperis who said in one of the old threads isn't the world much nicer if there is something miraculous left? I'm convinced that there will always be something spectacularly miraculous left for us, but an explanation never takes away the fun for me, it only adds to the fun and the sense of wonder.

(2) Science for me isn't anything even remotely similar to a faith or religion. John H. seems to think that and I know some scientists think that but I consider them spectacularly wrong. It is a method which is limited to a subset of possible questions (like all methods, it has its tenets which cannot be questioned within the system, but that doesn't make it a religion for me; its tenets seems to be fine for it works so well).

Which questions? Those that are in principle decidable. Those on which you would place a bet. You would bet (if you would at all) on which team wins the next (choose your sport) world cup, you wouldn't on which team is the most lovable for you wouldn't know how to decide that. Science answers what is questions and never what should questions.

Will the world temperature rise? What effect could that have on...? Which measures can reduce an increase and which can't? These are questions for science, even if with the present knowledge there is no agreement among scientists. Is a rise in temperature good for us? What is worse, a potential breakdown of economy or a potential flooding? How far should we go to prevent even the smallest increase? These are not questions for science.

I consider many of the questions which I consider unscientific in the sense of undecidable worthwhile questions and would never stop asking them or even answering them. Questions of morale, welfare, human rights, what politics are best for... are extremely interesting questions and worth of long discussions. For those questions I use the nearest to what I have to a faith as I have stated far above. To be a scientist or not has nothing at all to do with how I respond to those unscientific questions. I do hate, however, if what I consider a scientific question (like, for instance, the age of the earth, or the position of the earth in the solar system), gets a response which is inspired by a faith.

I'm interested in a vast number of questions that are scientific and also in vast number of those that are unsicentific (you have understood by now that this is a purely descriptive term; some of the deepest questions in my life have been of this type). But there is also a third type of questions in which most of the difference between me and the majority here lies: Those questions to which the answer doesn't interest me.

These are the questions that are neither decidable nor (for me personally, but I know that there can be very different assessments of relevance) relevant for my life. What for do we exist? Is there a God? Is our whole cosmos just one 'atom' in the make-up of a immensely larger cosmos? These are some examples of such questions for me. Nothing in my life or in my decisions depends upon answers to these questions and that's why I do not ask them. As I said above, in my daily decisions and my moral pondering I am hardly different from any Christian over here. I just see no reason for me to fill unexplained or unexplainable questions with answers from a religion. Centuries ago I wouldn't have been one of those who had to explain something they couldn't understand (thunder, for instance) by an action of a God. I can live my life with many unanswered questions and still be happy.

As for questions of moral and ethics I consider the religions I know a very fine basis. Neither my wife nor I believe in any religion but still we send our daughter to religious instruction in school. We both consider religious instruction a good starting point for ethical behaviour. But when my daughter asks me about God I tell her the truth.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:27 PM

I saw those posts from Nietzsche & God many times....but handwriting authenticating said Nietzshe's was faked, and it was difficult getting a genuine copy of God's for comparison *grin*....It is, however, interesting that only God's claim could be checked out...Nietzsche is, indeed, dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: pdq
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM

...from graffiti in the '60s...


               "God is dead"   -   Nietzche

               (obfuscated, replaced by)

               "Nietzche is dead"    -   God

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:36 PM

Little Hawk, this is the part I left out...xx..e

(PS- I WISH I could; fly, and move back and forth in time, and live underwater, and visit other worlds, and talk to all things in nature in their own language. I wish I could speak all the languages of the human world, and I wish I had the brain to not only figure out a way to instantly make this a peaceful planet, but a completely healthy one for everything on it.
I'd also wish for a constant supply of really first class chocolate, but I'd gladly relinquish this if I have all my other wishes granted instead.)

The striving is all (perhaps)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:23 PM

(tried to post this last night, but Mudcat was not responding)

Amos...I will take a look for some of the research you mention. I have read a number of studies in the past that purported to have some significant and interesting statistics.....however, I have also read about this offer from James Randi! He has not had to spend much money recently, as the claimants don't seem to appreciate truly rigid standards for 'proof'....

(and before I get all the replies that say that Randi's standards are not applicable to those phenomena, or that the very testing disturbs the 'mood' necessary for paranormal phenomena, or that he is not interpreting the results properly, or that 'proof' is not needed for those who 'know'....etc., let me say that withoutsome way to verify them objectively, the claims have very little relevance for society at large. Perhaps those who have the experiences will just continue to say "I saw what I saw" etc., but that is merely circular affirmation that 'something' happened, not 'what' happened.)

stubborn old curmudgeon, ain't I?...but BOY would I LOVE to see Randi have to pay!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:14 PM

Sounds like you grew up in a very similar family to mine, Ellenpoly.

But here's a thought: you can visit all those other galaxies and such... as a spirit (a disembodied mind that travels wherever it wishes).

But you don't have to believe that just cos I say it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:54 AM

This is certainly an intriguing thread, and these are some the random thoughts I've been having because of it…(It's kind of long, forgive me...I wrote more when the website went down again!)

I need to begin with a brief story. I met a man while running a guesthouse in Greece, and during our conversation, we began talking about life in general, and our hopes, and dreams. I said that I was pretty disgusted with how humanity was still choosing to behave, and if I had my druthers, I'd wipe the species off the planet and give it back to all the other creatures, who seemed to be able to live here without purposely or otherwise, systematically destroying the very planet that gave them sustenance.
As I was speaking, I watched him growing more and more agitated, until he fairly exploded with anger at me. And as he ranted on about, well I'm not sure, but it was pretty much how wrong I was to want to give up on my species, I suddenly felt a light bulb flicker on, and I turned to him, kind of politely interrupting, to ask if he had any children. He stopped, and with a face reddened from his efforts to tell me why it was important to keep faith with humanity, he slowly nodded his head, and whispered, "Yes, I have two children."
At which point I knew what was going on here. Without realising it, I had shaken the very foundations of this man's faith. How could he hear me talking so calmly about wanting to eliminate my species when he had taken on the responsibility of procreating and raising two humans that represented the next generation?

To me, faith and hope are inextricably combined. To live in our world and not be able to visualise or comprehend a better way to live and love would be so devastating to our very thought patterns that I wonder if we are actually capable of it.

And here is where I find myself stuck. On many levels, I don't have faith in anything or anyone. I don't know why I was created along with the world I live on, or the stars and galaxies I will most likely and sadly never visit. This does not scare me, nor make me feel I am less connected to the whole thing. But it's a mystery for which I have no explanation, nor need one. I simply love the mystery.

Therein lies the rub, I think. People are rarely comfortable with unanswered questions. Our curiosity often matches our fears, and both feel more balanced once we can find a structure within which to build our walls of thought. The belief systems vary in as many ways as there are groups and individuals to conceive them.

One hears that phrase "having one's faith shaken" and behind that lies why I don't seem to have the need to have to imagine anything intangible about this thing we call life (and for that matter, death.) If one does not have faith, then one's faith is never going to be shaken.

It does fascinate me that as a species we seem to need faith, as much as we need to take in oxygen, but I don't know if I'll ever understand why it is necessary, except that both belief and faith have allowed much that is creative…and much that is destructive to be realized.

Faith seems to help the brain heal the body. But there are some beliefs that encompass a faith that seems to be powerful enough to actually harm the body. Faith seems to let people sleep easier because there is something or someone watching over them, and providing either a source of constant unwavering love, and/or constant, unwavering energy to keep us whole and functioning well. But the fear of losing one's faith can keep people awake and in sorrow. Faith also allows people to give up a smaller sense of themselves for a greater belonging to a stronger, more encompassing and protective power.

It seem to me that faith needs some kind of inner communication, a language to explain itself, rather than just the acceptance that we have a brain and body, and while we are alive, we are responsible for what that brain and body produces. But as I said towards the beginning of this far-too lengthy posting, maybe we can't help ourselves. Maybe the higher function of our brains demands that we use the thought process to create a faith, just as our bodies are built to procreate our species.

I've spent a goodly portion of my life in the study of "us", and we are a complicated crew. We are driven by our physiology and our emotions, and our ability to reason and question. We have developed wants, no longer necessarily based on needs, and we have shown ourselves to be capable of change to a certain extent, but our evolutionary process hasn't really developed for millennia.

We will pick and choose all those things tangible and intangible that make us feel saf(er), and within the complexity of that safety net, we will live and die. Our choices are legion, and for that, we will rely on our shared parts of our "reality tunnels" to communicate them to others. Our hopes and beliefs, and our faith, however it manifests itself will be our ultimate salvation or destruction.

For me, I say….let's sing and dance and love where we can…because we can…xx..e

(PS- I was not brought up in a religious household, and so for me, it was not a part of my living structure. I'd have to say that my parents had a belief system based more on political theory and practice than anything else. They were intensely moral, tolerant, dedicated, and supportive people, but in my mother's case especially, there was a definite distrust, bordering on dislike, for any organised religions. (This was not due to intolerance for religion, per se, but what she felt it was responsible for…think "opiate of the masses".) She did her best not to impose this on me, but I can remember finding it almost impossible to say the pledge of allegiance at school, without "blipping" over the word "god". So it's useful to me to always remember how much our parents influence us towards our later thought structures, whether to confirm them or to push violently away from.)


*********************************

"Confidence, reliance, trust"… Words used to describe Faith.

In the story of Pandora, (who was created by Prometheus, later to be punished for giving fire to humanity) Pandora is tempted to open a box, containing all the ills of the world. They all flew out, except Hope, which she managed to save inside the box, and therefore preserving hope for humanity. One wonders at the irony of that particular aspect of humanity being in such rough company in the first place.
Hope. In Hope we trust. We hope that things will get better. We hope that lives will improve. We hope that our children will grow up healthy and full of love. We hope for ourselves and for our world.
And in that hope, in its manifestation through a God or Creator, or All That Is, we place our Faith.

But is it possible that hope, or faith, can also be a way that stops us from taking responsibility for our actions? We say we have faith in our love of our friends, and in our belief that the sun will rise each day…The former is based on our confidence in our own emotional commitments, and the later on our confidence in the science of the Universe as we know it.
Both of these kinds of faith reside in our brains, in our conscious ability to think and rationalise and feel.
If we were any other forms of fauna or flora, we might not be able to conceive of the idea of faith, much less make use of it.
Is faith only a human trait? If we weren't in the picture, would the whole idea of a Creation fall apart? Is the fact of our faith reliant on the fact of our being?
Must we have a concept of faith? Is it part of our human survival technique?

There is a part of me that has searched for this faith; in religions, philosophies, science, you name it, I've looked for it. And there have been times when I think I've got a handle on it. I can almost believe in something so completely, without needing proof or anything tangible, other than my own mind telling me that it is real and important, and can be relied on.

   This is what my mind tells me…

I have faith in love as a powerful, healing force
But then I also have faith that there is power in the opposite of love, which can be equally as destructive.

I have faith that the human mind is capable of being much more creative than it presently is. I do not have faith that it will be developed in time to save our species from self-destruction.

I have great faith in the ability of the Universe to survive without our species.

That's it. But I have hope and wishes…

My hope is that we as a species will waken to what we have, and what we are responsible for, and…

I hope we will find a way to overcome our fears and our greed in time to save ourselves and our planet…

I wish I was more optimistic, but I would rather live without a hope that blinds me or a faith that allows me to procrastinate because I am not taking the full responsibility of my actions each moment of each day.

If faith is a bulwark against the hard stuff, then perhaps we would work harder without it to fall back on. But perhaps that's not possible. Perhaps we need to believe, and to hope, to have confidence and reliance and trust, because those concepts in themselves hold a power from which to draw the strength to keep trying…slowly and hesitantly, as it might often seem to be.
Fini, and Pax..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:19 AM

Excellent post, Freda.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:18 AM

this thread has meandered a little....

faith seems to be a very personal thing,
belief is someone else's view of it.

everything can be coloured by the views of the onlooker.

eg Freud saw religion as an infantile desire for parental protection.

Jung saw religion as the fulfillment of a basic human need.

some belief systems (eg some forms of buddhism) practise irony and self questioing as an art form. rather than imposing held beliefs, they continually challenge held beliefs, n perceptions. by challenging methods of thinking, they are practising logic, using analytical skills and debating techniques like any greek philosopher might.

a strong belief in athiesm is a dogma like any other, and as limiting.

some forms of religion have moved away from icons, projecting human identities, personalities or motives on to a view of a spiritual being or consciousness. but how does a human mind grasp something non human. can it?

religions teach various methods to help (a human mind to grasp ..) while those methods, costumes, rituals, statements, songs, dances, frenzies, quiet moments all vary, some people benefit from these methods and achieve an experience of insight, one ness, closeness..

are they mad or lucky?

infantile or liberated?

blessed or cursed?

sighted or blinded by dogma?

depends on who you ask because.. its all in..

the eye of the beholder.

freda

2.16 am

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:14 AM

Another piece of this puzzle is the distinction between faith (a quality of conscious awareness in the ubniverse) and faith IN (a decision about the reliability of a certain entitity or pattern as a source of something).

A lot of very aware people have no faith IN anything; but they have a high degree of faith. They just haven't iconified it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:14 AM

yes. It's so much safer and more responsible to believe in nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 09:51 AM

BELIEFS

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

                      Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:07 PM

BillD:

Look up, if you can still find it, the research series conducted at SRI involving Ingo Swann in tele-perception and tele-kinetic effects. Woth digging in to. I believe Swann has written a couple of books about it. Strong evidence for exterior perception, etc.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:03 PM

(LH)"I gather that you are basically uninterested in, let's say, tarot, psychic healing, interplanetary visitors, and so on."

(Bill D)"oh, NO! You do me a grave injustice, Little Hawk! I am fascinated by all that stuff! I have read seience fiction for 50 years, and LOVE the idea of telepathy, aliens, psychic abilities, etc...I tried for YEARS to 'do' things and 'see' things and understand why they might work. I can't tell you exactly why I was so stubborn and wanted proof before I believed, but that's the way it is."

Great, Bill. That is cool. I was fascinated by stuff like that long before I believed in any of it too. I took great pride in knowing that I was smart enough to know that all that unscientific, unproven stuff wasn't real! (up till I reached my 20's) Maybe this means that the experiences that you need as personal proof for you are right around the corner...or maybe not. :-) Depends, like I said, on your personal path in life...and that is chosen freely by you. You are the master of your destiny.

My wording in that last post was poorly chosen, perhaps. I think what's more important is what you believe, rather than what you are interested in.   What I mean is, people interpret life according to their beliefs. They are always finding evidence to support their beliefs, and that can make them open to some things, less open to others, and totally oblivious to still others. I am surrounded by people who are oblivious to things that are obvious to me...when I talk to them about it, they just stare at me blankly or dismiss the whole matter as "unimportant" or "weird" or whatever....which means it doesn't fit their beliefs or priorities. That tells me much more about them than it does about the subject of discussion. It tells me what they believe in. Try talking, for instance, to a fundamentalist Christian about reincarnation. :-) It won't be a very fruitful discussion. Talk to a Hindu or a Buddhist about it, though, and he knows immediately what you are speaking of and you can have a great time discussing the possibilities and different ideas about it. Talk to an uncommitted but open-minded and curious person and you can again have a great discussion.

(Bill D) "and I must say, Winona Ryder and the lottery are not exactly comparable situations to aliens and telepathy! Real people DO meet and date Winona and win the lottery...real people SAY they have been in a flying saucer and read the minds of their Aunt Sadie, but they can't do it reliably under controlled conditions."

What???? Real people date Winona???? Gosh, I... Well, I just... IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!   Waaaah!

No, no, not a good counterpoint, Bill. It's entirely comparable. Real people DO experience alien encounters and telepathy, and far more of them, I think, than have ever dated Winona Ryder or ever shall. You just don't think they do, that's all, and there's nothing I can do about that whatsoever. (grin) The aliens are not willing to submit to our petty schedules and laboratories in order to provide you with "reliable proof under controlled conditions". Why the hell would they? Did Samuel De Champlain allow the beavers to study him in a cage? As for telepathy, God knows, there have been enough controlled studies by now to provide some empirical evidence for that, but what the heck...people will still believe it or not believe it according to their intial prejudices on the matter. They aren't interested in evidence unless it backs up their established viewpoint. I think you will find a good deal of that attitude in the world of professional science too...often because Big Money is involved.

And about the Universe being "kind and generous, in that it usually provides people with more or less what they are looking for...either consciously or subconsciously."

Well, that's just good psychology, Bill. Ask any psychiatrist or therapist worth their diploma whether people's conscious and subconscious expectations tend to bring them what they focus on in life... It doesn't matter whether you choose to personalize "the Universe" or not, it still happens anyway. Thus it says in the Bible "Seek and ye shall find". Negative thinking usually yields negative results...and the seeker finds precisely what his imagination sought for him. Same goes for positive thinking. If you're deeply afraid of things, they tend to come up in your life. If you deeply love things, they tend to come up in your life. Ever noticed that in yourself or anyone else?

The World is not a series of accidental phenomena. It's interactive, just like a well-written computer program. You gotta play the game intelligently and wisely to yield good results, but you are allowed to play it as badly and incompetently as you desire, of course. One sees quite a bit of that.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 08:04 PM

"I gather that you are basically uninterested in, let's say, tarot, psychic healing, interplanetary visitors, and so on."

oh, NO! You do me a grave injustice, Little Hawk! I am fascinated by all that stuff! I have read seience fiction for 50 years, and LOVE the idea of telepathy, aliens, psychic abilities, etc...I tried for YEARS to 'do' things and 'see' things and understand why they might work. I can't tell you exactly why I was so stubborn and wanted proof before I believed, but that's the way it is.

and I must say, Winona Ryder and the lottery are not exactly comparable situations to aliens and telepathy! Real people DO meet and date Winona and win the lottery...real people SAY they have been in a flying saucer and read the minds of their Aunt Sadie, but they can't do it reliably under controlled conditions.

and---"The Universe is kind and generous, in that it usually provides people with more or less what they are looking for...either consciously or subconsciously."

That is either just plain false, or those built in disclaimers render it hollow & useless...(reminds me of old "Preparation H" commercials..."Using this medication ..., often helps shrink swelling and gives prompt temporary relief from the painful burning, itching and irritation of inflamed hemorrhoidal tissues."...*grin*

"I had a VERY smart dog once, I'd say, "Sit up, or won't you..and he either sat up, or he didn't"

Jerry.." I have seen dramatic healings of health that defy explanation"...yep, me too...but to me, of course, it's just that there is no explanation easily found. I don't feel competent to provide one when the doctors can't.

and I do always wonder how to identify the 'lunatic Christians' properly on that enormous scale, Jerry...*grin*.. kinda like 'folk music'...either end of the line is clear, but it shore gets murky in the middle!

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:46 PM

Well, Bill, yer a danged good feller and so if that's what you believe then that's what you believe. Can't say you ain't closed mined 'er a non-believer.

Now as fir facts. That's all they are. Just facts. You can know every danged fact in the world and without at least some imagination or curiousity, they ain't worth a danged. So if you can accept that "imagination is more important than knowledge" as Eistein tells us then you are your *spiritual" self is in the upper etchelon (badly mispelled) of spritual people and...

... ol' Bobert got faith in ya'...

(Hey to Rita....)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Faith
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

well, brucie, I can agree with that, the way you state it. You, and many others, simply feel better with the idea of a creator. It is a beautiful notion, in abstract, and I'd like to think that at least one of the pretty stories about it all were true....but I don't feel ANY need to have an absolute answer. I am truly content to be amazed and awed at what is here...and out 'there'.

If a creator does suddenly appear in such a way that even *I* cannot dispute**, I will have some pointed questions for 'it' about why we silly mortals were allowed to wallow about so long with muddled and ambiguous guidance! *wry grin* If I am zapped in my tracks, so be it!

**(sure...I can imagine stuff happening that would convince me..clouds parting, voice rumbling in all languages at once, stars aligned to spell out "PAY ATTENTION" and "STOP THAT!"...but NOT weeping stautes or 27 feuding denominations with different Holy Texts)...and before Little Hawk pops on to assure me that God is everywhere and I am thus part of God, I gotta say that if I can't wrap my head around the idea, it has to remain just poetry...pretty poetry, though.