 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Faith
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM With all of the threads about religion, I don't ever remember one about faith. Most of the threads are divisive, pitting people against each other. But, everyone lives by faith. And hope. At least, that's what I believe. In Hebrews 11:1, faith is described this way: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith and hope are inseparable from each other. I believe that every Catter has faith and hope. Faith and hope may get a little shakey when you're in a depression, I know. But in the long run, it is faith and hope that will bring you through. Faith has no denomination. Friends of mine like Bill D have a strong faith, and is an Atheist. I don't consider that an oxymoron. I would love to see us set aside our judgment of religions for a minute and just share what we have faith in. That's where our common ground is. So, what gets you through the dark night of the soul? What (or who) gives you hope when everything seems hopeless? Faith and trust are soul mates, too. If you are married, faith is an essential ingredient. If your mate is "unfaithful" to you, there is no way you can have hope. Whenever you have a loving relationship with someone, in and out of marriage, or just in a friendship, you need to have faith in the other person. And then, as part of the trifecta, there is love. In 1st Corinthians 13:13 it says "Amd now abideth faith, hope and love; but the greatest of these is love." Whatever your faith is, it is at the heart of who you are. That holds true if you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic or Atheist. I respect you all. If you aren't uncomfortable about it, I'd love to hear what the foundation of your life is. I'm not concerned about what religion you belong to, or if you don't belong to any. I would just find it refreshing and uplifting to hear where you heart lies. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:17 AM Good subject for a discussion, Jerry. I have always separated my religion (community) from my faith. I think that I have always had faith in the belief good will triumph over evil. This leads me to believe in the basic goodness of wo/mankind. There will be aberrations, Hitler being one, but ultimately I have to have faith that we will do the right thing. If not, then hope is lost and if that happens, what is left? I think I am going to stop here and think this through more. One sign of a great thread for me is when I start to write and my mind starts running down 12 "what if" paths at once. I think this is going to be a good one. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: "Love" v "charity" From: Steve Parkes Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:36 AM Paul used the word agape in that letter to the Christian community at Corinth, which was usually rendered as love elsewhere in the NT (where it applies to God's love). Agape in classical Greek writing has the senes of love, founded in admiration, veneration, esteem; i.e. human love, but not in the erotic sense. Jerome, translating into Latin, used caritas to distinguish this sense; charity, the English equivalent, has largely lost this sense today (although the opposite of uncharitable would be nearly right). Think of the sense Jesus meant when he said inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Just be good to one another! Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: mooman Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:46 AM As a Buddhist I can certainly subscribe to Jerry's post. The following is from a Christian site about Buddhism and pretty well sums up my philosophy To the Buddhist, whether we speak of "rights" or "duty," when the illusion of self disappears, neighbour, beast, mountain, and tree all cry out for the same respect, freedom, and charity. Excellent thread topic Jerry. Peace to all, moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:48 AM Some of the best people I know seem to live with a great inner certainty about the unfolding of life -- that it is meaningful, and positive, From that foundation, they get throught he tribulations with courage and humor, because their core truth doesn't waver -- they know they will be all right and can make good things happen, and the universe will go along with that. This certainty also informs the way they communicate, the way they deal with others, and their general grace in living. It is what I think of as faith, in its essence, because I have little patience with labels and icons and the sort of mechanism that formalized religions seem fond of. It is a faith in the power of the universe for good, and it transcends all labels and categories. It is just as true for a Hindu as it is for a Communist. ANd it does not shake easily. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Sttaw Legend Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:53 AM What about Hope and Charity ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bobjack Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:56 AM Faith Hill. woof! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Dave the Gnome Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:57 AM I like faith. It helps me believe in myself:-) Or a more serious application of the same argument. If you can believe that something is right, or wrong for that matter, you must believe in your own powers of thought and reasoning. If you can believe in your own powers of thought and reasoning you must have faith in yourself. If you have faith in yourself it is a simple step to have faith in somthing else. How can those who claim to have no faith at all expect us to believe that they have faith enough in themselves to win their own arguments? Works for me;-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:11 AM Hey, mooman: I have two sons. My oldest son believes in God, and considers himself a Catholic, although he is not particularly committed to a particular denomination. My youngest son was very serious about christianity growing up, and is an Agnostic now. And still very serious about spiritual matters. When he was a teenage, he became very interested in Buddhism, and read extensively. We talked a lot about Buddhism, and all the goodness in the faith. I believe that in time, he will come back to God... either as a Christian or a Buddhist. There is much to be praised in both faiths. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:19 AM And Steve: Thanks for the illumination on charity and love. I wonder if anyone remembers the Donna Summers and Musical Youth song Everlasting Love? It's the only pop song I can think of that refers to agape. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM My understanding of Creation is this: Creation cannot be separated from the Creator. Creation is what happens when Divinity expresses itself in form. All beings are tiny sparks of Divinity. Consciousness is Divinity being aware of itself. Creation has purpose. The purpose of Creation is learning and growth. So for me, faith comes with the understanding that everything that happens contributes to my learning and my growth. And that, in turn, contributes to the learning and growth of all of Creation, and of Divinity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:05 PM As a Jew, my faith is in God. God lives in us and we through Him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Steve Parkes Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:20 PM If you don't have a God -- or some such underlying fundamental principle -- to authorise the tenets of your belief, then youcan't justify your beliefs as being essential, correct or necessary. I realised this a good many years ago, before my faith in God "wore off". To me, using a Creator to explain where everything came from doesn't answer the question: it's simply adding an extra step to the conception that the universe is everything there is and there isn't any "before" or "outside" or "other". (I look forward to being proved wrong on this, by the way!) Without God to back up what I think, there is no meaning to my thoughts, and no meaning to existence. I suppose I could get used to that idea, but it will take a long time ... instead, I can say (I have to say) that it all has meaning because I choose to give it meaning. But this means I can't believe that my thoughts are more correct than yours, or vice versa. I'm content to accept that no-one whose beliefs I know of (by which I mean the major religious faiths) has the full and exact answer; but that many have a set of beliefs that are valid for part of the answer. Remember the story of the wise men and the elephant? They'd never seen one, but had the oportunity to examine one without being able to see it: the first said it was like a huge muscular snake, the next said it was like a great leathery wall, and the last said it was like a length of rope; all equally valid, but only within their limited scope. My brain starts to hurt when I've got this far, so I'll leave off philosophising now; but I hope I've got my point -- however pointless! -- across. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:21 PM I believe that God works in our lives and blesses us in small and not so small ways. He speaks to us and helps us make decisions which lead us to even more blessings. This is where Faith come in for me. I have the utmost Faith that He, not only has He done this going back to when I was 6 years old and very sick with polio, but will contiune to do so today and for all my tomorrows. His guiding hand doesn't go un-noticed or unappreciated... Fir me, one of the strongest allies of Faith is patience. Gos has time tables for me and those are in His hands. That's probably the most difficult aspect of Faith but it indeed very much part of Faith. Good thoughtful thread, Brother Jerry and... Love to you and Ruth... Brother Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Pied Piper Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:28 PM Things have meaning because they have meaning. You did not "choose" to give meaning to anything evolution invented meaning and it is built in to all the organisms of the biosphere. This absolutist relativism is un-founded. Do you think that I and the other organisms on this planet are a figment of your imagination? The existence of other entities is implicit in all language including animal language. The meaning of life is to live. Faith usually means believing in things for which there is no evidence. I'm not an atheist I just don't believe in God, Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and lots of other evidence-less propositions. If you mean by faith the drive to get up in the morning and enjoy living in social interaction with other people and learning, then I have faith just like the faith of Tigers and Gazelles. Sum ergo cogito. TTFN PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM Hey Bobert: I think it was brucie who told me this one... a prayer to the Lord. "Dear God, grant me patience, and will you hurry up about it?" You want a tough one? How about "Your will, not mine." Whoeeee!!!!!!!!!! Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM Interesting post Mick. Doesn't doing the right thing, though, depend on one's pov? I have faith in GWB, for example, and that he did the right thing by invading Iraq. Others have no faith in him and think it was the wrong thing to do. Different points of view. Who is to say who is right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM Remember the rock band, Blind Faith? :-) Clearly, our faith is correct, and other's who don't agree with us have blind faith. Truth is, we are all prone to confusing our own will with the power of another person or entity's. I sure have done it. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM Interesting post Mick. Isn't "the right thing" dependent on one's point of view though? Example: I have faith in GWB and think he did the right thing by removing Saddam from power. Others have no faith in GWB and think he was wrong to remove Saddam. Different points of view as to what the "right thing" was. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM Mixing faith and politics is not recommended. When your life is looking bleak and hopeless, who you gonna call? Certainly not a politician.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jim Dixon Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:36 PM Faith sometimes has value, but faith is a poor substitute for knowledge. If you are going to jump out of an airplane, would you rather have faith that your parachute is going to open, or know that your parachute is going to open? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 04 - 05:05 PM Jim: While it depends very much on semantics, I see little difference between the great certainty that physics will continue to operate and the great certainty that the universe will continue to unfold in certain meaningful ways. Can you describe the difference, exactly? I don't mean to be a wise guy. I am asking seriously. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM Doug, Well, if you want GWB to be yer God and have faith that GWB will bless you every day, fine... I'll stick with my "Big Guy", thankee... Yeah, Jerry, Your will, not mine.... Good 'un... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: ranger1 Date: 01 Mar 04 - 07:07 PM Faith is believing in something outside myself that I have no control over. I sleep better at night knowing that the sun will rise, natural selection is in full swing, that the universe is expanding, that my partner's love for me knows no bounds, that people are, for the most part, kind. That said, faith is also believing in myself. In my ability to be the best person I can be, to live up to my potential and to live life to the fullest, but without treading on others to do so. Faith is trust. Faith is believing that if I treat others the way I myself wish to be treated, that they in turn will do the same. That if I reach out, someone will be there to take my hand. That if someone reaches out to me, I will have the strength to take their hand, no matter what. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Mar 04 - 07:34 PM That's an interesting example you give, Jim. Unless you open the parachute after you jump, there is no way you can be 100% sure that it will open. You don't know that as an irrefutable fact. You have yo have faith in the reliability of the parachute. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: NobleSavage Date: 02 Mar 04 - 03:15 AM First, a question: What is the difference between faith and belief? Next, I think there is a difference between religious faith and secular faith. I do not claim knowledge of religious faith, so I leave that for those who do. Such faith as I can know I have rests on my own ability and willingness to find the truth of the world around me, and be faithful to my own values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Boab Date: 02 Mar 04 - 03:56 AM I never intended to be sucked into any religious or pseudo-religious discourse. Just so that my philosophy is known, I do not have faith in the existence of "God" as He/She is proclaimed in the bible. I do not deny such existence; I just DON'T KNOW. As far as the O.T. "God" is concerned, I hold the opinion that many of the events and activities attributed to him were anything but "good"; in fact, just the opposite. That Jesus Christ existed and was indeed an outstanding human being I have no doubt. Following His example in our own lives can be no bad thing. Having said that, I cannot believe in "virgin birth". Which brings us to some of the events described in the new testament as "miracles". That the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water I can belive; that He actually DID, I do NOT believe.That a multitude considered themselves fed with five loaves and three wee fishes, I can also believe; I do NOT believe that they really WERE fed! Which brings us too to the power of Faith. Such Faith was engendered in the minds and hearts of men and women by this man Jesus that he put scenes and events before them which they forevermore swore swore to be real, and stated them to be so without a trace of duplicity or intent to deceive. The written records of their experiences has given Faith to millions of human beings--a faith unfortunately distorted and cruelly exploited by charlatans down thro' history. If Jesus was destined to be nailed to the cross for the sins of humanity, then a cursory glance at the horrific machinations of self-proclaimed "Christians" down the centuries from Rome thro' Calvinist Europe, presbyterian and catholic Ireland to the Armageddon maniacs of the American Southt, surely points to the truth for those who genuinel;y believe in the meaning of His crucifixion; He has been hanging there suffering for over two thousand years. I think my "Faith " in much of biblical prophecy and "miracle" working finally became rationalised [can't think of a better word-] when I saw a wee lad climb up a rigid rope and disappear at the top. I SAW that happen, but I know it didn't. Like the disciples who saw the Man walk on the water, or those who felt well-fed by three wee fishes. I was convinced by a hypnotist. The same thing happened, I think, to the folk of the bible. Having complete faith in the source of persuaion leads to perceived "miracles". Not always a bad thing---but not always good, either. If the human mind is rid of all fear, and asked to perform some feat or other,some miraculous result can ensue. Let's say---a three-inch broad "I"-beam rigidly connected by supports and suspended forty feet in the air; let's see the untrained person who can walk along its fifty foot length without breaking their neck! Now, set that same beam just as rigidly on a flat and level concrete floor. Get the same folks to walk along it---no trouble at all! They have faith, y'see --and with good reason---that there is no danger, and fear disappears, taking with it the tendency to fall off the beam. To those who have absolute faith in their god, and who see Him as One who has Love for all, I envy all of you. To those who choose to worship a "divinity" for the reason that they think they will be rewarded by a "place in Heaven" , I do NOT envy you; I hold you in contempt as being of the hordes who will do no good unless there is personal reward at the end of it. My hobbyhorse is tired---g'night! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:41 AM Hey, Boab: Thank you for the wonderful, thoughtful post. I have a son who is agnostic who I believe still has an open mind and heart. There are actually two Jesus's. One is on the pages of the book called the Bible. You can read all about him. The other Jesus is the one in my heart, and those who have come to know him as real, because they have a personal relationship with him. For those who know Jesus as being as real as this keyboard, there is no desire for reward for doing his Father's will. If you've had a wonderful friend, or family member, wife, husband or lover, you have a taste of what it is to know Jesus, and whether he fed a crowd of 5,000 with three fishes or 28 with 7 fishes is not the question. When you feel the love of someone, you want to give back to them, in return. The desire to do well is not for reward. It is done out of thanksgiving for what you have been given. Besides, you cannot earn your way into a presence with God after death. If you could, then there would have been no reason for Christ to die on the cross. God could just have said... "Go ahead, earn your own salvation, and good luck." And the doors of heaven could be welded shut. Whether people believe in a Heaven were you wear golden slippers and streets of gold, have wings and play a harp (most of which isn't even in the bible) is not the issue either. Eternity and life after death is a tad difficult to fathom, so some people conceptualize it into something knowable for them. As for miracles, I don't have to read about them in the bible. I see them, and not through hypnotists or magicians. I see miraculous cures that defy any explanation, like the Mother of a friend of mine who went completely blind in one eye, saw every specialist in the area and was told her problem was inoperable and that she would never see out of that idea. She is a woman of great faith, and kept praying for a miracle. The day that she went in for a check-up and read the eye chart with her "blind" eye was not a story in a book, handed down orally for 60 years before someone wrote it down. It happened a year ago, and she came to hear my gospel quartet at our annual Anniversary concert, her sight miraculously restored. The difference between faith and belief (and they are sometimes used interchangeably) is that you have faith in a power greater than yourself, and you trust that power with your life, while belief is something you think is true. There have to be clearer dictionary definitions than that, but I don't live my life according to Webster. I have faith in God because in my mind and heart I know he is real. I don't just "believe" he's real. I feel His presence and see Him working in my life and others. These discussions are wonderful, and I am really enjoying reading about everyone's faith. If this thread was titled Belief, then we could all argue about how many fishes Christ fed the multitudes, or whether he actually walked on water. Or whether there is such a thing as reincarnation, and what heaven looks like. Those arguments are not meaningful in the long run, because you can't get someone to have faith by arguing with them. And they aren't at the heart of the issue. Faith is one on one, or nothing. It's not something you can give to someone else. It profoundly changes the way that you live. Not all people who "get" religion get Faith. Faith is evidenced in a person by their fruits. "Belief" doesn't necessarily change you, but faith does. I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but that doesn't change who I am or the way that I live. Sorry for being so long-winded, Boab. I didn't start this thread as a forum for talking about my own faith. I really am interested in hearing about others... including you. Your posting was just so thought-provoking that I was moved to respond to it at length. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:07 AM This conversation is going places I don't travel, but I would add a variation on the definitions offered above. The difference between faith and belief is that faith is the experience that results from a tightly held belief -- often one so closely held as to be invisible to the holder. A belief held only in the mind, as an intellectual proposition, is not truly believed, but is only being thought. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: freda underhill Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:15 AM this thread has given me something new to think about. i have always held the view that i don't believe in anything i haven't experienced. i'm not saying that i haven't had spiritual moments or experiences, but i haven't been able to feel anything in between to hang on to. faith was something i felt i could never feel. but the idea of patience is one i can understand.. i like it, and hope i can remember to cultivate this quality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:21 AM Jerry, you've opened a can of worms with that question. Everybody seems to have a different understanding of the word 'faith' and most of the conflicts here come from different understandings. Let's have a look into Webster's dictionary what 'faith' can be: (1) (a) Allegiance to duty or a person (b) Fidelity to one's promises I can easily understand for instance Doug's post in that sense. Bobert, of course, uses another sense of 'faith' to make fun of Bush as Doug's 'God'. (2) (a) Belief and trust in and loyality to God (b) Belief in the traditional doctines of a religion (c) Firm belief into something for which there is no proof. Some here think immediately of their personal religion when describing their faith(s) and I can understand that. However, Jerry has meant the nondenominational ("Faith has no denomination.") sense of faith, so I guess he leans towards the broadest definition (2, c) here with the understanding that it also covers (a) and (b). (3) Something that is believed with strong conviction, esp. a system of religious beliefs. Maybe some here prefer this definition, I don't know. I do not believe into anything supernatural, so only a a few of these definitions cover my case. Jim Dixon has given my spontaneous response. Don't use 'faith' whenever it is possible to use more trustworthy information. So 'faith' isn't a word in my daily life, even in situations with uncertainties and weak knowledge. 'Possible', 'trust', 'probable', 'confident' 'convinced', even 'believe' would be my words, but never 'faith'. Are there things I never questions in my life? Hardly any, though in a continuum of convictions with more or less potential for being altered some basic convictions come close to being unquestionable or at least unquestioned: My trust in my closest friends and family, my conviction that we only have this planet for a long time to come and therefore we should leave it in a state that makes it habitable for our grandchildren and theirs, my belief that all humans have a right to be treated as such,... But I do not see these beliefs as quasi religious beliefs, I rather see them as the most sense making options. I guess in my daily life decisions I'm hardly any different from Christians living around me. However, I came from a very different basic conviction. I would never call this set of convictions my faith, for I think there is more than no proof for their validity, but I could understand if someone else would use this word. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:17 AM Thanks for taking the time to look up the definitions of faith and belief in the dictionary, Wolfgang. Sometimes, the biggest hindrance to communication is words. I love God, I love pizza. I believe I'm going to get my paycheck this Friday, I believe that my cancer will go into remission. All we can hope is that, in trying to express ourselves as accurately and honestly as we can, that we can truly communicate with each other. Not just talk. I appreciate your thoughts, Wolfgang, whatever words you find most honest in labeling them. Despite all of our differences, there is much common ground to share and enjoy. Jerry Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Tinker Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:59 AM Jerry !!! My house is a mess, my garden is desperate, and I'm sitting here pulling books off the shelf, re-reading posts, shaking my head in agreement or stopping suddenly and saying no that's not part of my view at all... Thanks. To begin, for me Faith is a verb. To live in faith is to accept a journey where I have to acknowledge that by definition the ultimate is unknowable to my puny little brain, but that there will be tiny moments of pure simplicity that baffle my abilty to explain. It's not founded in my beliefs, because it regularly chews them up and expects me to put them back together in a semblance of order. In fact it's a paradoxical thing this Faith, it tends to defy it's own definition. ( Perhaps because really it's only words we've wrapped around an idea we can't quite grasp ) In fact those I know who are the most grounded in Faith have the deepest sense of their own helplessness and inabilities, yet have an amazing abilty to reflect the Light. 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. I just reread this and I'm still not satisfied, but for this moment it'll have to do. Kathy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:16 AM 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 I'd say that's more'n good enough, TInker! Spot on. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:02 PM I used to like their shoes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:13 PM Amos and Tinker: You both have added some wise observations to this conversation. And I am so delighted to have you both sharing in this conversation, as I value both of you as people. Funny thing about this Cafe.. you start to recognize people you feel a kinship and friendship with, and yet you don't really feel like you've gotten to know them. I don't think that it is a limitation of technology as much as it is the level on which we communicate. I've enjoyed you right from the beginning Amos, and obviously it wasn't because we shared the same faith. I don't know the faith of most people in here, any more than I know their political afilliation. And I don't feel the need to know. But, there is something about the person that shines through their postings that makes me feel like I'd really enjoy them as every day friends if we weren't separated by so many miles. With all of the demands on our time and desires, we all tend to go cruising along, passing each other and waving a greeting, without ever really getting to know each other. And tinker... a few years ago when all sorts of inexplicable changes were occurring in my life, I became very frustrated and confused. And impatient. Finally, a calm descended upon me and I felt that it wasn't necessary to make sense out of everything that happens in my life. Just the opposite. There are things that have happened, and are still happening in my life that don't make sense to me. But, I believe/have faith that when I am prepared to accept the changes, the reason and meaning will become apparent to me. I would say that they will be revealed to me when I have been fully prepared and canhandle them. Others might think that they've figured everything out on their own. All I know is that I am extremely limited in my ability to understand what is going on in my life and in the lives around me. My wisdom is very finite. And that's alright with me. It was a great relief when I finally realized that I don't have to understand everything, and what's more, there are things that are beyond human understanding. For me, that's where faith kicks in. We all use our own words. But, isn't it wonderful to be able to talk openly about what is at the heart of our lives without judging each other? I love it. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:14 PM And faith is an action verb. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM well! Miss one day, and see what happens! Jerry began this thread with lil' ol' me as an example: " Friends of mine like Bill D have a strong faith, and is an Atheist. I don't consider that an oxymoron.".... you know, I don't believe I have ever described myself in speech or in print as an "atheist"....not that it isn't true, but I just don't like associating my ramblings with a very 'loaded' word which gets me lumped in with hateful people like Madeline Murry O'Hair. I am still reading and digesting the posts here, and will have some thoughts when I have a bit more time. It is fascinating, because I JUST discovered in a box an old book that I have had for 35 years, "The Faith of a Heretic" by the philosopher Walter Kaufmann. It was one of the most influential books of my life. (I'll say a bit more about it later...) *off to think* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:49 PM Hi, Bill: I think it's fascinating that the movie I think best captures the power of Christ's life is The Gospel According To St. Mathhew, which was directed by Paolo Paolini who was not only an Atheist, but a Communist. Admittedly, Christ came off with an attitude more like Marlon Brando than Mother Theresa, but there were no Hollywood trappings or prettiness to the story. I spent years trying to get a video of the movie before I finally got a copy (at a rather hefty price.) One of these nights I'll put it on and see how graphic and realistic the crucifixion is. From what I remember, it was just graphic enough to realize the suffering involved. That movie and Jesus of Montreal are two of my favorite, most challenging and unconventional movies. And Bill.. I don't think of you as an Atheist. I think of you as Bill. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 03:01 PM Thanks kindly, Jerry. I agree it's purdy wonderful when you find people you can lay your bricks on the table with, and expect to be tolerated as well as understood!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM It is a bit strange, Jerry, to speak directly about issues of faith & belief (both very important issues and closely related, though not exactly the same) with folks like you who are sincere believers in one religious tradition. I have met so many who want to either 'cure' me or berate me for my errors & intransigence that I am always a little nervous..*wry grin*. (Growing up in Kansas, it was easy to say the wrong thing in awkward circumstances!) I started out in life as a Methodist...my grandmother was quite active in her church, and because we moved a LOT when I was young, making getting attached to a church hard to do, we started attending semi-regularly when I was in 3rd grade and I began attending weekday Bible school at a church close to us. I was in 3rd & 4th grades, and I questioned very little. The stories were fascinating, and grownups I respected seemed to take them seriously...so what was to question? I simple had 'faith' and thus, belief. But the seeds of doubt were planted, because it was just in those years that it dawned on me that Santa Claus was 'just a story'...but my brother was 3 1/2 years younger, and it was easier to keep up the pretense. So, our family continued with sporadic church attendence for years, though 'religion' was not a daily issue and I did not have a close association with a minister or others whose faith WAS a daily issue. In fact, table grace was seldom encountered except at large family gathering where grandparents were involved. Nevertheless, at those times, I simply bowed my head and took this 'blessing' as normal...though I kinda remember being slightly embarrassed that we didn't do it regularly. I still had 'faith' that it was what we 'should' be doing, as I thought that vague penalties were supposed to be visited on those who didn't follow the rituals....and I still remember lying in bed at night at about the age of 12-12-14 praying a bit and asking for things and trying to make sure I 'kept my foot in the door'. I remember beginning to learn about 'naughty words' and worrying what would happen to me if I used them...so I tried whispering a few when I was alone..*grin*...nothing happened, but I wasn't sure why not. I never particularly wanted TO use them, I was just curious..........and there is the crux of it all..... That curiosity became a major part of my life. I had gotten a set of World Book Encyclopedias when I was in 5th grade, and I LOVED reading about 'stuff'...and the school library...wow! And there was stuff in the books about other religions...Buddhism and exotic 'foreign' religions, as well as Catholicism and Judaism and such that **I** had had very little contact with. And it gradually dawned on me that many of those religions did not get along with each other well! ....well, you see where this is going...bright kid reads stuff and develops doubts and asks questions- (I probably could have made the above a lot shorter, but it helps ME to get perspective to type it for myself). I became a serious 'doubter', in that I questioned 'why' on lots of things...even getting into arguments with my parents when they told me that tornados usually came from one direction.."but..it's a WIND..and winds blow all directions!"..took awhile before I got clear evidence as to 'why'. By the time I was in high school, philosophy was in my head, and by the time I was a senior, I was determined to major in it, though it would take several years before I could explain exactly why! I was married in my first year in college (at 19!) and religion & faith came up...she was a girl who had defied her parents and become a Catholic, but who was not 'practicing' by the time we met, and I still had the tendrils of 'faith & belief' hanging on me, as religion had never particularly offended me...so we decided to join.....the Unitarians! ...and there it was...a FORMAL situation of joining with others to discuss & share issues of faith and morals and ideas, but with no invoking of Jesus...or even of God.. in a formal way...but merely accepting that human beings often need some way to express their wonder at the mysteries and joys of life, and need to share pains and frustrations and support each other. So...as formal training in Philosophy and practical training in 'life' proceeded, the issues had to be confronted directly on many occasions...this was *KANSAS*, and many of the students in class with me were dedicated, confirmed....and often belligerent, Christians! There I was..needing to retain my cherished 'open mindedness', but still avoid conflicts with those who believed differently. Then I read Kierkegaard's "Fear & Trembling" and other works and came nose-to-nose with the story of Abraham & Isaac and THE great test of 'faith' in the Bible, at the same time I was discovering Kaufmann's books such as "Faith of a Heretic" (mentioned in earlier post). It was interesting...I saw God's testing of Abraham in two contexts...one was the 'original', in that supposedly, God spoke directly to Abraham in ordering the sacrifice of Isaac, and Abraham had to pay attention, though obviously in great conflict. But then I had to see it from MY viewpoint, in that no test of this sort (that is, DIRECTLY from God) had ever been asked of me, and so far as I knew, of no one else for thousands of years. I simply could not imagine the sort of 'faith' that would be required to deal with that situation.....so, I needed to find a way to even deal with the very idea of faith in my developing view of things! (took me long enough to get to the point, hmmm? *grin*) Gradually, it became clear to me that I used 'faith' mostly to refer to what others were feeling, except for situations where I felt I had clear information. Do I 'know' the sun is going to rise tomorrow? Strictly, no...but I have faith that it will, as it has a perfect record of doing so. Do I 'know' that my car will start in the morning...nope, sometimes it doesn't, but I have 'faith' that it will...I believe that it will, as it has a very good record of doing so. Faith has become, for me, very much a matter of 'an informed wager'...a calculated risk, instead of the 'trust/faith/belief' in an abstract concept about souls, eternity and a creator that others profess. Others have used non-religious 'faith' to refer to much more poetic matters..faith in the spirit of Mankind, in one's own power to reason and be honorable, and those are good thoughts and tempting... but it seems to me that they are often equivocations on the meaning of the word. In what may appear a bit of a circular analysis, I have 'faith' that the beliefs of others are the result of very different life experiences than I describe about myself above, and that others arrive at ways of dealing with the mysteries of life & the universe through paths that I have never walked and, literally, could not walk. Therefore, the 'faith' that seems strange to me when I look at it in others, from my external viewpoint, is also the most natural expression of their feelings for those involved...so it seldom does any good for me to debate the basis of it with them. In all the threads in Mudcat in which I have offered opinions on these matters, I have tried to keep this distinction in mind and try to respect the path others have followed, while suggesting that since it IS such a complex issue, and that the very words faith & belief are used because no one can prove much one way or another, we need to quietly allow and tolerate, and even celebrate, when possible, differences, while staying aware that ultimate 'truth' could favor NONE of us. This is not easy for many to deal with...their emotional needs require an answer..not just directions and more questions! I have FAITH that most of the good people I know will view my attempts to sort it all out with tolerance and forbearance...and JUST enough humor to keep us all smiling..... now...I need to go back and re-edit all that for 3 days, figgering out better ways to say it all...but I ain't gonna.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 04 - 04:37 PM Faith means lots of things to me. And none are easy to explain. I have faith in people--to do what's right and occasionally what's wrong. I have faith in my students to be honest with me, and occasionally not. I have faith in God, and occasionally I lose that faith. I have faith in love--that it will be true and sometimes not. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have faith that the day will come when I won't see it. I have faith that the men and women I enter fires with will look out for me and me for them. I have faith that I will do my best to be a good person, and I have faith that I will not always achieve that goal. I have faith that some people will like what I wrote, and I have faith that some won't. Faith is maybe what we know to be true tinged with lots of hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 05:57 PM Thanks for that long background, Bill: I enjoyed reading it. I grew up in Wisconsin, not far from you. My parents didn't go to church much... I can barely remember them going. That wasn't because of a lack of desire on my Mother's part, but my Father didn't start going until I was starting to go to college. So, I just kinda grew up... my two closest friends in High School were Catholic, but most of my friends didn't go to church, and religion wasn't something I ever talked about. I went to Sunday school during the summer a couple times that I vaguely remember, but mostly I was just busy being a kid. Maybe that was what was best for me. When I think of the people I've known who no longer believe in God, almost every one of them was raised in a strict home where church going was mandatory. Most of the people I know who were raised Catholic are Atheists now... Joe Offer and padre are Catters who have kept and strengthened their faith in the Catholic church in here. I think that I came about my faith, and the acceptance of people who were different from me from my Mother. She was never judgmental and just loved people for who they were. That doesn't mean that her faith isn't important to her, but she never tried to "convert" anyone, including people in her own family. So, you won't catch me trying to convert you Bill, or berate you for your beliefs. I'm just trying to live the best that I can within my own limitations. It's hard enough to know what I should be doing. I sure don't want to try to tell other people what to do. It's not that I think faith isn't important. I just think that it's personal. And good for you, Bill to feel comfortable enough to share your thoughts. Ain't any one in here 'cept us folks. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM I just sat across the dinner table from a good friend as we discussed this very topic -- faith. He a Buddhist and I a Christian, yet we came to similar conclusions regarding faith in the modern, western world. First, we both saw faith being sold at a discount. What a singular time to live in when so many believe that they don't live by faith -- so strong is the misunderstanding of, yet pervasive influence of science. It's as though faith is the safety net of last resort. We arrogantly believe it unnecessary......and even when accepted as a part of our lives, tend to catagorize the types of faith into those we find tenable, and those that are the domain of the wacko (though we will graciously allow as how some of the wackos are nice enough. Maybe even "quaint"). We even think that we can divide our society into those who have faith and those that do not -- so that, if your faith is what informs your political POV, it is illegitimate (and the converse arrogance that "I" have a right to express myself politicially because {B}MY{/B} veiw is "rational" ......... {read: rational only}). That means that the default setting for public conscience is set by those who beleive themselves faithless. And then "they" throw the faithful a bone -- that is, they "don't mind us" as long as we understand that this silly little affectation of faith upon which we insist is OK as long as we *wink, wink* understand that it really isn't "real". Seems to me that there's a real big misunderstanding right now in the minds of modern man -- that "empirical" and "real" are synonymous. They aren't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:46 PM John Hardly...I got a little confused at the use of 'we' in your post. You began with it referring to you & your friend, then it seemed to change into a reference to 'they', as in "...We arrogantly believe it unnecessary... we will graciously allow ..." and later in "We even think that we can divide our society..." You seem to be objecting to the efforts of some to trivialize faith as being somehow "unscientific"...which, in fact, a few do. Of course, it IS unscientific, though hardly trivial. It is not supposed to be scientific...it comes from a different place, and is processed differently. One's defense or explanation OF their faith can be badly expressed or downright illogical--but that doesn't affect the ultimate 'truth' of it. ....and, since belief AND non-belief are both a form of faith, NEITHER should be considered 'true' or 'not true' based on the glibness of the argument! Indeed 'empirical' and 'real' are words which can have very different meanings to people, and in any discussion where they are used, it should be made clear how they are being understood, lest the discussion be doomed from the beginning. It is unfortunately the case that many on both sides of the faith/belief issue proceed without a clear understanding within thenselves just what they actually believe 'truth' to be, or how they got there....(as you can see above, I have struggled long to even express my personal position) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:57 PM Yeah, Bill, A writer I ain't. But that's the idea of what I was gettin' at. (now see, if I was a writer I'd have phrased that, "that's the idea at which I was gettin'). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:07 PM I'm going to change my name to They. Jerry They. Or maybe Jerry People. "They", "People" and other group names don't do much to advance understanding. My ex-wife used to love to say "They" think you are a real idiot, or some other complimentary accolade, and I'd always counter with, "Who is this "They?" I'd like to meet him some time." Or my favorite response was "According to a recent nationwide poll... and then let my voice trail off." In arguments, it's always tempting to resort to "They" "People" or "Everyone" to get your point across. Trouble is, I can never figure out who "They," "people" or "everyone" is, and how the person knows what they all think. I'd have to say that I rarely find anyone being condescending to me because I believe in God. First of all, I don't talk about religion a lot. Most people aren't comfortable talking about religion, because it can be such a divisive topic. Most people I know. Are they the "They" everyone talks about? Maybe I do know them, and don't even know it :-) Jerry They |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:11 PM It isn't that they don't have faith, John. They are just particpants in an unacknowledged cult, the Believers in the Physical Universe, the most successul religous movement to come down the pike ever, bar none. Some folks don't recognize it as a faith, but it surely is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:20 PM Jerry: There is no They there, buddy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:53 PM So, because I used the word "they", you don't understand the point of my post, Jerry? The "they" to which I referred, and Bill and Amos seemed to "get", is those rationalists who fail to see that they too live by faith, and demand superiority because, as Amos pointed out, they "the most successul religous movement to come down the pike ever, bar none". Sorry you didn't get my point. Sorry I posted. You can have your thread back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:25 PM Jerry, They used to bug me lots when I was a younger man. They did this, and they did that. Kinda like an 'everyman' idea, but not. Man, there's some serious brains on this thread. It is neat to read the views of people to do with how they see themselves in relation to their universe and sometimes their God or G-d or Universal Spirit or . . . Truth is, we take most stuff on faith. Heck, why not? If I needed God to prove everything to me, I'd never get anything done. I had a student ask at the time of 9/11 if we would die. I said, "Yes, but not just now." My greatest fear over the years is that of answering an accident call or fire call and finding one of my students trapped or worse. However, I still answer calls, because faith says it's gotta be that way. I awake each day with the faith that somehow things will work out, and most of the time that faith is not misplaced. Good thread, Jerry. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:36 PM Hey, c'mon John.. I didn't mean to offend you. I must admit, I prefer "some people" to "they." I never quite know how to respond to claims about groups of people. I had really hoped that this thread would give a positive chance for people to talk about their beliefs, and that's what it's been. I'd really be interested in hearing more about what YOU believe. I are a Christian too, and I welcome posts from everyone, whatever their belief. If people don't want to use the word "faith," for their convictions about how this whole crazy world works, that's allright with me. The posting on here have made me think, which isn't all bad. I too am struggling to figure out what the difference is between faith and belief, and in trying to understand it, and express it better, I trip all over myself. I find myself saying I believe in God, which is true and at the same time I have faith in God. Some things I believe in, but don't have any faith in. It gets confusing. That's why I welcome everyone's conversation about their faith. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:42 PM ... and of course I've met people who are condescending toward those who believe in God, saying that it's just a crutch, or a fig Newton of the imagination. I've also met a lot of wonderful people who don't believe in God, who are very respectful of my faith, as I am of them. I don't much like the ones who are condescending (it not being one of my favorite qualities in people) and I truly enjoy those who see that there are many perspectives on something as important as why we are here, and what we should do with our lives. Mudcat is not a hotbed of religious enthusiasm, exactly, and yet I have rarely had anyone insult or condescend to me in here. Those who have are certainly in the small minority. And I can deal with that, too.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:11 PM Jerry..in my head, 'faith' comes after belief...sort of a subset. If I 'believe' in something, then what do I presume follows from that? What about my belief am I confident in? One can 'believe' in a Supreme Being or Universal Spirit (much like Little Hawk refers to, I'd imagine), but have NO 'faith' about what this implies. (I have met a number of people who DO claim they believe in a 'creator', but have no idea what one should do about it!) I noticed a very similar semantic difficulty in the recent case of the Alabama judge who had the 10 commandments monument installed. When interviewed, he kept using the phrase "I have the right to 'acknowlege' God..."....which supposes that the issue of whether there IS a god is not even debatable. Implicit in the wording is not only his belief, but also his 'faith' about what God wants and what we should DO. He had no problem moving from his 'strong belief', which he felt personally as 'revealed truth', to the position that since (not 'if', since) it WAS truth, it should be (if pressed, I would argue, at least to get the discussion moving, that faith is 'about' a belief or set of interlocked beliefs) does that make any sense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM convictions about how this whole crazy world works Well, that's the rub, innit? You build a perfectly good set of convictions and the world still acts crazy. So either your convictions aren't a model of reality or they leave something major out which is skewing the phenomena compared to the model OR there's a HUGE Authoritarian Boss just shoving things around willie-nillie playing Department Head with the universe. I submit that if your convictions don't include an understanding of the wildness of the wildcards, the model is not complete. So you keep on looking some more. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:24 PM As Brucie said, "Man, there's some serious brains on this thread." I enjoy READING philosophy/religion/debate discussions tremendously, and have learned a lot...but somehow, I just don't enjoy verbalizing such ideas. I don't know if it's a lack of skill on my part or what...but it seems that so many discussions (I'm thinking more of the how to argue thread) are just too nebulous for me to get a handle on. (That was a polite expression of how I really feel...but that's another thread.) I remember seeing a round table discussion hosted by Bill Moyers (PBS TV program) about the Bible or something. It was very disturbing for me to listen to because it seemed that nobody was exploring one idea to "exhaustion." I felt that as each person made a point he/she just introduced more tension, and there never was any resolution. (think musically here) My friend who loves political discussions loved it...she can somehow think in many directions at once, and it seemed to her that everyone was getting a chance to express his/her individual idea. Bill, I follow-up on many of your links, so keep 'em comin'. Many times there are philosophical terms for the ideas I struggle to verbalize. (I also like your links to free stuff on the net!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:43 PM BELIEFS Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. Michael De Montaigne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:49 PM awwww..*smile*...thanks, Mary...(it is genuine work to struggle through the philosophical terms with precision and open-mindedness, and I know folks who can run rings around me at the business!..I learned just enough to be dangerous ;>) (I see my old Philosophy prof. Gerald Paske has retired...he had the ability to home in on 'exactly' what was at issue in an argument and make careless thinkers look foolish.) Respected, but NOT loved! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:53 PM Mary from K, If your writing is any indication, you are one of the brains here. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:56 PM I'm with you, Bill on a couple of points. Whenever they takes polls in this country it seems like 80% of the people interviewed say they believe in God. For some (maybe many) that's where it stops. It's not a lot different than saying that you believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. Maybe the follow up question to "Do you believe in God?" should be "And therefor?" Just believing that someone created the Universe doesn't give me much of an idea why I'm here, or what I should be doing with my life. I also don't see the need of posting the Ten Commandments in a public place. It's not that I would be offended if they had a religious writing of Muhammad or Buddah hung on the wall. I might or might not read it, and if I did, I might find something in it worth reflecting on. I just think the focus is all wrong. Rather than being concerned about public prayer, if you believe in God, you should make His presence known in your home by the way you live. As they say in the black churches, "You gotta walk that walk, not just talk that talk." The way you live is the best testimony for your beliefs, whether you believe in God or not. I know many people who don't believe in God who have a strong sense of righteousness, honesty and responsibility who pass that on to their children because they live their belief. I also think you're right that belief comes first, faith for most people takes living to grow strong. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:01 PM Hey Amos: If one believes in God, they have to believe He has a really great sense of humor. Sometimes, all I can do is laugh at what I see happening around me because it seems so ludicrous. Jeanie gave me a little two line joke that I really liked. "Want to know how to make God laugh? Tell Him your plans for the future." I'll never get out of this world alive! Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:09 AM I wouldn't be too sure about that one , Jer. Depends on what you mean by "I", of course, but something will survive, the you before you decided to go into the business of being Jerry, and that you will survive just fine. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Boab Date: 03 Mar 04 - 03:07 AM Thanks for the appreciation of my thoughts, Jerry... A wee story, and truth in every word; I was a miner [an engineer, but I was down there with the lads, and I proudly wear the "Miner" badge]. In the year 1950, in early September, at a coal pit called Knockshinnoch, one hundred and twenty-nine men were trapped underground by an inrush of peaty sludge from an undetected peat basin on the surface. The accident was caused thro' taking money-saving shortcuts by administration. [At the later inquiry, it was put down to "an act of God"---some "god", eh?] Every escape route from the pit was irretrievably blocked by the black porridge-like peat, and it seemed certain that every man was lost. I worked in the neighbouring colliery, and one of my mates, who had been around in the mines longer than me came up with the suggestion that perhaps an abandoned working in OUR mine came pretty close to the mine in which the men were trapped. This turned out to be the case; there was, according to old surveys, forty feet of strata between our mine and the area in which the men were trapped. So the rescue op. became focused on our mine. I could easily write a book about the days that followed. It was an unforgettable struggle. But to get to the point I wish to make; halfway down the long, dark slope of "Number six mine" [abandoned for coal working, kept open for dewatering purposes] there was a twelve-by-eight-inch steel beam spanning the width of the mine roof, bent and twisted by the relentless pressures of subsiding strata, dripping foul water and festooned with dank fungus. One girder among hundreds on the long trudge to the point at which the "rescue" was proposed. But different in one respect; some time in the distant past, when men went down here on their daily graft, some evangelical fella --probably a Baptist---had scrawled a message in ten-inch high letters along that beam, and it had stood the test of time, water and rust. "God is Love", it said. I wonder how many of the many hundreds who struggled and sweated down there that weekend looked at that chalk message quoting John the Baptist, and thought, like me, "Well, I sure can't put the finger on who got my mates into this shit, but there could be a hint as to who will get them out!" We DID get them out, all but thirteen men who were caught in the initial flood of silt. I could have finished at the end of my comment in quotes, but have added the last two sentences knowing that some folks might want to know the outcome. Makes me wonder about the relevance of the Pope, Ian Paisley, and the Moderator of the Presbyterian Kirk.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jeanie Date: 03 Mar 04 - 05:29 AM That is a wonderful true story, Boab, and this is a wonderful thread all round. So many thoughts to ponder on, so many pieces being added to the mosaic. For me, the image of a perfect picture being built up piece by piece, like a mosaic, is the best way I can describe what 'faith' is to me. It is an ongoing process, throughout life. Each piece, each fragment, is beautiful in its own right, and each is unique, but hinting at, pointing to, something so much greater, that I have yet to see as whole, which connects all the individual pieces together. Those fragments can show themselves just about anywhere, at any time, and they are uniquely personal to the one who is experiencing them. If I were to list some of the times I have seen and felt new pieces in the mosaic, they may mean little or nothing to anyone else, because they were for me, for my pattern of understanding. What they all have in common is that they involve a feeling of connectedness with people, with the natural world, a recognition of a wordless love, goodness, beauty and purpose. I love the poem which says that when we are born, we come "trailing clouds of glory from heaven which is our home". It is as if we arrive, having already seen the big picture. Our lives are spent catching glorious glimpses of it. No doubt about it, catching those glimpses have changed me - the way I think, the way I behave - and, as long as I continue to see them, I know they will carry on doing just that. "Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now. There are three things that will endure - faith, hope, and love - and the greatest of these is love." With Love, - jeanie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM What a wonderful story, Boab. There is certainly a song in there.... And so good to see you, Jeanie! One of my favorite images of life is one I've heard many times... that life is a tapestry, and we're looking ath the back of it. We see individual strands of color and know that they are all part of the tapestry, but we can't see the image on the other side and how they all contribute to the picture. For those who believe in God and a life with Him in eternity, we'll get to see the other side of the tapestry when we die. No need to see it here, because we couldn't comprehend it. It's faith that leads us to believe that all the seemingly disconnected strands of our life are part of a grand tapestry. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 04 - 10:41 AM . For those who believe in God and a life with Him in eternity, we'll get to see the other side of the tapestry when we die. No need to see it here, because we couldn't comprehend it. It's faith that leads us to believe that all the seemingly disconnected strands of our life are part of a grand tapestry. That's a fine definition of faith indeed, Jerry. I am not sure whether the first proposition hangs together, though, because it implies certain beliefs as a pre-requsiite for later perceptions, and I am not sure those beliefs are the ones (and the only ones) that will enable such a perception to occur. Not sure about the notion that we can't comprehend such a view from here either, even if we can't put such a comprehension into language. Don't mean to be a gadfly, but I wouldn't want such a sweeping position to go without comment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 03 Mar 04 - 11:05 AM I've heard it said that practice is the musician's ultimate act of faith. Faith allows him(her)to act on the belief that the behavior of practice will help him toward a goal of competence -- a belief that is based on both empirical and anecdotal evidence .... and sometimes just hope. Faith allows me to act on a world view that I believe is based on evidence, both empirical and anecdotal .... and sometimes just hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:45 PM For me, faith has proven to be a true lifesaver, when the chips were really down and all else had failed. But faith can also become a religious distraction, an excuse for closing the mind to alternative, perhaps more beneficial viewpoints, technologies and philosophies. At this point in my life, I consider "faith" second-best to real knowledge gained through first-hand experience, through trial and error, through a lifetime of doing "inner work". Faith is, however, a fine and very workable starting-place for anyone interested in spiritual growth. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:05 PM Thanks, Amos: I'm not sure that I subscribe to it either. I've just heard it many times. Personally, I don't need it. I'm right at home, being confused. Been that way all my life. :-) Gadflies are welcome! Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:06 PM Glad to see you in here, John... I'm on the run.. taking my wife out to lunch. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:09 PM Following Bill's link, first article, first line (see Bill, I read 'em): "Why is it that a future-like-ours is the one that counts and not--say--the future of a pig or cow?" And this illustrates my point...I just don't want to spend time arguing out of this one. Jerry, back to your original question. One of my favorite Biblical stories is from John when Jesus heals the blind man. Paraphrasing: After the man's sight was restored by Jesus, all his buddies ran up to him saying, "Hey man, what happened here, tell us about it." And the man replied, "All I know is that I was blind, but now I see." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: CarolC Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:25 PM I think the tapestry analogy points out a difference between some ways of experiencing spirituality and others. Some people believe that the tapestry won't be revealed until the individual is separated from physical existance, while others are saying that they already experience the oneness of things, and can thus perceive all aspects of the tapestry even while residing in a physical body. For the people who experience oneness, the idea of separateness is an illusion, and has no substance. But for those who experience the perception of separateness, the separateness has purpose, and so is valid in its own way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,shy cat Date: 04 Mar 04 - 08:29 AM hi guys i am a mudcatter posting as a guest, because what i am posting is possibly unbelievable. talk about faith has connected with talk about religion. i practised a form of meditation which was similar to Tibetan buddhism, although it was an indian practise. I spent over a dozen years practising meditation, four times a day. I went through a difficult time from 1978 - 82, for various reasons, with my health and a bad marriage. the marriage had fallen apart the week before. I went to a group meditation, one evening a few days later. this is my experience: I meditated, eyes closed, until my mind became so still that my sense of observing self withdraws to a point of non- presence. Suddenly I am in the night sky, space. A huge ball shoots away from me, becoming smaller, until it becomes a small dot in the universe and disappears in space. I have just zoomed from my planet towards a huge light, shooting through the universe. A hole in time, a pause. I fly through the night sky, emerging from the closest star, the sun. From a huge mass of burning light that is conscious, explosive, vibrant. I zoom through the universe, towards my body which is now collapsed on the floor. Returning, I see myself in a totally detached way, my personality traits, faults and strengths, as if observing a genetic program. I observe that I will enter that body, that genetic pattern, that I'm going to be that again, then I plunge straight back into that body and personality. Now I am lying stretched out on the floor. My body feels saturated in light and is so conscious, and I am so drunk with ecstasy, that I cannot move. My mind is not limited to a point within my skull. My whole body is conscious and my mind is perceiving from my whole body. My body is made up of a sea of atoms/cells, each cell is glowing with golden light. Each cell is its own conscious entity. Each cell of my body is consciously perceiving. My mind is dwelling in my body, a sea of billions of little minds. My three month old daughter is placed in my arms. I hold her, and she too becomes saturated in the golden cocoon of awareness. Some time later, my muscles are so relaxed that they don't function properly. I have to be helped to sit up and walk because I can't co-ordinate myself properly. This happened in February 1982. It was not the result of imagination or visualisation. if it was i would do it every night. it felt real, like my spirit had left my body and the planet, flown through the starry sky and into a huge ball of conscious light (the sun?) before emerging, returning, re entering my body, which was by now in a state of complete ecstasy. since then, for various reasons, i gave away meditation, & had a normal life working and being a parent to my children. I entered a new happy relationship and had a good life. now, i look back on that experience. in the moment, it was wonderful, it was a realisation. but life in the last few years has been pretty normal. having a rational mind, despite that experience, I am still unable to sentimentalise about God, the universe, and while i can sometimes feel inspired, at other times i feel spiritually dry. I would like to be sustained by faith. but how? sky cat/shy cat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:00 AM Shy cat, that's an amazing experience! Thanks for sharing it! Sounds to me like you received enough spiritual sustenance and information about who and what you really are (above and beyond your human body, mind and emotions) to keep you satisfied for quite some time to come. There are many people who study, meditate and practice various spiritual and psychic techniques for years, trying to get even a first glimpse of the truths that you experienced. But until they are ready to handle the information/experiences without losing their "balance" in everyday life, it just doesn't happen. They'd give their eye teeth to have an experience like yours! It's too bad you feel your experience is neither "rational" or "normal". I know many people, myself included, who have experiences similiar to the one you described on a regular basis, through meditation, shamanic journeying, lucid dream work etc. And I do still consider both myself and them to be just as "normal" and "rational" as anyone else! I studied with a US-based spiritual organization called Eckankar for a number of years. Their teachings are based primarily on Eastern mysticism. Eck students study at home, practicing spiritual exercises specifically designed to prepare them for experiences like yours. Eckists call such experiences "Soul Travel" (which, they warn you, is really misleading because you don't really "go" anywhere. You just experience yourself on the more subtle planes of awareness). If you like, you can find out more about "Soul Travel" and read about other people's similiar experiences at this link Thanks again for sharing your experience here! daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:25 AM Sky Cat, in case you feel like reading about your experience from a slightly different angle I recommend: E. Cardena, S. J. Lynn, S. Krippner, Varieties of anomalous experience, American Psychological Association, 2000. I recommend Chapter 6, Out of body experiences, but also the chapters close to this chapter. Each of the chapters brings first a description of the experiences with some personal reports, then correlations with personality traits or states, then results from neurophysiology, then more or less all theories (not only the scientific ones) made to explain the experiences, then relationships to other experiences, and finally, the authors' conclusions and open questions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Art Thieme Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM I've no need to discommode so many of my good friends here by saying how things seem to me from where I sit. Other threads are here at Mudcat that say that stuff way too stridently. I'm sorry for those posts. Perpetrating those, at least partially, denies some sincerity to my feelings that live-and-let-live is the only way to go if we are to survive here in this life with any moral high ground and dignity. But watch out. Faith leads to films being made like The Exorcist and this new one by Mel Gibson. In one the blood is way too THERE---too red---as if the liquid had been put through PHOTOSHOP and enhanced with an intensity that can only be there when human emotions and over the top sentimentality are exploited to perpetrate other agendas. In the other film the color is green as the vomit of hell is spewed from the mouth of the demonized one whose neck swivels 360 degrees on a special effects ratchet. In both cases extreme dramatization can make a travesty of the tenets and dogmas of that faith. The audience comes there with their faith held tightly and vulnerably in their hearts. Then they are assaulted by visions that warp their faith almost subliminally---but quite actively actually.--------- In effect, these films play on basic beliefs of the people----and to me that is unconcienable. I've mixed some ideas here. Sorry 'bout that. I guess it's just that sometimes there do seem to be valid reasons for censorship---even when doing that smacks of censorship and limits the $$$$$$$$$ taken in. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: wysiwyg Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:18 PM I had what seemed like a moment of unsual clarity today. I was listening to bluegrass gospel and washing dishes when I heard this song (again): "There's a Higher Power." It seemd to sum up most of what I know in my faith-- that no matter how true and powerful anything else is, there ALSO is an even higher power. Musing on it later, I expanded upon this statement of faith to realize that no matter how UPward a thing is, there is always a place (or a person or a way of being or a way of doing) that is farther UPward... it's part of the nature of being human that however UP we ourselves are, we can always seem to see just a little farther up than we ourselves are, and reach for that till we can grasp it and look, again, a little farther beyond... And in my experience, it matters whether one tends usually to be looking UP and forward, or DOWN and backwards. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: CarolC Date: 04 Mar 04 - 06:46 PM shy cat, I used to know someone who had an experience that sounded quite a bit like what you have described. I met him a few years after he had the experience. By the time I met him, he had become somewhat bitter and dissatisfied with his life because everything he had experienced since what he considered a period of enlightenment, seemed pale and flat by comparison. He felt very cheated because he couldn't have that experience of enlightenment every day, or at least he perceived that he couldn't It wasn't my experience so it wasn't really my place to try to interpret its meaning or purpose for him, but I always felt that maybe he'd had that experience to show him what was possible, and that it was up to him to make it a part of his everyday life. But like I said, it wasn't my experience, so I can only guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:52 AM Carol I'm sorry to hear that your friend's experience left him feeling cheated, "pale" and "flat". Unfortunately, that's often what happens when people have experiences they're simply unprepared for physically, mentally or emotionally. I always felt that maybe he'd had that experience to show him what was possible, and that it was up to him to make it a part of his everyday life. That sounds right on to me. You can lead a horse to water, but it's up to the horse to drink it. Or not. Many people don't understand just how high the costs of having such experiences can prove to be. People can't just walk away from a profound spiritual or visionary experience the same way they can walk out of a movie theatre or turn off a TV. If it's real, you ARE going to be changed, and if you're not ready for your new threads, LOOK OUT! People who have experiences like this but have not learned how to control or direct them often find they simply cannot "turn it off" or assimilate the information healthfully into their everyday lives. And imo it's these very people who, unfortunately, comprise the bulk of the nation's psychiatric patients. I didn't understand until I'd been into this work for a while that spiritual energy is of an OPPOSITE nature than physical energy. As one drops, the other rises. That's why people starve themselves before and during vision quests, for example. That's why you have to be really dying (physically) to have a "near-death" experience. And that's why people often report having unprecedented spiritual experiences during their darkest moments, while they are undergoing severe emotional/personal trauma. Now that I know this, I don't seek out such experiences very often any more. If they happen, great. If they don't, that's fine too. WHen they do happen, I know they usually knock me right off my feet into the "other worlds" for quite awhile, and I certainly can't afford to be in "that space" every day of my life. Not if I want to keep functioning effectively here at all! (Like, I do need to eat too ... and it IS nice to be able to go to work so I can pay my bills ...) Anyway, that's enough rambling on for now I think. Thanks for the great thread! daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:09 AM Oops, forgot to ask ... Wolfgang, is the study material you recommended in a university text or in an issue of the American Psychiatric Journal? I'd love to find it ... what you've reported about it sounds so VERY intriguing! I really do like to have a healthy balance of the scientific with the spiritual when investigating these matters. All the "new-agisms" which seemed so absolutely wonderful to me years ago have been giving me quite the royal PITA (Pain-in-the-a**) lately .... daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:14 AM Shycat: You have, from your own experience, all the faith you might ever need; the experience was exactly as real as it seemed to be at the time. You may find there are few words to really describe it, because it goes beyond normal human experience, but it is nonetheless certainly real, compellingly so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM This happened in February 1982. It was not the result of imagination or visualisation. if it was i would do it every night. it felt real, like my spirit had left my body and the planet, flown through the starry sky and into a huge ball of conscious light (the sun?) before emerging, returning, re entering my body, which was by now in a state of complete ecstasy. --- Hello Shy Cat. It felt real because it WAS real. What you experienced was a conscious OBE (Out of Body Experience) Everyone. I have experienced a few OBEs, the Talk show host (Art Bell) told of an OBE he had over the city of Paris one night. Authors like William Buhlman, Rick Stack, Albert Taylor, Robert Brude, and several others have written books about how to initiate an OBE. My first OBE happened after I had been meditating for over an hour while directing universal lifeforce energy (Ch'i, Ki, Mana, prana, Manitou, Nuwati, Reiki, and dozens of other names) into an injured ankle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Mar 04 - 04:17 PM Daylia, it's an edited book, the three names are the editors (most chapters are by different people) and the American Psychological Association is the publisher. I could get more information, but not before Monday. I consider it a very good book (well, not each chapter, but on the whole) for its very balanced view. OBE is a perfect term, better than the old fashioned 'astral travel'. Out of body experience. It doesn't make any assumptions about what is the basis for the experience. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: dianavan Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:16 PM Where science ends, faith begins. Faith accompanies many of our actions. I have faith that if I am kind to my cranky, old mother, my children will be kind to me when I am old. I have faith when I believe in others. I have faith in my ability to shape my own destiny. I have faith that my ancestors, who have walked this earth before me, will guide me. Science is beginning to prove this (DNA). Once proven, faith in this will no longer be necessary. Faith is what we need to believe when there is no empirical evidence to support it. Faith is personal. It is not dogma. It is not brainwashing. It is not indoctrination. It is what we need to sustain us when there is no reason to believe. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 06 Mar 04 - 08:26 AM Wonderful post, dianavan! Faith can't be proven. If it was proven it would be knowledge, not faith. That does not mean that you have to suspend your intellect to have faith. It also means that arguing about faith is bound to fail. Discussing faith can help us all to understand each other better, even if we don't share the same faith. If you really want to know the Truth, you can only find it by using your heart and your mind. At least that's how I see it. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 04 - 08:39 AM Yeah, good post, d, and thank God (pun very much intended) Faith can not be proven or it would lose those wonderful spiritual and magical qualities. Same goes for love. (And, top of the day to you, Brother Jerry. And just a slight drift but this is "Appresiation Day" down at Arhie Edward Barber Shop and we will be honoring all the older bluesmen that frequent it. Ahhh, speaking of Faith and in this case, blessings...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Cruiser Date: 06 Mar 04 - 09:26 PM My concept of Faith verses faith (and belief) is here: 25 Dec 03 4:00pm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Mar 04 - 09:40 PM Great subject for a thread. I derive faith from a number of sources... I have faith in life as an experience that is full of meaning, not accidental. I have faith in the Universe as a creation that is full of meaning, likewise, and not accidental. I have faith in my own worth, goodness and the basic goodness of Life. I have faith in my intelligence and my abilities to see me through. I have faith that there is a higher purpose behind this existence. I have faith that death is not the end, but a new beginning...that Life never ends. I have faith in a loving God, but to define that God would be to define all of Life and existence itself. An unlimited subject, in other words. I don't have time for it at the moment. Will get back to this tomorrow and read the rest of the postings. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 06 Mar 04 - 11:54 PM I have faith in my ability to shape my own destiny. ----- Dianavan; Faith is only PART of what is needed. You also need to support that faith with universal lifeforce energy. I say this from personal experience because I have changed my future MANY times. 30 years even I did not even like me, and was on the short path to being put UNDER the jail. Today I am a kind caring compassionate energetic healer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Ellenpoly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:36 AM I've been writing like crazy to try to put together my thoughts on this subject...maybe I'll be finished enough to post by tomorrow! Really thought-provoking thread, Jerry. Thank you!..xx..e |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:02 AM I strongly disgree that science does, or ever will make faith obsolete. I think that scientific method is valid and, in a pragmatic way, it is generally trustworthy. But science has shown to disprove its previous conclusions SO often that it should be obvious that, though scientific method is valid, the conclusions drawn from it are as fluid as faith and belief. I think that another thing that confuses this issue is that we live in a time when we have utterly confused technological advancement with intellect. But that's just not true. For every "forward" step in technologial advancement (knowledge), we take a step backwards as well -- we lose touch with the previous (still valid) technology. A concrete example might be that there are fewer and fewer people who understand the inner workings of their automobiles. It used to be common to know how to work on you own car -- now, with advanced technology we've had a huge gain in convenience -- but an equally huge loss in general knowledge. Many of us here understand this concept when it strikes closer to home -- alternative medicine. I'm betting that most here have found usefulness in that which "science" has discarded -- acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal, and other alternatives.... Valid "technologies" which "pure science" eschews. We are absolutely convinced that we are advacing to the point of an unnecessary faith - that's why it is so easy to hold religion with the general contempt it regularly recieves here on the mudcat. It(religion -- and therefore, by implication, faith) is percieved as the primative, vestigal remains of once functionally usefull opiate for the (ignorant)masses. That is certainly the implication when one asserts that we will intellect ourselves to the point of faith being unnecessary. Also, there is science and then there is science. I don't believe that science is nearly as pure as it would appear that most here do. Just as I can see the horrible flaw in science being ruled by the church's whims as it was in the day of Galileo, Science, as a practical matter is falling into the same unscientific flaw -- that of being presuppositional in its approach. It's just that now science is just as strongly rationalist/materialist/natural in its presuppositions as it ever was religious in the presuppositions that tainted its method in the middle ages. That may be okay to the extent that it continues (valuably) to uncover more and more about the natural universe by always digging deeper with the assumption that if we keep on trying we can understand everything by physical explanation. But the reason it is arrogant is because of how far down the time line of understanding I think we imagine ourselves. I think we think we're actually knocking on the door of a unified material/natural world view. In reality, my guess is that we are not only NOT knocking on the door....we aren't even on the sidewalk leading up to the door. Again, that may be because we assume technological advancement is far more valuable to our understanding of the universe than it actually is. It also (if we were able to check that presuppositional, naturalist approach to science) just may be that we aren't even knocking on the right door. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:14 AM The kind of faith which is a trust without reservation that brings joy to the believer is a wonderful thing. It need not be a matter of proof or evidence arguements any more than observable facts need to be worshipped. There is one supreme evidence of faith that goes beyond any catagory of religion or secular definition and that is... caring. Caring is the single most important and redemtive quality in a human being. For an artist or lay person alike, caring is obvious in their work as it is with its absence. No matter how a person comes to express their caring is a beautiful thing. There may be people who need conscience to be taught. If that is in a religious format they will be better for it. If it is in a secular format they will be better off for learning. I would hope that it is a rarity for a person to have no inate conscience but evidence in the world may hold a contrary viewpoint. Perhaps mortality itself is to blame when a rich person still can never have enough wealth to stave off death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:03 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 of the universe. But Science as a body has acquired a sort of "high priest" status in our modern culture. Very much like the magician/priest of old who held a few tricks (and often a language) secret so that it could continue to derive its power by maintaining popular ignorance, science maintains power by the inherent compexity of data……all the while disguising that it is not the data in question……..it is the conclusions drawn that makes its own "science" not actually science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:20 AM Science certainly does not mak faith obsolete, JH -- couldn't agree more. But it moves the place of faith from an incantation of superstitions to something closer to the soul itself, perhaps less likely to spawn words. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:27 AM I agree with you Amos. I just happen to think that the line is in a different place than most here seem to have drawn it. I guess what I'm saying (in addition to the above) is that what we refer to as "science" is not, strictly speaking, "science". Still it is given unassailable status as such. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:22 AM Right --- as such it is the world's most popular cult. Actually it is a subdivision of the larger and older religion, Worshippers of Matter in Space Time (WOMIST). WOMIST has been around since the dawn of our species and possibly much longer. WOMISTians are everywhere. Your own kin or neighbor could even be one and not let on. There are ways of telling, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:22 AM I think that scientific method is valid and, in a pragmatic way, it is generally trustworthy. But science has shown to disprove its previous conclusions SO often that it should be obvious that, though scientific method is valid, the conclusions drawn from it are as fluid as faith and belief. ---- That would be a good strategy IF scientists had an open mind, and strength of conviction to stand and report things out of the mainstream. Scientists are so afraid of being ridiculed by their peers and loosing their finding they will NOT stand and report the truth. I would suggest for you to buy od check out the book "Forbidden Archaeology" that book documents discoveries that have been burried, or hidden in storage. Aloha nui loa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:29 AM oh my gosh, amos. I just did a google search and you are right......WOMISTs are everywhere! I think I shall join you in the donning of the foil skullcaps. (why "don"ning? Who exactly was "Don"? which "Don" and what did Don have to do with putting things on? ......speaking of "put ons") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:04 PM In the old days, poeple used to wear a similar device -- cloth caps with gold thread in them -- before foil was invented. These were called pacems, and one of the pop hits of the day was a song called Donna Nobis Pacem, about the pacem belonging to a teenage girl (Donna Nobis) who used yellow thread to save money and was snatched in plain sight by an alien cloud as a result. The story is long forgotten, but we still talk about "Donning" our little hats to defend us against the mind-control beams of the WOMISTs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: John Hardly Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:21 PM "...but we still talk about "Donning" our little hats to defend us against the mind-control beams of the WOMISTs" This is why it is so important to remove the beam from your own eye before removing a speck from your brother's eye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM Come on Amos, you're scaring me: I hear a theramin soundtrack rading your threads. As for science, anyone who thinks it is pure and objective is nuts. (Or did I overstate that?) When I was at the University of Wisconsin, I worked in the Primate Laboratory there. It was, and still is the leading research facility for Animal Pyschology. When I was there, I saw such blatant predetermination of results that it cast doubt on everything they were doing at that time. The scientific "conclusions" that resulted from some experiments could have bee written before the government funding. There used to be, and perhaps still is, and annual award for the most ridiculous, unneccesary governement funded research. The applications to human psychology or medicine were very far fetched. One I remember was a very heavily funded project to try to determine why penguin's feet don't get cold. I can see it now... "Penguin" boots now on sale at WalMart. And of course, the commercial potential of scientific research is integral to much of it. All the research on alternate energy to replace our dependence on oil is just an oil stain on the road of progress. I don't find intellectual activity and faith to be mutual exclusive. We were given a mind to use, just as I believe we were given a deep-seated conscience and awareness of something greater than ourselves. Most of all, you can adapt scientific discoveries to your own, pre-conceived beliefs, like everything else. I read repeatedly that more and more scientists are becoming convinved that there is a God. I wonder who conducts the poll? Personally, I'd consider that great news, but I have no reason to believe that it's true, and it would have no effect on my beliefs. Science will never prove the existence (or the lack of) God. Back when I was in graduate school, a friend of mine was very impressed that I had discovered a new speciaes of fossil snail. Whoopdeedo! He believed that adding that one new bit of knowledge was of far greater value than a lifetime of healing people that a physician would do. And he was dead serious about it. Who says science isn't a religion? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:18 PM It should be pointed out for those who adore logic and its claim on purity that the relationships are as follows: all scientists are WOMISTs Not all WOMISTs are scientists These statements include the implicit assumption that a scientist believes in the physics-based model of scientific enquiry (replicable results, double-blind experiments, statistical meaning, etc.) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM I have been shaking my head sadly reading some of the skewed opinions about science and the scientific method. *Science*, properly done, is fine --*Scientists* are often dishonest, self-serving and careless with their reasoning, just like some theologians and dabblers in the occult and . The scientific method, properly understood and applied, does approach truth and fact. Properly applied, it MUST give us new and different answers as we learn more. Phlogiston was once a pretty good idea, as was Lamark's theory of the inheritance of acquired charistics, but both have given way to more enlightened theories! And no doubt even these will be refined. This is a FEATURE, not a problem! Those whose ideas of 'faith' and 'belief' includes the notion that not being subject to proof is a virtue and somehow makes them exempt from criticism are kidding themselves. They stamp the strangest ideas with the word 'valid', without asking what 'valid' means, and how, if at all, it is related to 'true'. (No, not YOU, of course, YOU wouldn't hold any REALLY silly beliefs like those poor souls who committed group suicide at the approach of the comet!) 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? 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! *sigh* I realize I sound like I'm trying to assert that none of the more 'esoteric' notions I mentioned can be true, but this is not what I'm getting at.....I just bristle at those who need to put down science in order to justify their own NON-scentific ideas. Sure, some of those arcane things I don't believe in might be true/possible/valid...call me when you can give me some idea of HOW they can work...and if I experience any of them, I'll call YOU with my best guess as to what happened, and strive for some sort of repeatibility and external verification before I state that it 'really' happened. I am aware of the amazing complexity of the human brain, and I know that it is certainly possible to have feelings and 'experiences' and 'memories' that may have been created internally by synapses firing in funny ways. (...like dreams of your great-aunt on a blue unicycle throwing marshmallows at chimps!) We have had some excellent discussion on this thread, part of which really pointed out the difficulties in agreeing on the language and terminology needed to even debate the issues. I'd hate to see come down again to just a lot of assertions that "I know what I know". Believe what you will, just don't knock science by pointing at 'some' bad scientists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:04 PM Bill - Ghosts? No problem. You just have to actually encounter one. :-) You should have picked a much more outrageous example as a counterpoint to science. Keep thinking on that... Tarot? Works as well (or as poorly) as any other system of divination, depending on the practitioner's intuitive ability and honesty. There are phony tarot readers, mediocre tarot readers, and excellent tarot readers. Ouija board? Interesting. I don't recommend getting into it too much though. There are far better things to do with one's time. Telepathy? Happens all the time. Some people are better at it than others. Alternative medicine? Everything's an alternative to something else. If you call it "alternative" that's usually cos you're not too acustumed to it yourself yet. Alien landings? Don't knock 'em if you haven't seen 'em. :-) Messiahs? Prophets? Why knock 'em if you ain't met 'em? God, so many chuckles out of one subject. I love it. Reality is not founded upon competition, and none of these things are in competition with science as far as I am concerned. They're just interesting parts of the larger picture that is Life. Why set up some kind of artificial battle for top place between conventional science (which is highly useful) and a ton of other interesting things? If you decided to marry someone, Bill, is it partly because you have faith in her? I hope so. That is a type of faith worth having, and it's got nothing to do one way or another with science, but it's a real and valuable factor in relationships. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:17 PM Telepathy? I knew you were gonna say that, LH! I like much about the 'scientific method'. And faith is not something I can argue about. I have faith that the sun will rise. Science agrees with that. One day it will nova, and science won't have to agree or disagree. When I'm asked about creationism versus Darwinism, I say "God made it and Darwin explained it." Because I don't argue faith, I don't find myself in disagreement with science. Faith is something I know I have. However, science could never prove or disprove that. I have faith that I couldn't, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:24 PM Moving on... astrology: see my comment about tarot psychic healing: see my comment about tarot witchcraft & magic: see my comment about tarot demonic possession: A nasty business. I advise you to avoid situations involving it. Phrenology: Oooo! Ya hit me with a new one. Hang on. Gotta look it up. Wait... Ah. The shape of the skull affecting general disposution, etc. Well, that's intriguing. I have no particular opinion about it at this point. I neither support it nor deny it. Reincarnation: as spiritual theories go, this one has far more circumstantial and experiential evidence to support it than many others...but for all I know, Bill, you may still be on your first embodiment as a human. If so, you have progressed at lightning speed, and are probably a potential genius who will soon alter the destiny of all mankind! palmistry - see my remarks on tarot Got any more? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: pdq Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:26 PM ...another possible reply... "God made Darwin" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:29 PM That demonic possession thing makes me want to vomit green pea soup or put my head on a swivel or something. Reincarnation is the ultimate in recycling. Palmistry: the scientific study of palm trees. Poltergeist Crop Circles Pyramids Sacred Geometry Puzeldorfinghart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: freda underhill Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:32 PM every action has its equal and opposite reaction.. sounds a bit like the theory of karma/reincarnation to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:09 PM "sounds a bit like the theory of karma/reincarnation to me." it DO?..wowee...it don't to me!*grin* Little Hawk...it was not meant to be a complete list- ;>) I assumed you could imagine some of the rest! And, of course, my 'list' was not meant to BE debated indivdually...the whole point was that ---aww...you know the point. I suspects you am just bear-baiting now, to see me wave my arms. Now it's YOUR turn to explain why, if all those neat things are happening, they don't happen to me...either it ain't fair, or it aint true! *grin* (I don't see auras, either!) But I DO see the amazing images from the Hubble telescope....that will have to keep me going till some aliens or ghosts or telepathic signals get through to ME! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:43 PM Gotta agree about the Hubble images. Man, they are beautiful. I suppose in my belief system that I find a comfort in a Creator. I've always thought of G-d as a sorta 'sum total of all law', but I couldn't really define that to anyone's satisfaction. I have a scientist friend who thinks G-d is an unnecessary thing in his life. I find G-d to be necessary in mine. We are still best friends. Science means being able to make predictions with 100% accuracy. Faith may mean the same to people. I can predict with 100% accuracy that I will believe in G-d tomorrow. Someone will say that's not scientific. We'd both be right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:00 PM Those neat things aren't happening to you, Bill, I think largely because they are not things that you are looking for or personally very connected to. They are not particularly germaine to your specific destiny. People generally have a tendency to be drawn to stuff that IS germaine to their destiny, and not to stuff that isn't. But there are exceptions, probably, to that...now and then. :-) 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. Lots of neat things don't happen to me either. I don't get a date with Winona Ryder. I don't seem to win prizes or lotteries or anything like that either. This is probably connected at least partly to the fact that I'm basically quite uninterested in the whole proposition of winning prizes and lotteries in the first place, and almost never bother looking anywhere to win something for nothing. Likewise, I gather that you are basically uninterested in, let's say, tarot, psychic healing, interplanetary visitors, and so on. If so, why would destiny send them your way? Follow? There's room in this world for all belief systems, so just pick what suits you best and enjoy it, but resist the impulse to quickly and automatically debunk the others. It's a kind of chauvinism in a lot of cases when people do that. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM Hey. Bill: Good for you! I enjoyed your "rant" as you refer to it on another thread. Nothing like airing it out. Just as a one sentence point. Faith isn't superior to knowledge because it is not subject to proof: it's neither superior, or inferior (in my eye.) By definition, faith is something that can't be proven. (Sorry, two sentences..) I also have a lot of faith in the scientific method (let me have that one, Bill.. :-) Many of the wonderful blessings (things we appreciate) in our lives are from science. If it wasn't for science, we'd be chiseling our comments on stone instead of on this keyboard. And what about all of the advancements in health care? I give praise for them, because family and friends have had their lives SAVED by science. As I mentioned earlier, I have seen dramatic healings of health that defy explanation. Doctors can not give one. You can just accept that as inexplicable occurences or a spiritual healing because of faith. Yahoo for science! Like faith, it has it's malpractice. That doesn't detract from it's basic value, any more than I feel like the lunatic Christians (and Muslims and other religions) don't invalidate the faith. We got no problem on science, Bill Jerry |
|
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. |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Little Hawk Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:19 AM Excellent post, Freda. - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 01:58 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:46 AM You're right, ellenpoly: I did start the thread just to encourage people to express what they believe in. And for awhile it went that way. It's not important that I believe the same thing, and I don't have any desire to belittle what others believe. But then, sometimes you learn more about people by what they don't believe, or are even judgmental about. That said, I've enjoyed this thread, and in a way, I think I have succeeded in doing what I started out to do. I laugh at the thread on secularity and religion because Guest is so intent on superimposing his/her agenda on the topic that they spend half their time trying to stop people from discussing words that THEY use. This IS Mudcat, and once you start a thread, you let go of it. I haven't tried to steer this thread, or do anything to control it. It's gone where people want it to go. At this point, it's probably lived it's life and most of us have said what we had to say. My only desire would have been that more people had expressed what they believe and spend less time trying to dismiss what others believe. Now, if I started a thread titled. "Everyone else is Full Of It," I could probably beat the dumbest thread ever, or whatever the title is. Don't get me wrong. I like Mudcat, and instead of being bothered by thread creep, I welcome it. Every once in awhile, someone will bring it back on topic, but even if they don't that's alright. Threads have a natural life span. When they start to go off on a tangent and become a conversation between three or four people, then they've probably served their original purpose. And that's alright too. 'Smatter of fact, life is pretty darned alright, as far as I'm concerned. And I thank EVERYONE who has contributed to this thread in whatever way they felt inclined. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:08 AM "Everyone Else is Full of it!" would indeed be a fruitful title for a satirical thread, Jerry. It's fascinating how tenaciously people defend their chosen view of reality and a bit perplexing how offended they can get when offered a differing view. This sort of wrangling gets worst, however, when it steps out on the political stage, I think. Ellenpoly - keep plugging away. Your persistence will be rewarded eventually, as people on the forum get to know you better. :-) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:21 AM 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 ----- Bill: You are absolutely correct here. Each of us are are on different lifepaths, and each of us are on a search of Spirituility that works (answers our spiritual questions) for us. The Dalai Lama found his answers in Buddhism. My guardians found their answers in the Baptist religion, I found my answers in blending Native American Spirituality and Hawai'ian mysticism. Before I found my answer; I studied assorted forms of "christianity", Buddhism, Taoism, Eckankar, Wicca, Druidry, and several others. The onus is on each of us to find the answers to our spiritual questions, and allow the soul expression. ----- 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, ----- I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. I was a very psychic child, and did not have the sence to keep my big mouth shut; well they thought that was a gift of Satan, and they did their best to beat Satan out of me. I still have a knot on my left collar bone 1/2 the size of a chicken egg where my guardians broke a broom handle over it, and I have avout 75 scars on my arms where I was burned with cigarettes as punishment. ----- 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 ----- Hawai'ian mysticism explains this pretty well. The Hawai'ian kahunas understood there are three spirits or selves in a human being. The selves are Unihipili (sub conscious mind), Uhane (conscious mind), and 'Aumakua (super conscious mind). The Unihipili has COMPLETE control over the kino kanaka (physical body). If the Unihipili is convinced there will be no pain or even bleeding; the Unihipili directs the kino kanaka to not feel any pain, or even bleed. There is also a surgeon at the house of Dom Ignatio in Brazil. Don't ask me to spell the name of the town. The surgeon Joao De Deus (called John of God) This is a simple man with NO medical training. He does surgeries with a pocket knife while channeling entities that were surgeons when they were human beings. I have never seen John of God do an operation; but a long time friend and her husband (her husband is a medical doctor in California)went there. When John of God was told that Peter was a medical doctor; Peter was asked to assist with the surgeries. I have given a brief synopsis of what Peter saw in the surgeries for your information) I saw him literally cut people open on the stage with his pocket knife (no sterilization facility), remove the gall bladder, inflamed appendix, tumor, remove cateracts from the eye, and others. The patient was awake and talking during the surgery, in no pain, and no bleeding, then after the surgery was over; he sewed them up with needle and thread. During the days I was there; I happened to see the people that received surgeries a few days before, and I asked to see the incisions. I did not see a trace of infection. I do not know what to believe any more. ----- 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 ----- I KNOW you're wrong; but I do not ask you to take my word for it. ;-) Debunkers demand that I ignore first hand experience and believe their statements hook line and sinker. It does not require poetry. It does require that you change the way you think. Children wanted to see the young carpenter (Jesus), and the disciples tried to send them awway, and the young carpenter rebuked the disciples and said words to the effect "unless you become as little children; you will not see the kingdom of God" This did not mean go back like children; but to look at the world in a sence of wonder where anything is possible. The first step to wisdom is the statement "I do not know. I have found a lot of answers to my spiritual questions; but I am not sure those answers are the 100% correct; but those answers work for me (The way the alien Klatu told Professor Barnard "It works well enough to get me around the galaxy" in the movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still). I am only sure of one thing "For creation to exist; there MUST be a Creator." ----- 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! ----- I promise. I will NOT throw bricks if we meet. That would not be in the spirit of Aloha. ;-) If you are comfortable with it; I will even demonstrate the heat emanating from my hands. By channeling mana to heal people; I have seen people flush beet red from the top of their head to their waist in minutes, and have seen injured nerves, tendons and muscles regenerate in 3-4 minutes, and the person regained the use of their hand AFTER their doctor told them the only way they would regain the use of their hand was through surgery. I also have a folder you could read that contains E-Mails and letters from some of my students. Some of them; I passed Reiki attunements to them, and what they experienced on the other side of the planet when I passed the attunements, and others that tried to direct lifeforce energy into a cloud, and burn a hole through it. I am NOTHING special. ANYONE can do this IF they try. This spiritual technology is EVERYONE'S birthright. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:29 AM 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. ----- Amos: Universal lifeforce energy DOES have measurable qualities. To the Hawai'ians there were three voltages. Mana (basic mana used ny the Unihipili), Mana mana (Mana is taken by the Uhane, and ramped up to mana mana) a higher frequency), then Mana loa (the 'Aumakua, ramps basic mana into mana loa. and mana loa is where the miracles happen. To the Yellow emperor of China; there were 32 different kinds of ch'i. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:35 AM Jerry I've enjoyed reading and contributing to this thread, debate included. Thank you for starting it! ...been working late at my lathe, and I sure could use an OOB right now!...will single malt scotch help?) Maybe, Bill, but then again you'd probably (and most logically) attribute any "experience" you might have to the scotch. Back to square one! 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* Well it's no "privilege" imo Bill. Any human being who has an honest desire or true need for a "spiritual experience" is guaranteed to have it when they are ready, as long as they make some sort of sincere effort towards that end. Visions, even majestic experiences like the phenomenal one shy cat shared above sure rate second best to knowing that every experience you'll ever have, physical and otherwise, is a "spiritual" one. And it really is. It all depends on one's perspective. To quote from The Little Prince ... The eyes are blind. One must look with the heart. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry (Oops, that's poetic, not scientific. Sorry, Bill ... I still like it though ....) 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. Well if you're sincere and not just pulling everyone's antlers Bill, PM me if you want. I have an idea that requires no special chants, postures, moods, religious "beliefs", linguistic weaving, poetry, trauma, debate or philosophy. If the time is right, you could maybe prove or disprove your own ideas for YOURSELF, once and for all. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:55 AM Daylia: I was going to make that same quote from the Little Prince... just ran across it the other day. The exact quote is: "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly: what is essential is invisible to the eye." Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:59 AM Little Hawk: I wrote a Song, Isn't That A Dreadful Shame many years ago with the last verse: "Some are too young, and some are too old And most are too blind to see You'd think with all these people who are living 'round here There'd be a few as nice as me." Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 10 Mar 04 - 11:00 AM "For creation to exist; there MUST be a Creator." Well, sure -- but one? Or several trillion of them? The universe could just as well be an average of projected illusions being put in place by every spirit that ever walked, flew or swam through, as it could be the byproduct of one Giant Being's instant impulse. I ain't saying it is one or the other, but let's not get locked into any fixed ideas here! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:49 PM poetry and linguistic weaving That sums it up well. Many here say they want to see science broaden its approach, but what they really mean, or what the effect would be to give up good parts of it. The quote from the Dalai Lama shows beautifully a very deep lack of understanding what the good reasons for science's narrow approach are. If we weaken the rules what makes a convincing case or not we loose much of the power from the scientific approach with a very doubtful gain. A nice 'poetic' trick made me smile: For creation to exist; there MUST be a Creator: To use the word 'creation' instead of a more neutral term like kosmos lead to this spurious argument. By the way: If the evidence for seemingly paranormal acts or demonstrations would be as clear as some of you like to think, there would be not the slightest need for broadening the approach of science. Demonstrations which really would be so impressive as those cited would make scientists quickly change their minds even without a good theory how it happens. In reality, when for instance scientists gather a bit of what one of those Brazilian 'doctors' gets out of the body of a patient, it turns out to be chicken intestines. As long as the case is not clearer there is no need for a change of theories. You seem to plead for changing theories without any good reason. No reason to discuss unicorn DNA without better proof of its existence. Scientists love to change their theories (Einstein, etc) but not with a compelling reason. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:57 PM Well, sure -- but one? Or several trillion of them? The universe could just as well be an average of projected illusions being put in place by every spirit that ever walked, flew or swam through, as it could be the byproduct of one Giant Being's instant impulse. I ain't saying it is one or the other, but let's not get locked into any fixed ideas here! ----- There are too many things right for human existence for human life to occur to all be an accident. There is fresh air to breathe in the right range. water is not poisoinous and can sustain life, temperature ranges are in acceptable ranges. If the earth was closer to the sun, we would burn, too far away, and we would freeze. The moon is at the exact size and distance to completely cover the sun in a total eclipse, and hundreds of other things that we need for life as we know it to exist. animals and plants to eat, vitamins and minerals, etc that keep us healthy. About now; someone is saying but what about evolution? I believe in micro evolution (beings evolving to be taller. have an opposible thumb, improving intelect. etc. I do NOT believe in macro evolution (evolution causing beings to transmute into other species. If we descended from monkeys. why are there still monkeys? Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM Your faith never ceases to impress me, Wolfgang. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM Ah Jerry, that small still voice within warned me I was paraphrasing too! But would I listen, and get up and look up the full quote? Oh no, not me .... there's no scientific evidence for that small still voice anyhow ... ;-) For posting the full translation, merci beaucoup, and I just can't resist ... "Voici mon secret. Il est très simple : on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux". C'est tres musicale en francais, n'est ce pas? :-) In reality, when for instance scientists gather a bit of what one of those Brazilian 'doctors' gets out of the body of a patient, it turns out to be chicken intestines. Wolfgang, I would very much like to see any evidence you might have to support your claim. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM " I would very much like to see any evidence you might have to support your claim." I have SEEN a video of the way the trick is done! It is exactly like a good magic show, involving plastic bags, arrangement of sheets, audience angle, and practiced slight of hand. The 'doctor' relies on the viewers expecting 'magic', and does not appreciate anyone suggesting that he show what's under the sheet or allowing them to stand BEHIND him while he works. I know..."that's only the DIShonest ones"..*grin* I don't know if I can find the actual video, *daylia* ------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we descended from monkeys. why are there still monkeys?" ummmm...because only a few early monkeys evolved...or needed to. The changes necessary to cause mutation are *random*, and do not happen to every individual! Same reason you can put a snake on an island and come back in a million years and find a very different snake with different adaptations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:40 PM A short site about faith healing Then of course Randi's book The faith healers (publ. by Prometheus) American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: 'psychic surgery.' CA -- A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:184-188, 1990. (the most scientific one) bottom line: all demonstrations to date of psychic surgery have been done by various forms of trickery. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM look here for various explanations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: C-flat Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM Like most people of middle-age, I was given, and accepted, religious education at school and was turned out to Sunday school because it was expected. My faith was unquestioned untill I was a young man, at which point I discovered other interests, as young men do, and never really thought about matters of faith for many years. In our modern world, science seemed to hold all the best cards and it seemed that we were on the verge of discovering the big truth with the advent of space travel and atomic science. More recently I'm rediscovering a kind of faith, although my colours aren't nailed to any mast in particular, and what science I have read of late seems only to point more and more to there being some sort of plan or structure to the creation of the universe and what life it holds. Take a look at this site for an example of how deep the structure runs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 10 Mar 04 - 05:30 PM A nice 'poetic' trick made me smile: For creation to exist; there MUST be a Creator: To use the word 'creation' instead of a more neutral term like kosmos lead to this spurious argument. ----- It is NOT a spurious argument. It is logical. What caused the uncaused first cause? What caused the big bang if you accept that theory? Which came first? the Ford Mustang, or the person or team of people that designed it? Looking at the world and the vast number of things required to sustain life; I believe Earth, and the things on Earth are created. ----- good theory how it happens. In reality, when for instance scientists gather a bit of what one of those Brazilian 'doctors' gets out of the body of a patient, it turns out to be chicken intestines. ----- You're wrong. Joao De Deus is NOT in the group of frauds you mentioned. 1. He has treated more than 11 million people in the last 30+ years. 2. He refuses payment 3. there are 139 documented cases where people have been cured of aids. 4. Quite often he removes tumors weighing up to 5 pounds and more. difficult to palm that. 5. There are lots of surgeries recorded on video tape. 6. He does healings every week at the house of Dom Ignatius outside Abadiania (not sure of the spelling) Brazil. All the skeptical scientists would need to do is watch closely and video tape the surgeries then watch the tape in sow motion to see if he is a fraud. What are they afraid of? Being proven wrong, and shown the world does not work the way they think it does? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 10 Mar 04 - 05:39 PM I have SEEN a video of the way the trick is done! It is exactly like a good magic show, involving plastic bags, arrangement of sheets, ----- I too have seen videos showing the alleged psychic surgeons in the Philapines. Since when are all psychic surgeons to be judged by the action of a few? Since when with the Unamazing Randi or other magicians demonstrating ONE way it COULD be done via trickery actually mean the healers do things by trickery. ----- ummmm...because only a few early monkeys evolved...or needed to. The changes necessary to cause mutation are *random*, and do not happen ----- If you believe that; I have a bridge to sell you. ----- to every individual! Same reason you can put a snake on an island and come back in a million years and find a very different snake with different adaptations. ----- BUT it would STILL be a snake! I already said that I believe in micro evolution (to adapt to one's environment). Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 10 Mar 04 - 05:48 PM "He has treated more than 11 million people in the last 30+ years." ...that's 1000 people a day, 7 days a week, even IF he is different from the frauds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 10 Mar 04 - 06:09 PM "If you believe that; I have a bridge to sell you." This is not a matter of belief anymore...or shouldn't be. The mechanisms of evolution have been worked out and tested and are accepted and studied widely now. DNA is showing us more & more detail of what the exact links were. What you call "macro evolution" is only a longer and more complex example of 'micro'....2 billion years ago, there NO species to speak of. 135 million years ago, there were almost no species after the Permian destruction (95% of everything was destroyed). 65 million years ago, 80% of the species that evolved AFTER the Permian destruction were destroyed. (The death of the dinosaurs)...Then, 40-50 thousand years ago, most of OUR direct ancestors were culled by ice ages and other environmental problems down to probably only a few thousand individuals...the monkeys were, by that time, on an entirely different track. so...I hope you have a good deal on that bridge. I could use one to stay above the really deep stuff down here in the BS threads..*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:20 PM 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. You'd "LOVE to be proved wrong". Ah, now I see. You are insisting that others provide you with the elusive "explanation" you'd find acceptable. Why assume this stance? Because it not only creates ample opportunity to indulge your real passion, your true LOVE - the mental power struggle, that (endlessly futile) war of words, the "winning" and "losing", the "proving" or "being proved wrong"? Perhaps it also fuels a hope that ultimately, someone else might do your *required* spiritual *homework* for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Boab Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:06 AM Best thread ever!---Some wondrous philosophy--so many folks buoyed up by their own particular faith---so many credible definitions of Faith---and, most intriguing of all, I have been fascinated by the writings of "two-Bears"! And the rest of the world is missing all this---- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:15 AM Boab, I've known Two Bears for about 8 literally miracle-filled months now. I had the pleasure of attending his HUNA workshop in Atlanta with Little Hawk last Nov. TWo Bears is not only the most remarkable and compassionate man I have ever had the privilege of meeting, he is a bona-fide Master of several of the martial and energetic healing arts, a fine and generous teacher, a gifted psychic and a true friend. (He also plays the NA flute most entrancingling, and will give you 'phone concerts' on a moments notice!) If you like what he said here, you're absolutely gonna LOVE his website! "HUNA 101" gifts it's readers with the basics of HUNA (ancient Hawai'ian spiritual philosophy/psychology/energetic techniques). *WARNING* Putting the simple techniques found in HUNA 101 to practice in your daily life is VERY likely to change you permanently! You will discover how to master your own health and destiny, how to manifest your needs and desires, how to work in harmony with the subconscious and superconscious aspects of your mind to achieve your highest purposes and goals in life! You will begin to realize, in a most practical and and "provable" way, the sacredness and power of Who and What you really are! Now, if all this just fills anyone with the urge to run and hide, or maybe to sit safely on the sidelines and throw verbal potshots at him in an attempt to condemn, ridicule or discredit who he is, what he does and the truths he shares .... well, that's the most common "knee-jerk" reaction he encounters anyway. He deals successfully with it every day of his life, so don't worry - no matter what you say or do, he's just gonna go right ahead and love you anyway! Aloha nui loa, daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM Oops, thats He also plays the NA flute most entrancingly, not entrancingling. An "entrancingling" is what I become as I listen to him! ;-) daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:35 AM It is NOT a spurious argument. It is logical... Looking at the world and the vast number of things required to sustain life; I believe Earth, and the things on Earth are created. (Two Bears) You made me smile again: Do you believe it because it is logical or does it become logical because you believe it? Bill, your calculation is alright but the result is consistent with reports about De Deus: According to reports he treats up to 3000 people a day, making the blind see and paraplegics walk, and curing cancers and other illness. He does all this without medication of surgical invasions of the body. Three thousand a day and sometimes a day off to recover from the hard work. He can even make the blind see, I've read it on the internet! To which I would add that he rather makes some people, who in a physical sense can see, blind. That's why the word 'faith' in some contexts is preceded by the word 'blind'. Now back to an old argument from John H.: But science has shown to disprove its previous conclusions SO often that it should be obvious that, though scientific method is valid, the conclusions drawn from it are as fluid as faith and belief. (1) You seem to take self-correction as a reason to trust less in results from science. For me, it is completely different. I have much more trust in knowledge systems that change with new findings than in those that have been laid down centuries ago and are never changed. I never had much trust in authoritative teachings in my life and any gurus and masters I have met have always failed to impress me except for their combination of low knowledge with high confidence. (2) If you look back at the history of science in any field, you'll see that, on the one hand, what was measured nearly always came closer to a kind of asymptote, so the remaining error getting smaller each decade (nothing fluid like faith in that) and, on the other hand, that the changing theories were nearly always getting better at making prediction, even if the underlying principles could be vastly different. Newton's beautiful theory is wrong. Period. But the predictions it has made are for the usual speeds extremely close for all practical purposes. Einstein's theory makes better on target predictions for what happens to motion near big masses or at high speed. One day it most probably will be found to be wrong in what it assumes as the basic mechanism. But that doesn't make the predictions wrong. Sometimes scientists even make theories the mechanisms of which they already know to be wrong just because these theories make good predictions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:41 AM The issue of self-correction doesn't apply to the adherence to material proving methodologies, though, because of all the self-proving predictions, the most fundamental one is that materiality is the core nature behind all phenomena. This makes for pretty dismal psychology, but never mind; it's science. It takes very little observation to notice that live thought operates differently than particles, and must have rules of a different kind and caliber. But I see very little effort to explore this difference; the majority of scientific articles concerning thought or the mind are anchored firmly to the brain=mind=electrons model. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 11 Mar 04 - 11:44 AM "He has treated more than 11 million people in the last 30+ years." ...that's 1000 people a day, 7 days a week, even IF he is different from the frauds. ----- Congrats for doing the math. Over 1000 people ARE treated a day. Joao does some surgeries, then there are several current rooms where the assorted entities do invisible surgeries, then the people return home and have tests, and the cancer is completely gone. Xrays before and after the visit to the House of Dom Ignatius. You forgot to comment about the 139 documented cures from AIDS. What are you afraid of? Joao has a 30 year HISTORY; scientiests need only go there and tape it and check for signs of trickery. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 11 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM so...I hope you have a good deal on that bridge. I could use one to stay above the really deep stuff down here in the BS threads..*grin* ----- I have a great deal on that bridge; but it is no longer for sale because you are not interested in truth, and proving it to yourself. you are not interested in learning the truth. You have my pity. I will not waste any more time on your unenlightened condition. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 11 Mar 04 - 12:01 PM Bill, your calculation is alright but the result is consistent with reports about De Deus: According to reports he treats up to 3000 people a day, making the blind see and paraplegics walk, and curing cancers and other illness. He does all this without medication of surgical invasions of the body. ----- You're wrong. He prescribes herbs. I know because my friend took the herbs for about 2 months after she returned from Brazil. The entities do MANY of the invisible surgeries as you described; but there are also MANY physical surgeries as I described earlier. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Mar 04 - 12:11 PM You're wrong (Two Bear) No, they are wrong. I have only cited from a pro-De Deus site. That's why that part was in italics. That's also well know. The believers contradict each other about what their experiences tell them what is true. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:24 PM Perhaps the writers do not include herbal supplements, but only standard pharmaceutical drugs in their use of the word "medication"? It could be as simple as that. Gotta love words ;-) That's also well know. The believers contradict each other about what their experiences tell them what is true. Wolfgang, energetic healing has very little, if anything, to do with "beliefs" of any kind. Do you have to "believe" in the electricity coming out of your wall sockets for it to work? No, you only need only install the necessary apparatus in your home, connect it with your Power company, pay your bills and presto! You're the Light of the World! ;-) People's experiences of spiritual/energetic healing are as unique as they are. The experience is custom-made, precisely "Hand-crafted" to fit their personal needs at the time. That their reports vary is only to be expected. Those differences do not make the reports, or the outcomes of the healing work "contradictory". daylia PS Two Bears, what did the White Bear say to the Black Bear? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM ?? "you are not interested in truth, and proving it to yourself. you are not interested in learning the truth. You have my pity. I will not waste any more time on your unenlightened condition." well, goodness!... My notes about what is KNOWN about evolution didn't seem to make much impression...or entirely the wrong impression. ....'learning' the truth, or being told what the truth is, and expected to absorb it on faith? I said above that I would read more about what you say on these matters, but I did NOT agree to 'enlightenment' on someone else's terms. Pity me then, if that's your reaction to an honest attempt to TRADE ideas, not just swallow ideas. (You know, that's approximately the reaction I got from the local Jehovah's Witnesses when I replied that I didn't think I'd like living in the type of Heaven and under the rules they described) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 04 - 03:12 PM Bill: Yeah, but the JW's didn't want to offer you a barred F chord, now did they? "Enlightenment on somebody else's terms" is an oxymoron of the first order, as you are clearly aware! :>)) Keep truckin', dude. It will hit on your own terms when it hits. Of that there is no doubt. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 11 Mar 04 - 04:08 PM well, goodness!... My notes about what is KNOWN about evolution didn't seem to make much impression...or entirely the wrong impression Please correct me if the scholarly situation has advanced considerably in the last few years or so (since I studied biology etc) -- but since when has Evolution been promoted from the lowly rank of scientific "theory" to a "fact"? From the shakey realm of "hypothesis" to that of true "knowledge" - which can be gleaned only through direct first-hand experience? (At least, that's how I differentiate between "knowledge" and either scientific "hypothesis" or religious "faith"). Your notes re the specifics of current evolutionary hypothesis and theory are interesting, but they are neither statements of "fact" or "truth", Bill. Nor are they compelling evidence for the "random mutation" theory about the origins of the universe/source of life. Hmmm, maybe a better name for that idea would be the "Randomly Mutated Theory of Universally Chaotic Atomic Ordering and Sporadic Episodes of Life-Engenderment", or something of that Nature? ;) daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Mar 04 - 04:26 PM Every incarnated soul dearly loves its own chosen way of seeing and dealing with reality. That it should find discomfort in another soul's seeing reality differently is unfortunate. It indicates some form of insecurity. Have respect for other's experiences and viewpoints and it will get you farther than scoring points in a competitive mental exercise meant to prove you are "right" and they are "wrong". I have always respected science and seen value in it. Only while still a teenager, however, did I allow that respect for science to make me prejudiced against other matters which lay (at least for the time being) beyond the conventional parameters of the scientific world. I am not under the impression that everyone else is obliged to believe in what I believe in, nor am I under the impression that my beliefs are the only ones that are valid. They just happen to suit me, that's all. That's my business. The Unamazing Randi is a zealot...rather like a Jehovah's witness in his crusading zeal...he will not be content until he has converted everyone else to think the way he does. Ergo, he will never be content. That's a silly and unhelpful attitude, indicative of a form of psychological illness, in my opinion. It's also a gross form of narcissism. Grow up, Unamazing Randi. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 11 Mar 04 - 04:34 PM /iThat's also well know. The believers contradict each other about what their experiences tell them what is true./i ----- Wolfgang: What happens when 10 people view the same accident? there are different points of view in just 10 minutes after the accident. What do you expect to happen with 11 million people treated over more than 30 years? Furthermore; these 11 million are NOT reporting the same healing. Each healings is individual. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 11 Mar 04 - 04:54 PM well, goodness!... My notes about what is KNOWN about evolution didn't seem to make much impression...or entirely the wrong impression. ----- Evolution is a theory not fact. Can you explain the slab of sedimentary rock with both dinosaur prints, and a human being wearing shoes made from leather and sewn together. This allegedly happende many millions of years before bipeds developed. If science was honest; they would be open to discussing archeological evidence that refutes their beloved theory of evolution. If you cared to read forbiden archeology; you would know about that, the device that appears to function as a spark plug found inside a round rock believed to be a 500,000 year old geode, you would find out about elephant rock found in the south west states (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, etc) The african elephant never lived on the North American continent, You would find out about the 1000 year old battery discovered in Iraq, and much much more. If the current bunch of scientists were to tell me it was noon; I wound insist on checking the position of the sun. ----- ....'learning' the truth, or being told what the truth is, and expected to absorb it on faith? I said above that I would read more about what you say on these matters, but I did NOT agree to 'enlightenment' on someone else's terms. Pity me then, if that's ----- I NEVER asked you to absorb enlightenment on my terms or antone elses. I only suggested that you test what I offered then after a fair trial; either prove or disprove it to yourself. Daylia; the white bear said to the black bear "why stand there ready to fight when you can smell the roses and take it easy." Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 04 - 05:12 PM daylia...the evolution debate has come down to the scientists who have the bones, the sediments, the chemical analysis, the DNA, the radioactive decay calibration...etc...against those who, 'usually' on religious grounds, say "so what? I don't accept that you have proved anything."...In my view, those with physical evidence do have "direct first-hand experience"..I don't have to go do the same research myself to have confidence in their findings.(even though many details are still missing, the basic structure of evolution is now well documented and understood. Do you have some evidence to the contrary that I am missing? I am not sure what you WOULD consider "compelling evidence" if all those skeletons and careful dating of changes do not convince you. We have taken photos of Earth from orbit, but there are still a few folks who declare it non-compelling and state that is is obvious that the Earth is flat....I don't know what to say...*shrug*... I am convinced that science is pretty much right about the basics--and many of the details-- about evolution; enough to bet that the future will only bring more confirmation. I have no personal interest in the truth being this way or that way--I am not publishing papers or selling anything to museums. I just look at the growing body of knowlege and compare it to the arguments of those who disagree and see no contest. Amos--" It will hit on your own terms when it hits." I guess so...whatever "it" is....If I DO have an experience that startles me, I will sure want to know why. But I want that surprise to come in spite of my scepticism. Maybe I oughta go to Brazil and get some of these aches & pains healed. -------------------------------------- Little Hawk...though you don't address me directly, I gather from the context that you class me as an "insecure incarnated soul" (imagine raised eyebrows here)...I don't exactly identify with either part of that. I am just a guy who thinks he is here for one trip and wants to make the best of it. Durn thing is, if I am right, I don't even get to say "I told you so!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Mar 04 - 05:17 PM Well, I wasn't particularly thinking about you, Bill. You're more flexible and good-natured on this kind of thing than the type of person I was referring to. I was thinking more about the Unamazing Randi, for example. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:17 PM Oh, ya don't need to go to Brazil, Bill. You can do a lot just by slipping the surly bonds of your own body and tweaking the joints from outside! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:44 PM I'm reading...here's The Baghdad battery and here's that AND the geode on the same page (The two pages treat the 'battery' very differently) I haven't found the sandal yet, but the other two surely don't DISprove evolution...the battery may not have even been used as a battery, but it seems to have been something that could have been made then (2000 years ago). The geode is curious, to be sure...but if it were an artifact from some cosmic culture, it still wouldn't disprove evolution. ...and it doesn't 'seem' to be available for ongoing study. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:53 PM no...wait here's the Man track in Texas....it says it and other similar ones had been disproved and accepted as mostly weathering features that resembled 'tracks'...(reminds me of images of the Virgin Mary on water tanks, etc....people WANT to believe interesting things) Like 27 different conspiricy theories about JFK's death...they can't all be true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:01 AM I haven't found the sandal yet, but the other two surely don't DISprove evolution...the battery may not have even been used as a ----- Really? the Dinosaurs allegedly walked the planet millions of years before man, and later fossils occur at higher levels in the sedimentary rocks. The sandal treads and the disosaur prints are at the same levell in the strata. Either mankind existed millions of years earlier than they were supposed to be, or the disosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago. No matter which way you slice it; this one artifact shakes the theory of evolution to it's core. Your beloved science states no animal weighing more than 100 pounds survived the incident that killed the dinosaurs. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:13 AM no...wait here's the Man track in Texas....it says it and other similar ones had been disproved and accepted as mostly weathering features that resembled 'tracks'...(reminds me of images of the ----- The tracks of the man were great. There were multiple footsteps (both left and right footprints, and the footprints were so precise; you could see the impression of the fibers used to sew the peices of leather together. under magnification) Why is it that you will take the word of scientists (that will not tell the truth about these forbidden archeological items? It would shake up their paradigm), and you are unwilling to do your own research. Maybe you are not willing to search for the truth at all. I am through with this debate with you; no matter what else you post. Two Bears |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:30 AM I decided to quote two parageaphs about faith from page 194 of "Hawaiian Magic" by Clark Wilkerson. "Faith is a power of the soul. Realization of man's inner self strengthens his faith. Diseases may be cured by faith. It is like love; it cannot be forced. It is knowledge of your true self. The more knowledge you have of yourself, the more faith you have. It is a real knowing of the soul and is fed by the inner mind (subconscious mind, or Unihipili depending on your vernacular). Faith is the inner power from the mind and soul. It will and can do anything" ..... "Faith is like a small brook that starts high on the mountain side and as more water is added to it from the canyons and crevices, it becomes a mighty river of power and strength." Two Bears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 12 Mar 04 - 07:45 AM Faith is like a small brook that starts high on the mountain side and as more water is added to it from the canyons and crevices, it becomes a mighty river of power and strength." That's beautiful, Two Bears, but water ya tryin to do? Drown me??? ;-) Do you have some evidence to the contrary that I am missing? I am not sure what you WOULD consider "compelling evidence" if all those skeletons and careful dating of changes do not convince you. We have taken photos of Earth from orbit, but there are still a few folks who declare it non-compelling and state that is is obvious that the Earth is flat....I don't know what to say...*shrug*... Bill I certainly didn't mean to imply that the world is flat or that the theory of evolution is nothing but hogwash! I only wanted to point out the differences between what is true rock-solid "knowledge" and what is "theory" or "faith". I don't know why "religious" scientists refuse to acknowledge the DNA evidence as "fact", but here's a couple ideas that have nothing to do with religion ... DNA testing is still a new technology using new equipment/hypotheses etc which are continually being tested and modified, possibly leaving previous conclusions in doubt? The inevitable conflicts between the conclusions of different researchers? The difficulty (if not downright impossibility) of claiming ANYTHING as "fact" about what happened on this planet millions of years ago, when NO ONE WAS AROUND TO DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE IT! The theories and the means of testing them are relatively new, and of course scientists themselves make human mistakes. Scientific investigation has been known to start out with faulty premises, produce selective "evidence" to support those hypotheses, then draw questionable conclusions which are bandied around as "facts" ... until another investigator "proves" otherwise. It may ultimately be impossible for science to "prove" the theory of evolution! So what? In my understanding to date, there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and spirituality. It's not "Creation or Evolution but not both", it's "Creation IS evolving, as it always has!" My best guess is that human spiritual consciousness/awareness - the aspect of human nature called "Soul" - didn't become part of our nature until physical evolution had produced the "wiring" (ie brain development etc) necessary to accomodate it. (If that's true, your dates would give some clue as to when that happened!) And that "Soul", (ie personal spiritual consciousness/identity), continues to evolve just as our physical bodies do. But to accept something like the theory of random mutation would take a GIANT leap of faith, for me anyway. That the wondrous variety of life-forms on this planet, the "miraculous" structure of even ONE LIVING CELL of our bodies .. (which science STILL cannot explain, much less duplicate!) - are the result of "chance" is just too unlikely a premise for my logical mind to swallow, Bill. That's like saying -- "Oh Beethoven didn't write the 9th Symphony -- there IS no Beethoven! This chaotic cacophony of tones was swirling about in the airs of infinity and somehow accidentally (and quite randomly) arranged themselves into beautifully ordered and aesthetically pleasing melodic phrases, harmonic progressions and complex musical structures - and voila! There's the Ode to Joy! No kidding! You just GOTTA 'believe' it!" As for me ... I'd much rather "know" I'm Divinely Created Than try to "believe" I was randomly mutated! :-) daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 04 - 10:42 AM In any age of man or any century you care to look at there is an assumed body of officially accepted knowledge. Those who hold it may be scientists, philosophers, professors, historians, priests, shamans, or combinations of the above. They are usually men. Sometimes there are also a few women in their ranks. They are normally VERY sure that everything they believe is entirely true and accurate AND that it is the most complete body of knowledge ever held by the human race. The general public in any century or age tends to listen to these authorities and accept what they say as gospel. A few nonconformists and a few brilliant and imaginative radicals will always question it, however. They are usually dismissed as cranks by the majority. In more strict systems they are arrested and burnt at the stake or delivered up to some other hideous fate. Fortunately, things aren't that dangerous for nonconformists at the present time, or I would be in great danger. :-) Some people are nonconformists because they are wise, others merely because they are rebellious. Some come up with new ideas that lead to breakthroughs in understanding, others come up with new ideas that lead nowhere useful. And the gods (if gods there are) laugh! Because the fact is that the ivory tower authoritative men of any age, including the present one, have a very fragmentary understanding of reality, of the geological and natural history of this planet, of the nature of the Universe, of the nature of evolution, and of every other great subject. Despite their sublime confidence in their particular version of truth, they are fallible, they have blind spots, they are hampered by prejudice, habit, and assumption...and they are probably dead wrong about a great many very basic things. That applies to our present authorities: the scientific community. It also applies to our present authorities in the various religious organizations, and in the educational fields. Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope. Therefore I consider what they have to say, and then I also think for myself, and I wait for new information to come forward. Be assured that a century from now much of today's "gospel" will have been disproven and altered substantially from the present glib line. There will be new theories about dinosaurs, evolution, and various other things. Wait and see. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:24 AM That's beautiful, Two Bears, but water ya tryin to do? Drown me??? ;-) ----- I think Mr. Wilkersonwas speaking metaphoricaly instead of real water. To the Hawai'ians; they associated water with mana (Hawai'ian term for universal lifeforce energy). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Two_bears Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:27 AM The general public in any century or age tends to listen to these authorities and accept what they say as gospel. A few nonconformists and a few brilliant and imaginative radicals will always question it, however. They are usually dismissed as cranks by the majority. In more strict systems they are arrested and burnt at the stake or delivered up to some other hideous fate. Fortunately, things aren't that dangerous for nonconformists at the present time, or I would be in great danger. :-) Some ---- 100 years ago; the town people would be holding a big bonfire in my honor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:29 AM Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope LH: You miss the entire thrust of science with this remark. Even granting that scientist-type folks can become authoritarian and even priestlike, the entire confrontation over the years since Galileo muttered "Nevertheless, it moves!" on his way out of court has been because science asserted knowledge could be acquired without rreliance on authority. Science is the buy-no-BS trail, the rebels' option in many ways, because it asserts that anyone can test anything and get results and conclusions that can be replicated whether authority blesses them or no. The Pope does not ask for replicability to support his assertions, nor does he invite testing --even to those who see him as compassionate, he is the ultimate in authoritarian modes of knowing. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 12 Mar 04 - 12:14 PM "I am through with this debate with you; no matter what else you post." ok...I post this, then, merely for others who might be following the discussion. "Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings. " (I was asked why I was willing to take the word of 'scientists' and not do my own research. Well, I am not ABLE to travel to Texas and examine those track myself, nor am I trained to do analysis of sediments and weathering patterns and the differences between dinosaur tracks and purported human tracks...but when the articles SAYS that even the creationists have given up on this, I have a pretty good idea which seems most likely. If other 'evidence' is found later, will I reconsider? sure!) one other point (for others, not Two Bears, as he is convinced my mind is closed) "Your beloved science states no animal weighing more than 100 pounds survived the incident that killed the dinosaurs." I hadn't seen that precise claim, but it seems reasonable...65 million years can do a lot, and more & more data is confirming that approximate time in new research. I have not seen any new research that supports man & dinosaurs existing at the same time. (This line of thinking 'seems' to want to assert that the dinosaurs were a much more recent thing...in the thousands of years past, rather than millions...but no real, solid evidence for this seems to be forthcoming.) daylia..you state... "I'd much rather "know" I'm Divinely Created Than try to "believe" I was randomly mutated!" I can see why that would feel better, and I see why you and many others feel that " ...to accept something like the theory of random mutation would take a GIANT leap of faith..." It's very much like those in Copernicus' day being told that Ptolemy was wrong and the Earth was not the center of the universe. They could look up and SEE the stars revolving around them! Galileo got in deep trouble for espousing the theories of Copernicus. Galileo's career was ruined....so what happened? " On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. " Is the Galileo stuff irrelevant to what we were discussing? Not to me, as it illustrates the natural reluctance of people to give up believing what 'feels' better. To some believers these days, it is easier to simply give a divine creator credit for designing and setting in motion the 'evolution' that seems so pervasive. You have to make you own peace with all the stuff ....It wont affect how you live and how you care for others if you NEVER believe those startling claims of science, but some of us (like me) feel like we MUST accept the best evidence we can glean, no matter how hard it is to wrap our heads around. To me, imagining a Supreme Creator is just as hard as visualizing 4-5 billion years of evolution, and I have simply come to terms with it. I care---very much-- about others and the state of civilization, and feel that IF there is Spiritual Conciousness to the universe, it will, if it cares at all, understand why I feel like I do. If I ever get to meet a 'creator' on some plane above this, I hope I get to ask a few pointed questions...*smile* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: *daylia* Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM If I ever get to meet a 'creator' on some plane above this, I hope I get to ask a few pointed questions...*smile* Well, I hereby hypothesize that simply by writing your "hope", your intention down - right here among the Cats! - you've already accomplished just that, on those (seemingly-so-elusive) subtle planes! "As above, so below" after all .... Question is, are you ready for your Response? Gotta have your Heart's "Ears" and "Eyes" prepped, remember .... :-) You have to make you own peace with all the stuff ....It wont affect how you live and how you care for others if you NEVER believe those startling claims of science, but some of us (like me) feel like we MUST accept the best evidence we can glean, no matter how hard it is to wrap our heads around. I agree. Everyone chooses how, when and upon what to spend their time and energy. Whether I consider myself "created" or "mutated" is, in truth, pretty trivial - what's really important is, of course, the way I choose to use each moment of my life, right here and now, be I "created" or "mutated"! And everyone is free to create, upgrade and maintain the personal view of the Universe that works best for them ---- - unless that personal "view" causes harm or somehow interferes with the health, happiness and free will of another. That's the old conflict between Religion and Science, demonstrated so well by the case of Galileo. While I see no conflict between Science and what is truly "spiritual", I know the history of Science is one long bitter ... (and very much NEEDED) ... power struggle with organized religion. daylia PS -- aw shucks and I thought maybe Beethoven could open those Ears up for ya ... maybe I'll borrow that barred F chord from Amos, infuse it with a torrential deluge of loving enlightenisms .. you know, all dolce and cantabile ... and pitch it (gently) at'cha instead! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM I don't think I miss the thrust of science at all, Amos, considering that I began my life as a very scientifically minded young man, shaking his head at all the superstitious and gullible people around him who believed in fantastic stuff like...Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the immaculate conception. And I could go on... No, I understand the thrust of science very well. I also understand that the scientific authorities of any era in human development are only prepared to see what they are prepared to look at...and in the manner in which they understand to be "looking". As such, they are as much mired in their particular orthodoxies as other people are. They think "inside the box" of their usual set of beliefs about reality. So does everyone else...except the odd genius or radical thinker. It is such people who introduce brand new scientific theories at times which are "outside the box". Those people are often ridiculed and scoffed at by their peers who can't think outside the box. As I said. Wait and see. New ideas will come forward which discredit the old. They always have and they always shall. Once a new idea becomes mainstream, people just take it for granted...and then they have a brand new box to think inside of. I'm talking philosophy here, Amos. I am now questioning empirical scientific evidence, only the subjective interpretation of said evidence. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM typo in my last sentence. It should have said: I am NOT questioning empirical scientific evidence, only the subjective interpretation of said evidence. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM Well then, LH, let me just say that I disagree with the sentiment ; because they knwoingly engage in cross-verification and have some standard of objective evidence, even if not perfect, scientists by and large are significantly more reliable than the Pope, and much less subject to fallibility, if that is a word. But since infallibility is an absolute term, it doesn;t really apply to either Popes of scientists. On relative merits I'd take the scientist, 'most any day. So your literal statement is perfect. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:49 PM Well, of course they're more reliable than the Pope! :-) I was just making an analogy. But do you really imagine that scientists, simply by virtue of the fact that they are scientists, are completely without prejudice? Completely fair-minded? Completely free of peer pressure? Completely disinterested in the findings they present? Completely free of the competitive desire to be "right", and to prove people with different theories wrong? Ha! Tell me another one, Amos. If you do think those things, I have a bridge to sell you. Keep in mind that the scientists who present big industry with what it wants to hear are the ones who get continued funding from big industry. And where does that lead? And how does a man with culturally induced blind spots know he has them? He doesn't. Scientists, like the rest of us, have them. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:01 PM "the scientists who present big industry with what it wants to hear are the ones who get continued funding from big industry." *sigh*...all too true. Fudging of data occurs every day, in order to win contracts to....fudge data. They ain't all guilty, but like slick televangelists, they give the rest of 'em a bad name. As to "culturally induced blind spots"...a man has to do his best, if he really cares, to examine his life & thoughts and sort them out. 'Tain't easy-- If it was easy, we'd have a kinder, gentler world! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:18 AM Now I am at a computer that lets me post to long threads. I'll bring up this thread once again for these thoughts belong into it and not somewhere else. Jerry has started (long time ago) this thread hoping that it will not be divisive, pitting people against each other. It has ended before this post as a quarrel about science and about evolution. Why? That's easy to understand. Most times, science and religions are Nonoverlapping Magisteria (S. J. Gould; I agree with much of what he writes). They have their say on completely different things. Scientists refrain to make statements about moral and ethics (except of course, as individuals), religions usually refrain from making statements of fact on fields on which science can make those. But from time to time science claims a new field on which one or more religion(s) have a stand too. Then it comes to a fight that invariably, sooner or late, has been lost by the religions. The earth is not flat? That's in contradiction to Daniel 4:11 and Matthew 4:8 in which all kingdoms of the Earth can be seen from a mountain. The number of flat earthists has gone down considerably. The retreating fights of some religions for some claims have gone on for centuries. Natives in both Australia and America have challenged scientific findings that have been in contradiction to what their myths say about where they came from. Some Christians and some Muslims attack evolution because they consider the findings to be in contradiction to one particular reading of a big book. They could in principle attack the theory of special relativity ("it's only a theory"!!) or the model of the atom and its nucleus ("that's only your faith"). They don't because there are no theological implications. The anti-evolution front is far from being united. I have mentioned the flat earthists, there are the young earth creationists, the gap creationists (two creations at different times), the day-age creationists (creation it was, but at the evolutionists time-scale), the micro-evolution creationists (as Two Bears) who postulate creation for the species and a later micro-evolution. I have missed some groups but I'll mention the other extreme to the flat-earthists, the theistic evolutionists. They accept evolution as described by science but think it was God who has created the cosmos with all its laws to allow for later evolution from scratch, that is animated from unanimated matter. The retreat can be spotted in the succession of the argumentation in court cases, a string of legal defeats. In the famous Scopes trial in 1925, in Bryan's last speech the accusation was that evolution was against God's writings and laws and that only a minority was supporting evolution. Then came Creation Science, an endeavour abusing a good word for accumulating evidence only for one particular preconceived conclusion. It was put to final silence by the famous judgement of Overton. Bottom line: It isn't a science despite its name. Then came 'Intelligent Design' and the clever accusation that science was a faith or religion too (I'm smiling to see Little Hawk using arguments from the religious far right with which he usually has nothing to do). In the 1990s, the Ninths Circuit court of Appeals ruled that a school district had a legal right to require one of its teachers to teach evolution because it is a scientific theory, and rejected the teacher's contention that there was such a thing as religion of evolutionsism (M. Pigliucci, Denying Evolution, 2002). The schools of creationist thought only differ in how much of reality they accept, from the flat earthists to the theistic evolutionists who accept everything but postulate a divine creation of the cosmos before it ran completely on its own. Two arguments to conclude: Two Bears, your argumentation is based on analogies. Analogies are plausible for those sharing your basic convictions and are therefore good in teaching but fall completely flat with those not sharing the conviction. Your argument that if someone sees something complicated the conclusion is inevitable that there has to be a designer, is wrong for at least two reasons: (1) There is something like 'design without intention' (example: snowflakes that look at close-up like works of an artist, though the laws of chemistry and the binding forces are well known) (2) Theistic evolution mentioned above. These people accept everything in evolution you consider impossible and still believe in a designer. 'Evolution is just a theory' or similar sentences and sentiments are mistaken for they show ignorance of what a theory in science is and how it is related to facts. The body of facts points so clearly to evolution that any realistic theory has to be evolutionary to make sense ("Nothing in biology makes sense if not in the light of evolution", Dobzhansky, in: Biology Teacher, 1973; himself being a devout theist, by the way). There are several competing theories about the mechanism and the speed that come to different predictions ('punctuated equilibrium' being one example of such a theory), but since they start by trying to explain the same set of data they all start from evolution as a fact, the concrete mechanisms being under debate. "This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works." (M. Pigliucci, Denying Evolution, 2002). That was long enough. A shorter post directed at Amos will follow. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:09 AM Amos, at different points with different words you have written that science could be better and more complete if it accepted more than merely actions of neurosn to explain the mind. Since ages, something called psyche, anima, soul, life energy, life force has been postulated by many different people from different faiths. They have differed about which was animated (humans, animals, plants, wells, rivers, mountains,...). They have differed about what happens to the anima after death: (1) Does it get recycled as the same entity but in different form, (2) does it return to the big pool of energy to be recycled in different forms (so that my soul might be like a drop in the ocean, each litre of water contains some units of my former soul), (3) does it get lost for good (4) does it get a permanent storage at once (Greek mythology), (5) does it go to a kind of sleep/inexistence before being restored and getting a permanent place. All those are interesting ideas and I can't say they are wrong for I don't know. My personal guess is all are wrong, but I am an agnostic here. My quarrel with you is not at all that these thoughts have no place at all, for I consider them worthwhile to think about. I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions. How could we differentiate between the many different position as to what happens when a human has died? (And I haven't mentioned yet the many differing ideas about where the souls come from and at which moment in time, when a new human is 'made'). I do not have enough fantasy to see a research program here. Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions and I might have to reconsider my position. Up to then, I still think the best position is to accept that our knowledge is not complete but not to close that gap by a passepartout explanation fitting every conceivable question. But that's only me. Former parapsychologist Susan Blackmore has written a fine essay (New Scientist 22 June 2002) about research in neuropsychology/neurophysiology. An explicit critique of much of the current theories but also an implicit critique of ideas postulating something like consciousness. (end of message in particular to Amos) Since I have mentioned Susan Blackmore, a woman I admire much, some might want to read her chapter Why I have given up. It is useful for those who like to think scientists have a close mind. Without exception all those things and feats mentioned by Two Bears have been studied by one or more scientists. They just did not find a corroboration for the claims. Whenever you read a sentence like 'scientists are baffled', 'science has no explanation', 'scientists are puzzled', much more often than not the sentence is outrightly wrong for anybody with just a bit of knowledge in the field. These sentences are in the texts because they feel good to the believers. Or does a truthful sentence like 'I haven't bothered to check whether there is a scientific explanation' or 'I know of a possible scientific explanation but I'm sure buyers of my books wouldn't like to read about it' tickle your fancy in the same way as the more mysterious 'Scientists have failed to find any normal explanation'? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:14 AM The second Blackmore link was wrong (sorry): Here it is again Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Ben Dover Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM Faith Brown, Woof! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM very nice summary, Wolfgang. (Thank you especially for noting why this thread drifted from Jerry's original concept.) If it is read by those we have debated in this thread, I suspect that sentences like these will be singled out: " I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions." "Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions..." Unfortunately, I see many arguments that assert that 'not being empirically testable' is no problem, as the very point is that their claims do not fall under standard scientific purview. This is put forward as a feature, not a flaw. I have been told several times now that I will understand when it happens to ME. My answer, if something amazing does 'happen' to me....No, I will NOT understand and accept in a blinding flash of non-linear intuition. I will investigate and ponder and compare and analyze ....and hope I can recreate the experience and do something that will leave no doubt with others that it is 'real'-in the broad sense of the word. I do not doubt that people are honest and sincere when they report unusual phenomena like OOB experiences or contact with aliens or precognition or healing-- I just reserve judgment about the precise cause. But when it comes to disputes about such things as evolution, Wolfgang has made the point very well. To simply dismiss it as merely 'theory' is to misunderstand the very concept and to "show ignorance of what a theory in science is and how it is related to facts." We can write all day, but no one, on either side of the dispute, can enforce whether others accept their view, whether it is based on reason, faith, logic or simple rhetoric. I suppose we must leave it at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Creator Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM I'm so very pleased to see that my snowflake designs and the physical laws I drafted to create them have met with your scholarly approval (even if I haven't! Please know that arguing with one another about my Nature and Existence does nothing but waste your precious and quite limited physical Time and Energy. Here's a little Secret for you all - Everyone is "right" and no-one is "wrong" about whatever they understand Me to be - be they atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Satanists, the Dalai Lama, or Conan the Barbarian. To spend the rest of your days pondering this Truth until you really understand it would a much wiser use of your Time and Energy than the way some of you are spending it right now, on this thread. At the same time, you are all free to think and behave however you choose, of course. That is your Divine Birthright. Here's some Light for your dark little minds - any "fact" or "non-fact" which is impossible to physically demonstrate or "prove" as "fact" or "non-fact" may be called a "theory". That is the meaning of the word "theory". Now, some theories are truths, not yet facts. And some theories are completely off-base, neither truth nor fact. My explanation may disappoint the scientists and philosophers among you, but it's really no more complicated than that. Truth is also divinely Simple. That's the way I designed It. I have also Seen how very easy it is for you to allow your restless minds, untamed egos and wagging tongues to continue to keep you forever enslaved to your opinions and 'theories', imprisoned by your ignorance of Truth. Sadly, that's the option a lot of human beings choose. So maybe you'll change, and maybe you won't. Honestly, it doesn't matter at all. Whatever you think or do, just know that I Love you, now and always. This is all that really Matters, to matter. Creator |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM My God, you are a sloppy thinker. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM W: I think that as a postulate for testing, the notion of a non-material element could in fact lead to predictable results, with one caveat. The test structure must be written in terms germane to the subject. Just as you would not look for color-changes in a material to indicate the effect of mass in in its vicinity, because it is not a relevant variable, so too you would have to be sure to make a test of non-material awareness, or life force, or whatever you call it, not rely on material variables which aren't germane. That's the problem with our testing history, largely -- for example, Rhine's statistical analyses using guesses about card symbols. The framework is wrong for the kind of subject you are trying to test. It is just self-fulfilling prediction to require a postulate of non-material awareness to act enough like material objects to satisfy the test, and then fail it becaus eit doesn't act that way. You're dealing with the very center of subjectivity and the source of opinion and the fountain head of all wishful thinking, here. You're not going to easily get it to perform in rectilinear fashion like the flipping of a coin. But that does not mean that "it" doesn't exist, unless you define existence as only consisting of energy/matter phenomena in space and time. If you do that, of course, you have left all imagination out of the picture, or so it would seem. Unless you presuppose that imagination (and all its dimensions) are just material projections, which leads you directly back top the Hard Problem that Dr Blackmore discusses. Here's a related question: does talk-based therapy ever change a person? If so, how does that happen? There's some kind of reviewing going on, looking at old information and past decisions and perhaps changing those past decisions when one finds the data was flawed or some such. Even if we posit the old stories are stored in wet-ware, wjo's doing the reviewing? Are we positing a system of mirrors in which wet-warelooks at wet-ware and becomes wet-ware aware? How can that even seem possible? The leap in qualitas which Dr Blackmore refers to is glaringly apparent; why should it be ignored for the sake of a comfortable frame of mind? At least, I don't see how such a system could stand up to scrutiny (and scrutiny by who or what?). I cannot buy Francis Crick's unthinkable speculation that we just haven't uncovered enough complexity to see how it really is all electrons. All of it. Even our knowing that this is so. That strikes me as almost a blasphemy against thought itself, oddly enough, but putting that aside it strikes me as illogical in the extreme, because it insists on an identity-in-kind between particles (at some scale) and awareness. But the honesty answer is that "science" (whoever that is) doesn't yet know. My opinion, and that is all that it is, is that as long as science locks itself in to the effort to prove the material nature of thought they will run around in circles, because they are trying to make elctrons do something they cannot, no matter how cleverly arranged. Perhaps, since this is opinion, we just need to agree that we look at these things differently. I always appreciate your thoughts on the matter. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: GUEST,Creator Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:56 AM I know you are still quite the confused little Chip off the Ole Block, Wolfgang, my precious son. That's okay. While I've been Evolving for Eternity, you've had only a few million years. I still Love you, in Infinite Measure, no matter what you say or do. So tell me, if you will, are your neurons still convulsing and your Heart still shrivelling in terror at the very Idea of My Love for you? Not to worry. You've an Eternity (rather, an Eternity of Eternities) to figure it all out to your Heart's content, at your own pace. I'm sure you will. Chip off the Ole Block, after all. So enjoy it - or not - in whatever manner you please! Because that's why you're here. Creator |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:23 PM Dear Creator: Believe it or not this is not about You and Your Eternal Self-Titillation. Your condescending metaphysics is almost as arrogant as mine. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM It is a pleasure for me too, Amos. Just one last bit about changing the goalposts: 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. ... Strong evidence for exterior perception, etc. ...not rely on material variables which aren't germane. That's the problem with our testing history, largely -- for example, Rhine's statistical analyses using guesses about card symbols. The framework is wrong for the kind of subject you are trying to test. The Targ/Puthoff (and other) experiments with Swann (bye the way, his picture and bio are on this usefull page; scroll down the alphabet to S) are firmly in the Rhine tradition: counting successes and reporting more than chance level. Have it the way of the first quote, then I'm game. That's my usual trained way of thinking and discussing. Have it the way of the second quote, then we can part friendly after a few words. That's outside of my thinking. However, if you take the second route, you shouldn't even mention the experiments with Ingo Swann for they then mean nothing one way or the other. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM W: Interesting -- I hadn't thought the two posts were contrary, but I think I can see why you indicate they are; my sense of the Swann experiments was that they were different in certain ways from Rhine's work with card prediction. But I may be misremembering. If you try to exercise awareness just by exercising it, even in a somewhat controlled environment, as I understand the Swann series was done, just comparing the results to the pure chance numbers of a material system, I guess you're not imposing any standards on the performance of awareness, are you? All the filtering, really, is left in the hands of the test subject. If you limit him to guessing about cards, I would expect that the sheer boredom and unreality of the subject matter would be enough to distort the results, assuming (and I do) that interest is an attribute of awareness in action. I make the point about germane variables because I think there is a range of attributes which are peculiar to awareness itself, which can be messed with in a test environment that is trying to control the wrong things, or at least an insufficient number of things. For example, if Ingo Swann (or any other such subject) were tested by a person who was perceptibly hostile to the question of awareness being extra-material, would that "resonate" in some way as to distort results? Does hostility dampen ability? It certainly makes a difference in human performance in other circumstances, such as auditions in musical groups, etc. depending on the indiivudal. But it NEVER makes a difference (as far as I have heard) in purely material experiments relying on the replicative aspects of physical setups. Expectation has an effect on some events in the boundary region between living and mechanical systems, as demonstrated int he placebo effect. If an observer expects you to fail, does it disrupt your focus in some degree? All this is unquantified as far as I know. I have to run off and be productive for a while. Thanks for the interesting conversation so far. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM Does hostility dampen ability? Most (para)psychologists would agree for that explains why skeptics never seem to get the real results. This argument was raised even against parapsychologist Blackmore when she couldn't repeat a colleague's findings. On the more lunatic fringe of parapsychology, one went even so far to say that the skeptics reading articles from parapsychological research (and not wanting them to present a positive finding) retroactively (in time) make the experiment fail. So he blamed those skeptical future readers of his articles for preventing him to find a positive result when he did the experiment. (that may be too far out even for LH; :-)) Hostility can dampen ability (that's undisputed), but not to the effect of nil ability at all (on the average; in a single case, it could be). If a reported effect goes down to nil for all subjects when a skeptic is present and up when the skeptic leaves, there is at least one other explanation. You won't be surprised I find that more probable. But you knew I would. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:19 PM I assume you mean the explanation which says the presence of the skeptic is keeping the experimenters honest, and when he leaves they start lying. But such an explanation implies that an independent third party witness (not skeptical but not anticipating positive outcomes) would NOT be able to prevent lying. To me this means an experimental flaw. Or am I missing something? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM That's a possibility but I guess it is rare (as rare as in normal psychology, I'd say). I hadn't that in mind. Lack of proper controls was in my mind. The cheat argument (Hansel and others) is disingenious for it can never be proved wrong. You only have to allow for more cheaters (the controllers) colluding. I hate that argument for that reason. Except when there is very good proof (W. Broad, N. Wade, Betrayers of truth, give a lot of examples, mostly from standard science). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM Ah!! Danke! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM gosh, I missed my chance to speak with "the Creator"...too bad, I had some questions. (though, as Wolfgang AND Amos note, I probably wouldn't have gotten very satisfactory answers.) but, I see I was right about one thing... I said: "Unfortunately, I see many arguments that assert that 'not being empirically testable' is no problem, as the very point is that their claims do not fall under standard scientific purview." and Amos said: "...so too you would have to be sure to make a test of non-material awareness, or life force, or whatever you call it, not rely on material variables which aren't germane." This sort of issue is never resolved, it is merely pushed upward to Meta-discussion in which issues like the basis of reality, how we can know anything, and linguistic questions about expressing concepts become the topic. Then, once again, it becomes just a question of what you are most comfortable with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:38 PM Hey, be fair. I didn't say empirical testing was impossiblke or even undesireable. I said that you have to use tests that maintain relevance and coherence with the frame of reference you are testing from. You don't test lead bullets for psychic abilities -- it's a silly idea. Maybe I am not saying this very well Of course your point about how knowing happens at all is very much part of this overall question. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:30 PM *smile*...and maybe I didn't say mine well either... Of course you don't test lead bullets for psychic abilities...you test people (and maybe dogs, etc.) Some of the test results must necessarily not be technically 'material', in that 'information' and 'statistics' are not material...but used properly, they are still scientific. (more ramblings deleted before I posted...I do get carried away...*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: freda underhill Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM this was an inspiring and sustaining thread. it helped me. Amos and Wolfgang, your intellectual rigour and thirst for objectivity is admirable. but that wasn't what this thread was about, and i miss the beginnings of this thread, which were beautiful, insightful, helped me.. with limited ideas like cultivating patience and hope, both attributes close to faith, which i don't have, or understanding.. understanding that there is a wider perspective, a new day, a positive outlook. objectivity, empirical evidence, yes, fine and interesting topics for debate, which have helped move us away from crippling supstition and religious manipulation. BUT this was a thread about faith. i have faith that somewhere, another thoughtful thread will rise up to replace this one. and just to throw a pebble in the pond i believe in and have perceived and experienced in lucky moments, an intelligent universe in which each atom of existence is unified, aware, and conscious. and this was a joyful experience. i don't expect anyone who hasn't experienced this to believe it, that would be irrational. however, i would say to them, don't argue, go and learn some meditation, spend a couple of decades practising it, and you will learn another kind of intellectual rigour and objectivity - the art of becoming objective and detached from your own self. it is then that you experience the higher self. best wishes freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: freda underhill Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:16 PM women around the world celebrate Reclaim The Night - reclaiming their right to walk the streets safely at night. maybe this is Reclaim the Thread day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:52 PM If there are gods, what's the point of faith? They could simply reveal themselves, as the Judaic god, among others, used to do (when folks were more gullible), and that would remove much uncertainty all round. If the challenge is to believe without proof, where does this put the disciple Thmaas on the day of reckoning? I'd believe in Christ myself if I'd seen him risen from the dead. But I don't see why I should believe without evidence, just to score points in some silly faith test. If gods had to be invented to give meaning to life, spare a thought for the gods themselves. What gives meaning to their lives? The existence of yet greater gods? As for a personal creed, I'd put Shakespeare is up there with the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud etc: Unto thine own self be true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: JennyO Date: 17 Mar 04 - 09:14 PM Unto thine own self be true. This quotation was on my grandfather's grave. He died when I was a teenager, and from what I remember he was a very good person, a business man, very fair, very generous, with a wicked sense of humour. I think he lived by that quote. I am only sorry I didn't get to know him better. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM "Creator's" comments to Wolfgang and Amos are entirely apt, but they are impenetrable to the human ego, because it does not love. It seeks to survive and to win. It is proud, insecure, competitive, and terrified. It wouldn't know love if it drowned in it. I might add that I do not know who posted as "Creator", but he/she is right on the mark. Nice work. No one will get it who is bent on "winning" the debate. And it really doesn't matter. Not a fig. Nor is it ANY threat to science, because it is not in opposition to science. The scientific method is so elegantly obvious in its logicality and application that any reasonably intelligent child should be able to grasp it. The same cannnot be said of spiritual insight...or indeed, any form of insight. Very few adults master such things or even spend much time thinking about them. But most adults can plainly comprehend science, unless they're in the grip of some religious or cultural dementia. Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details. A poet looks at a flower and sees a metaphor for life itself, for beauty, for fragility, for mortality, etc. A scientists looks at a flower and sees photosynthesis, cells, pistil, stamen, petals, pollen, and a billion other little technical aspects of the physical plant and its function in the environment. He is searching for how many angels he can find on the head of that particular "pin". (don't take me literally, Wolfgang) The poet is wiser. I offer a quote from Bob Dylan: "I stood unwound beneath the skies And clouds unbound by laws. The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang And asked for no applause. Lay down your weary tune, lay down, Lay down the song you strum, And rest yourself 'neath the strength of strings No voice can hope to hum." - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 04 - 10:42 PM Thanks for adding your opinions, LH. They are always appreciated and as usual, very poetic. Let me just add that it is easy to believe that others don't "get it", but most often this is not a truth -- often it is done for a purpose, not because it is true, It's just another angle on the table, so to speak, and doesn't bear being brought up. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:02 PM Well, in your case, Amos, I know you "get" a lot (and I ain't talkin' about sex! :-)... If there was an actual verbal message from "God", most people would be disgusted by it and reject it with contempt, because they simply cannot deal with or accept unconditional love. They don't believe in it! They have seldom, if ever, received it from any other human being (except maybe from their mother when they were tiny infants...and usually not for too long even then). They would dismiss such a message as patently false, condescending, goody-goody, and lofty....all at the same time. They'd get angry about it. It's really too bad...you can plainly see how Jesus ended up getting crucified. Just observe the average mind's reaction to a statement or a demonstration of unconditional love in what is considered to be "not the right time or place" for it. And I am quite serious about that. But I'll tell you something. If you got it straight from the "lips" of an angel, you would then sober up and listen! And you would believe it. Those who are totally disinclined to search for something are not likely to find it, are they? Reality gives to people according to their basic assumptions about reality. And that's entirely fair and equitable, as far as I can see. Those who search for jackpots (or bankruptcy) go to casinos. Those who search for sex devoid of feeling go to prostitutes or singles bars. Those who search for facts go through investigative procedures. Those who search for truth go within. And those who search for scoring another ego point post in Internet debates! :-) (me included) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:04 PM Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details. ouch. ****************** unto thine ownself be true Isn't the first part of that quote, "Know Thyself." ?????? (One of my favorites.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:04 PM God is constantly revealed in every moment, Peter K., but not in the fashion that you imagine. That's because you imagine a "god" that is separate from you. Such a god would have to be invented by someone, because it does not exist. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:07 PM " Science is for primary school level minds with a taste for the details.." gee, and I thought guys like Stephen J. Gould were a wee bit above that... "A scientist looks at a flower and sees photosynthesis, cells, pistil, stamen, petals, pollen, and a billion other little technical aspects ..." WHICH scientist? I have met, and read, many scientists who FULLY appreciate the beauty and wonder of life and its intricacies. It is quite possible to see the poetry of the universe, and try to study it all at the same time! Methinks I detect a 'straw man' argument here, LH, me boy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:26 PM Just another comment, and then I'll leave, promise... The scientific method is so elegantly obvious in its logicality and application that any reasonably intelligent child should be able to grasp it. Comments about the Scientific Method are thrown around a lot in these discussions. And maybe I'm totally missing the point, but this happens to be something I have personal knowledge and experience with. I spent many, many years not fully understanding the Scientific Method. With lots of science training, I always just muttered, "yeah, yeah, I've heard that before." Not until I truly experienced it in a chemical research lab and made it a part of me, "owned it," (the aha experience) did I truly understand it. (Bill, isn't there a word for that in philosophy...perhaps existentialism or something.) Anyway, I think "The Scientific Method" is used too lightly in philosophical discussions, usually by talkers who really don't understand it as scientists do. I'm not sure if it even has the same meaning in a philosophical discussion as in a scientific discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:46 PM Bill, there ARE scientists with profound spiritual understanding. There always have been. They are not the straw men I was referring to in the least. Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. They support one another. But when I see people concocting laughable "scientific" arguments to dismiss an already laughable concept of God that they themselves thought up or assumed in the first place...then I get sarcastic. They make up an idiotic notion about God, and assume that everyone who believes in God must subscribe to that same idiotic notion. Talk about a closed circle of reasoning! The problem is this: An initial level of prejudice which does not even consider the possibility that the "other guy" might know something you don't know It's the same thing that has traditionally poisoned good relations between different religious groups, such as Protestants and Catholics or Christians and Muslims. It's cultivated ignorance, cloaked in an assumption of innate superiority. Given such an assumption, the "other guy" must be very, very stupid, if not downright evil. Therefore, everything that he believes in can simply be discounted as utter foolishness...or worse. Upon these grandiose prejudices are wars launched and straw gods declared to be non-existent. And of course, straw gods ARE nonexistent. But who made them up? Atheists compose a straw god the moment the concept of God crosses their mind, and then think how intelligent they are to have realized that it is a manfactured falsehood. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM hmmm, Mary..not existentialism, but I see what you mean..perhaps a thing called "the eidetic reduction" by Husserl comes close.. " in phenomenology, a method by which the philosopher moves from the consciousness of individual and concrete objects to the transempirical realm of pure essences and thus achieves an intuition of the eidos (Greek: shape) of a thingi.e., of what it is..."...but it is really too abstract to apply here...(I gotta refresh...I haven't done this 'formally' for quite awhile) in your usage, the "aha" experience is as good as anything. Suddenly, you see what your study and research and experiments and RE-experiments and RE-thinking are supposed to show you, and why it is all necessary. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will manage to figure out how to explain it clearly to those who want to dismiss it as "just another opinion". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:56 PM (I'm not really here...) Phenomenology seems to ring a bell. I remember an example from a philosophy class where the instructor gave examples of a man "knowing" a mountain. 1) He camped there as a child. 2) He took his bride there. 3) He carried his brother down the mountain in a casket. etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Mar 04 - 05:47 AM Back to the beginning: So, I don't have any faith, but I have a lot of hope (Ann Druyan) quote from: Ann Druyan talks about science, religion, wonder, awe....and Carl Sagan Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 18 Mar 04 - 01:54 PM absolutely wonderful article, Wolfgang! I have read at it quickly, and will print it for more detailed reading later...thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Mar 04 - 12:01 PM Superb article, Wolfgang, and I believe I agree with all its main points. Science is one of the most spiritual of all pursuits, given the fact that it is a disciplined, purposeful search for truth and understanding. I'll have to take some time and read it thoroughly. Thanks for the link. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: kendall Date: 21 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM The thought just crossed my mind, "No amount of belief can create a fact" and suddenly, there was a huge clap of thunder! no kidding! Anyway, I'm always amazed and pleased to see such intelliget posts on the forum. However, Doug, old buddy, I know many left wing types, but I don't know one who has ever said that taking out Hussein was a bad thing. Our problem with the "war" is our leader lying about the reason. He planned this from the very beginning, and I'm hoping that 60 Minutes tonight will tell the whole truth about it. Freda, I once had an out of body experience. While meditating, I found myself out in the cosmos, free and able to go anywhere in the universe. Suddenly, I thought, "This is not possible" and just as suddenly, I was back in my body. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 04 - 05:42 PM Interesting post, Kendall. Much food for thought there. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:57 PM Kendall: Sounds like a moment of belief about what was possible created a fact, all right. Mebbe what would be mor accurate is "No amount of counter-belief can change a fact you already believe". Trying to use metaphysics to counter the facts of the physical universe doesn't work because those facts are already fully subscribed to, or we wouldn't be resisting them so hard! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 21 Mar 04 - 09:43 PM Amos... I have read Whitehead, Husserl, Hegel, Sartré and Kierkegaard, and I confess- your last sentence, with no extra context, is as puzzling as any I have read. (not disagreeing with it, just don't get it..) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: freda underhill Date: 23 Apr 04 - 09:28 AM This thread has been sleeping a little. But I want to talk about faith, not faith in God or a benevolent universe, but faith in the essential goodness and bravery of human nature. I am thinking about people, who, under tremendous pressure from powers that be, choose to do the right thing and reveal government corruption, whistleblowers. To me, these people, who give up everything, including their means of support and status, to publicly dump on a corrupt government, deserve the respect and support of ordinary people who benefit from their actions. Here is a web address to an article on the subject (can anyone make a blue clicky of it?)While this is an academic article, it addresses a very important subject. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616257471.html As well, I think of good friends and neighbours who, in the small friendships of daily interactions, by their essential ethics and decency, continually revive my faith in human nature, my faith in people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:59 PM I would politely suggest a new thread with a different title....such as "A different take on Faith" or something similar. This thread has a pretty 'heavy' lead in, and could be a burden to what you want to discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM See this New Thread for Freda's discussion. Regards, A |
