|
28033. anomie - 3/16/2006 12:03:13 PM Judith, that's one way to look at it. Afterall human knowledge and technology and technology grows with each generation. I was thinking of more the physical decomposition. But you remind me to wonder about about whether we have genetic memories of some sort that are passed on. Not the psychic hot-line type, but something more integrated into our human connection. 28034. anomie - 3/16/2006 12:08:15 PM Jen, why do you need to deconstruct faith into reason, evidence and certainty? Why do you need, and how do you practice faith if it consists merely of these other aspects? Aren't you minimizing the "gift" of faith by trying to explain it away as something ordinary and rational? 28035. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:16:46 PM Jen, (I'm always amazed at what seems obvious to you is a mystery to me and vice versa.) it takes a conscious sentient being to ponder its own mortality, its own awareness of itself and to question the reason for its own existence. dogs, cats, fish cannot and do not ponder such things. they cannot communicate such things with each other. for them there is only now. perhaps, as wiz is talking about, they are in the perfect zen state, being only what they are. they do not think of god, they do not worship god. they do not communicate with each other about god. such a concept is beyond them.
Man has created the concept of god(s) to help understand and cope with their present and the future, to help understand the why of existence and to give purpose and hope to man's activities, just and injust. The god(s) man created have changed over the millennia to suit their culture and lifestyle. For example, many agriculturally based ancient civilizations worshiped female goddesses...mother earth, goddesses of fertility as they relied on earth to generate the food for survival. Many hunter/nomadic tribes worshiped male gods for their strength and agility not only for their ability to hunt, but also because in their roaming they were more likely to run into other tribes leading to conflict.
What god is and what our concept of god is comes to us from our exposure to words and works of other people.
Perhaps to translate it into your terms, who wrote the bible? Men wrote the bible. Sure you can argue that their words were inspired by god if you wish, but it's still men's words written down and still men's words interpreting what was written. As such, god is manmade.
Take for example, the roman gods. I presume you believe they were false gods and that they do not exist and that there is only one true god. Well, then where did these incorrect concepts come from? Were they not manmade? And in the same way, isn't our understanding of the concept of a monotheistic god also manmade? 28036. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:26:10 PM Judithah explained the 3rd question, and I'm not sure I understand what your asking in the 2nd.
What do you mean what about some evidence? Please don't start with the ways in which you feel god or have interpreted certain actions and results as part of god's plan and so on. That is all your personal experience based on personal interpretation.
That does not constitute evidence in the sense of provable, testable concrete evidence. And as I said about faith, if you question it, it necessarily means it is no longer faith. If I prove that fire needs oxygen to burn, then it is no longer a point of faith, but a fact.
Getting from faith to fact necessarily means that faith is the first thing out the window as it requires questioning and testing that point. If I test it and it proves false than continuing to accept it 'on faith' is not faith but stupidity. If I test it and prove it right, then it is no longer faith but fact.
That is why so many religions wrap themselves in mystery and faith and teaching their followers to accept without question. Many of their points will not stand up to questioning. 28037. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 4:31:08 PM Those two posts are very good, thoughtful and vindicates your moniker. 28038. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:36:15 PM thanks pelle, appreciated coming from one as intellectual as yourself. 28039. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 4:51:54 PM FWIW, I think you are missing something significant in those posts, tful. I think you're relying on a kind of scientific determinism that entirely overlooks the fact that concepts are convenient illusions that limit one's perception and awareness of what is. Christianity is a concept whereby God is perceived as the Master Potter of the Universe. Science supplants that illusion with a just as phony a concept whereby the Universe becomes an autimatic cosmic pinball machine of cause and effect.
You're still mistaking the menu for the meal. 28040. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 4:53:45 PM . . . with just as phony a concept, whereby . . . 28041. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 5:11:43 PM My God, thoughful. Now you make me feel a need to post someting fiendishly intellectual which I'm not capable of right now, having had a G&T after a moderately successful day at the archives. But I will repost something I wrote several years ago.
"What we atheists have to realise is that believers do not arrive at their faith through a logical act. They don’t sit down at the kitchen table with a legal pad and list “pros and cons of believing” and take a decision based on that. How the thing happens is not important for this discussion, but it is not the result of some kind of utilitarian calculation.
Faith is not based on logic; it transcends logic.
Atheists question Christianity on logical grounds. They point to contradictions such as the existence of evil although God is all good and all powerful. The believer finds such arguments shallow. He intuitively knows that there is a deeper truth. He does not know that truth, but he is seeking for it. That is why people try to strip themselves of desires, chastise their bodies, spend hours in meditation and prayers to be allowed a glimpse of the truth, to become enlightened, to be in communion with God, if only for a fleeting moment. An that, I think, is the believer’s vision of Heaven: to be in communion with God.
Because the atheist attacks on the logic play ground, the believer feels he must fight back there. But because faith transcends logic he must fail. Even the most famous Christian logician, Thomas ab Aquino, failed. And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.
And that is where communication breaks down: at the barrier between logic and transcendence."
28042. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 5:14:39 PM concepts are convenient illusions that limit one's perception and awareness of what is.
I find that incomprehensible. How can you perceive without concepts? The concept of time? The concept of space? The concept of cause and effect? 28043. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 5:22:29 PM Wiz, as i've already confessed earlier, i am certainly limited by facts and logic. They've worked so well. They've kept me warm, clothed, fed, and healthy.
Like the story of the farmer who bought the raw acreage and sweat and toiled for hours, days, weeks, and years to turn it into a fruitful, producing farm. One day some folks stopped by and remarked to the farmer on god's beautiful creation. And he remarked, "You should've seen this place when he was running it."
28044. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 5:25:13 PM Yes, Pelle, that would be it. Logic has rules. Faith knows no rules so in any argument between the two, logic will fail. But objective reality will not.
The farmer who prays for food will be disappointed. The farmer who works to grow his own food will be successful. The farmer who does both is risk averse. :-) 28045. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 5:37:10 PM I understand tful, but here are some other things to ponder . . .
The big mind in which we must have confidence is not something which you can experience objectively. It is something which is always with you, always on your side. Your eyes are on your side, for you cannot see your eyes, and your eyes cannot see themselves. Eyes only see things outside, objective things. If you reflect on yourself, that self is not your true self any more. You cannot project yourself as some objective thing to think about. The mind which is always on your side is not just your mind, it is universal mind, always the same, not different from another's mind. -Shunryu Suzuki
Everything that's visible hides something else that isvisible.We see the world as something outside ourselves, when, actually, we have only the imprint of it in our heads. Thrust from the earth toward the sun, a tree is an image standing for a kind of joy. To comprehend that image we must be quite still, like that tree. When we move, it is the tree that becomes the spectator. In the forms of chairs, a table or a door the tree continues to keep watch over the agitated spectacle that is our life. Later, when the tree has become a coffin, it disappears into the ground again. And when it is consumed by flames, it vanishes into the air. -anonymous
Philosophy is the question: from which side shall we look at life, God, the idea, or other phenomena. Everything one looks at is false. I do not consider the relative result more important than the choice between cake and cherries after dinner. The system of quickly looking at the other side of a thing in order to impose your opinion indirectly is called dialectics, in other words, haggling over the spirit of fried potatoes while dancing method around it. If I cry out: Ideal, ideal, ideal, Knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, Boomboom, boomboom, boomboom, I have given a pretty faithful version of progress, law, morality and all other fine qualities that various highly intelligent men have discussed in so many books, only to conclude that after all everyone dances to his own personal boomboom, and that the writer is entitled to his boomboom: the satisfaction of pathological curiosity; a private bell for inexplicable needs; a bath; pecuniary difficulties; a stomach with repurcussions in life; the authority of the mystic wand formulated as the bouquet of a phantom orchestra make up of silent fiddle bows with philtres made of chicken manure. With the blue eye-glasses of an angel they have excavated the inner life for a dime's worth of unanimous gratitude. If all of them are right and if all pills are Pink Pills, let us try for once not to be right. An excerpt from "Dada Manifesto 1918" -Tristan Tzara
Rainer Maria Rilke:
Extensive as the "external" world is, with all its sidereal distances it hardly bears comparison with the dimensions, the depth dimensions, of our inner being, which does not even need the spaciousness of the universe to be, in itself, almost unlimited. It seems to me more and more as though our ordinary consciousness inhabits the apex of a pyramid whose base in us (and, as it were, beneath us) broadens out to such an extent that the further we are able to let ourselves down into it, the more completely do we appear to be included in the realities of earthly and, in the widest sense, worldy, existence, which are not dependent on time and space.
From my earliest youth I have felt the intuition that at some deeper cross-section of this pyramid of consciousness, mere being could become an event, the inviolable presence and simultaneity of everything that we, on the upper, "normal," apex of self-consciousness, are permitted to experience only as entropy.
The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in ther primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion. -Albert Einstein
Fernando Pessoa
A Shrug of the Shoulders
"We generally give to our ideas about the unknown the color of our notions about what we do know: If we call death a sleep it's because it has the appearance of sleep; if we call death a new life, it's because it seems different from life. We build our beliefs and hopes out of these small misunderstandings with reality and live off husks of bread we call cakes, the way poor children play at being happy.
But that's how all life is; at least that's how the particular way of life generally known as civilization is. Civilization consists in giving an innapropriate name to something and then dreaming what results from that.
And in fact the false name and the true dream do create a new reality. The object really does become other, because we have made it so.
We manufacture realities. We use the raw materials we always used but the form lent it by art effectively prevents it from remaining the same. A table made out of pinewood is a pinetree but it is also a table. We sit down at the table not at the pinetree. ..."
[An excerpt from "The Book of Disquiet," written in the 1920's, first published in 1982 by Atica in Lisbon.]
And finally, my favorite story . . .
"Excuse me," said an ocean fish.
"You are older than I, so can you tell me where
to find this thing they call the ocean?"
"The ocean," said the older fish, "is the thing you are in now."
"Oh, this? But this is water. What I'm seeking is the ocean" said the disappointed fish as he swam away to search elsewhere.
28046. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 6:51:25 PM sorry wiz...this stuff is a little to 'w' like for me...the idea of creating one's own reality. Nuh uh.
Though clearly there is much to be learned by the things the zen masters have achieved...but again I'm looking for evidentiary understanding of that which we do not yet understand.
To quote albert einstein back at you, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehendable." 28047. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 6:59:36 PM "w" like" ????
Every person, all the events of your life are there because you have drawn them there. What you choose to do with them is up to you.
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours. [Richard Bach]
Have a nice day. 28048. alistairconnor - 3/16/2006 7:17:16 PM Message # 28039 The problem that we're having with your position, Wiz, is that you seem to be positioning "atheism" as equivalent to the various faith-based belief systems (Christianity, Buddhism, scientology, what have you), as if it were an arbitrary system of beliefs.
Which it manifestly isn't. It is the negation of an arbitrary system of beliefs.
As for the argument that "atheists" are missing out on something, yes, I get that, but I find that one can experience those glorious moments of transcendence without a faith-based rationalisation for them. 28049. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:27:39 PM Rather, AC, my experience of religion has been just the opposite...that it stands in the way of and prevents those 'glorious moments of transcendence'. Religions I've had exposure to have been all very stifling. Thus I'm much happier without one. 28050. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 7:39:30 PM As a side note on religion, jon stewart had on a fellow last night...darned if i can remember his name or the name of his book, but it was about all the things that christ didn't say or something like that. He did a study of the early texts of the bible, most of which were scribed during the first 300 yrs a.d. which revealed the various stories and fables that were added over the years by various scribes along the way. He used, for example the story of the prostitute that was stoned...apparently that was not in the earliest texts of the new testament but was added later.
Author went into this being a fundamentalist who took the bible literally and has come out of this with a deeper understanding of the bible and its essence which is not to be taken so literally. 28051. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 7:50:49 PM The problem that we're having with your position, Wiz, is that you seem to be positioning "atheism" as equivalent to the various faith-based belief systems (Christianity, Buddhism, scientology, what have you), as if it were an arbitrary system of beliefs.
Which it manifestly isn't. It is the negation of an arbitrary system of beliefs.
As for the argument that "atheists" are missing out on something, yes, I get that, but I find that one can experience those glorious moments of transcendence without a faith-based rationalisation for them.
First, Alistair, what's with your use of this "we" in "we're having with your position. . . "? Are you a multiple personality or do you presume to speak for the others here?
Secondly, I don't recall holding a position–or mentioning atheism for that matter.
Moreover, I was asked to explain what I meant, so I tried. I understood tful to mean that she only trusted empirical facts which is, to some degree, what Zen teaching is all about.
My point was that any concept that is held in my mind, can prevent one from appreciating the actual experience.
Personally, I create illusions for a living and I have come to a point in my life where Maya (the Hindu idea) is proving itself to be a very good rule of thumb for appreciating and savoring the multiple patterns of energy we call life. That is to say that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
So, needless to say, I'm a bit puzzled by your somewhat presumptuous response. 28052. judithathome - 3/16/2006 9:04:42 PM And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.
THIS!! I can't understand why they do that, either...but too many have done so for me to think it's mere stupidity alone which makes them do it.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
