Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fdesilva]

But that's not how a historian writes about what happened. The modern historian provides evidence in the form of primary sources which may be documents or archaeology. A primary source can be identified by what historian Arthur Marwick called "unwitting testimony".

"The one who saw this" was not unwitting but was witting, and may have been a polemicist.

In regards to the above, having referred to the meaning of the words witting, unwitting and polemicist it seems basically what you are saying is what I pointed out in the first place. John could be a liar. However the guy also says that Jesus said even greater thing than this those who follow Jesus can do.
It is in investigating if the followers can do greater things and finding it to be true that I accept the author to be telling the truth

[Karpel Tunnel]

However, think of things this way, if people only believed and acted on things which were empirically evidence based, would that be concordant with our intrinsic, questioning nature of being human?

If people only acted on things which were empirically evidence based, everything would come to a grinding complete and utter halt. How could anyone vote`? How could one choose a mate? decide not to be friends with someone? And this is setting aside the fact that we cannot test stuff ourselves, we trust by proxy those who do the research of those things that can and have been empirically tested. We wake up in bed, 'remember' 'facts' about the world gained t hrough empirical research, and trust our interpretations, memory, intuitions about applicattion and scope. Our, lay, beliefs, are not based on empirical research, they are based on other epistemological processes. Perhaps these are good, perhaps not. Perhaps it's a mix. Much of our beliefs have to do with specific individuals, groups, what is good and bad for people: how to parent, how to get ahead in life, who to relate to, how to divide up our time, who to spend it with, and so on. There is very little empirical research going into the spectrum of approaches we have to these things. And none of it conclusive and very little done by any of us even those of us who are scientists or sociologists or psychologists.

No one waits for scientific proof or even strong scientific evidence for most of the decisions and beliefs they have including ones that affect other people.

But amazingly when theism/atheism discussions arise, the atheists often think it is fair to assume they arrived at all their important beliefs, including metaphysics, pschology, politics, child rearing, social morals and more via empirical research.

I am amazed at how unaware people are, in general, of how they arrived at their beliefs.

[Dark Matter]

However, think of things this way, if people only believed and acted on things which were empirically evidence based, would that be concordant with our intrinsic, questioning nature of being human?

If people only acted on things which were empirically evidence based, everything would come to a grinding complete and utter halt. How could anyone vote`? How could one choose a mate? decide not to be friends with someone? And this is setting aside the fact that we cannot test stuff ourselves, we trust by proxy those who do the research of those things that can and have been empirically tested. We wake up in bed, 'remember' 'facts' about the world gained t hrough empirical research, and trust our interpretations, memory, intuitions about applicattion and scope. Our, lay, beliefs, are not based on empirical research, they are based on other epistemological processes. Perhaps these are good, perhaps not. Perhaps it's a mix. Much of our beliefs have to do with specific individuals, groups, what is good and bad for people: how to parent, how to get ahead in life, who to relate to, how to divide up our time, who to spend it with, and so on. There is very little empirical research going into the spectrum of approaches we have to these things. And none of it conclusive and very little done by any of us even those of us who are scientists or sociologists or psychologists.

No one waits for scientific proof or even strong scientific evidence for most of the decisions and beliefs they have including ones that affect other people.

But amazingly when theism/atheism discussions arise, the atheists often think it is fair to assume they arrived at all their important beliefs, including metaphysics, pschology, politics, child rearing, social morals and more via empirical research.

I am amazed at how unaware people are, in general, of how they arrived at their beliefs.

How right you are! In his book, The Eternal Law: Ancient Greek Philosophy, Modern Physics, and Ultimate Reality John Spence lays out with easy-to-read clarity the difficulties of what I call "radical skepticism" that is prevalent have in this forum. "One thing is for certain: if the universe were not ordered, science would be impossible. But as soon as we realize that science presupposes an ordered universe, there is an immediate fear (or joy) that this fact might have religious implications."

That fear pervades and dominates all these debates. It's almost tangible. Skeptics show no inclination to investigate the unseen realities of what must be in order for what is to be as it is. The video below is audio only.

[Fanman]

Eduk,

We agree that there is no empirical evidence supporting religions, I don't think that can be disputed, but there is anecdotal evidence for the existence of God, such as experiential accounts and testimonies. These may not be compelling reasons to believe that there is a God, but some people believe based upon that kind of “evidence”. I wouldn't claim that such people are being unreasonable, but there is, perhaps, a high probability that they are just simply wrong. I see your point re LOTR, the experience of the human condition would make it likely that there is truth in religions that people can empathise with, which brings about feelings of commonality, that is perhaps one of core strengths of religion. I'm not really a fan of religions either, because whilst I accept that they do have positive aspects, they also have the duality of having dangerous negative aspects, and can be used to manipulate vulnerable people into almost anything, but is that the religion's fault or the key proponents? To me the “God is love” thing is an ideal or a maxim, I don't know if it exists in reality. I know that love exists and I too believe in it, but from my perspective nature itself seem too harsh and unforgiving for that statement to be true.

[Dark Matter]

...but from my perspective nature itself seem too harsh and unforgiving for that statement to be true.

This is a good example of the contradictions skeptics encounter. How can you have any perspective at all if reality is not rational and orderly? If it's rational and orderly, why? The fact that it seems harsh and unforgiving to you is irrelevant and, indeed, a self-centered point of view. To claim that "there is no need to explain how scientific theories are successful: ‘theories are successful where they are successful, and that’s that,’ [is] not a very good scientific or philosophical explanation. It is, however, a great blueprint for intellectual laziness,"* and, I would all, intellectual cowardice.

*from The Eternal Law by John H Spencer

[Eduk]

Fanman anecdotal evidence has well documented problems and limitations. I think it would be extremely unreasonable to take someone's word that they had seen a specific God (whether right or wrong).
By the way. We all do unreasonable things. This is not to say if you do one thing which is unreasonable you are now defined as unreasonable. You are just unreasonable in that specific case. Of course some people are a lot more unreasonable than others.
Again take Tolkien. He's written two of my favourite books which have enriched my life. Ok so he believes in some random made up religion, well there are worse things than that and he's still done much better than I ever will creatively.
I'm struggling to convey my intended meaning here. Please bear with me. Let us take belief in religion X and the reality of religion X to be two different things. For example let's say I believe in unicorns. Now clearly unicorns don't exist but my belief in them does. I may give unicorns certain properties. I may make actions based off my belief in those unicorn properties.
If unicorns did exist then their properties would be unique and you could argue that it was the unicorns which made me act in a certain way. For example take cows, if you walk with a dog across a field with cows in the cows will react very differently to the dog than you, it is potentially dangerous due to the size of cows. So I might reasonable avoid doing such a thing due to the properties of cows.
If unicorns don't exist then the properties I prescribe them are my own. You could not blame the unicorn for my actions in this scenario. Perhaps I believed unicorns did not like dogs. perhaps I avoid walking my dog across a field I believe has unicorns in it.
So in a sense it is the cows that may have caused my belief in this unicorn property. So likewise with religion. I would say all the beliefs are grounded in the human condition. Both good and bad. In this way I don't really blame religions for the actions of the believers but I do blame the believers. Though obviously this is not super black and white.

[Fanman]

Eduk,

I don't think that anecdotal evidence is ideal for basing conclusions relating to God upon, but people with faith live by that principle. I'm not sure if I would define that as unreasonable, but I can understand why you think that. I see your point, in that you can't place blame on something that doesn't exist. It would seem right to blame the believers in that sense, but as you say its not super black and white. You have to look at the authors/originators of the religion and ask why they created something like this? I just find it a stretch to claim that everyone with religious beliefs or every type of religious belief, is a result of delusion or being misguided. Perhaps the authors/originators all drew from the same existent "pool", but reached different conclusions about what the "water" contained?

---

DM,

When did it become self centered to hold an opinion? I'm not claiming that my views on this topic represent a fact or even that they're relevant. We're just having discussion, you're exaggerating. The fact that things are ordered, does not imply that there is a creator, neither does it necessitate one. Your belief in a creator / God, could be something that you've superimposed on reality. Please explain why you think a creator is necessary?

[Belindi]

But that's not how a historian writes about what happened. The modern historian provides evidence in the form of primary sources which may be documents or archaeology. A primary source can be identified by what historian Arthur Marwick called "unwitting testimony".

"The one who saw this" was not unwitting but was witting, and may have been a polemicist.

In regards to the above, having referred to the meaning of the words witting, unwitting and polemicist it seems basically what you are saying is what I pointed out in the first place. John could be a liar. However the guy also says that Jesus said even greater thing than this those who follow Jesus can do.
It is in investigating if the followers can do greater things and finding it to be true that I accept the author to be telling the truth

Yes. But the various Christian sects have different interpretations of Jesus' words. Also it's problematic what Jesus actually did say and what later editors inserted. Also it's impossible to compose a balanced account of what good has come obeying Jesus' words.


I know very little of Biblical criticism, although I do trust that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar , https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... s-seminar/ , know pretty well what Jesus really did say, and what he probably did not say.

As for the ethics of Jesus ,and going mainly by the Sermon on the Mount ,these are broadly socialist. There are many people who follow the ethics that Jesus spoke about and who are unacquainted with The Bible.

I don't know what research you have done (you wrote "finding it to be true" ) and I cannot imagine what your research could have been to lead to your conclusion.

[Fdesilva]

Yes. But the various Christian sects have different interpretations of Jesus' words. Also it's problematic what Jesus actually did say and what later editors inserted. Also it's impossible to compose a balanced account of what good has come obeying Jesus' words.

I am not sure how many friends you have, but would they all know you equally well or think of you the same? The same applies to Jesus. The God of the Bible is a revealed God.It depends on a relationship between some creature and God. Consider the Queen of UK. Most people have heard of her but few will know her personally. Now there will be some thing about her that only would have been revealed by her to her closest friends.
In my original post I put down 3 ways of knowing God. Strangely the post it self did not appear. But you have somehow got the first way. Anyway what I want to say is that there are some aspects of God that has been revealed to 3d parties such as the Gospel writers, that could have been know only because God choose to reveal them. The other two ways are 2) Science and 3) Prayer or a personal relationship. What is revealed via science is what generally philosophers get interested in.

I know very little of Biblical criticism, although I do trust that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar , https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... s-seminar/ , know pretty well what Jesus really did say, and what he probably did not say.

Science is not political. If something has been found via scientific exploration (archaeology) you don’t need a bunch of people casting a ballots. As such I would not take this group seriously.

As for the ethics of Jesus ,and going mainly by the Sermon on the Mount ,these are broadly socialist. There are many people who follow the ethics that Jesus spoke about and who are unacquainted with The Bible.

God according to the Bible loves everybody equally. As such he will teach them independent of the bible if they are receptive.

I don't know what research you have done (you wrote "finding it to be true" ) and I cannot imagine what your research could have been to lead to your conclusion.

I can give you many but if I had to choose one I would say read Poems of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. She wrote her books in the 1940-50. God takes her back in time to His time on earth and she writes as she sees it happen.

[Belindi]

Fdesilva wrote:

Belindi wrote: ↑Today, 9:07 am
I don't know what research you have done (you wrote "finding it to be true" ) and I cannot imagine what your research could have been to lead to your conclusion.
(Fdesilva)I can give you many but if I had to choose one I would say read Poems of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. She wrote her books in the 1940-50. God takes her back in time to His time on earth and she writes as she sees it happen.

There are truths of myths/poetry, and truths of science, and these are not mutually exclusive. I presumed that the OP meant proofs of science.

[Dark Matter]

When did it become self centered to hold an opinion? I'm not claiming that my views on this topic represent a fact or even that they're relevant. We're just having discussion, you're exaggerating. The fact that things are ordered, does not imply that there is a creator, neither does it necessitate one. Your belief in a creator / God, could be something that you've superimposed on reality. Please explain why you think a creator is necessary?

It's no exaggeration to say you're not addressing the central issue: "Why?" Why is the created order rational and ordered? Why doesn‘t the ordered universe require a higher, non-material (Platinic) reality? Settling for "just because" is just an admission that you don't care. Is that good philosophy? Is to good science? Of course not, but I see it here all the time and, quite frankly, it's sickening.

(Note: I posted the video fully expecting it would not be heard as it taxes the brain.)

[Fdesilva]

There are truths of myths/poetry, and truths of science, and these are not mutually exclusive. I presumed that the OP meant proofs of science.

proofs of science? Does that mean like a mathematical equation ( E=mc2) ? The existence of proofs entails a proof maker. The way science leads to God for me is via my study of consciousness. We according to the bible are made in His image. That image is most evident in consciousness. I think that is why Michelangelo put God in side a brain.
If you can find the time to have a read my work can be found on the link below. Love to know what you think.
https://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS

[Fanman]

DM,

You may perceive “Why?” as the central issue, but not everyone does, because it is not a question that has a definite or straight-forward answer. Any "proofs" surrounding the question are based upon perspective or world view, which is why there are so many different depictions of "God" or "gods". It is a question that I ponder, but I don't think there is a compelling argument that answers it conclusively, it's very speculative even at the most intelligent levels of comprehension. You eschew the “just because” answer, but there is a possibility that the existence of the universe is a result of nature, and what to our observations and cognition appears as “order” may be the default format of reality.

Now, there may be some kind of creator, but attributing qualities to such a being is very problematic, like trying to piece a 100,000 piece jigsaw puzzle together without even having a picture of what it is supposed to look like when completed, so again its speculative. And you're wrong, I do care, I wouldn't be here if I didn't, I'm just not convinced that a creator is necessary. If there is a non-material reality, with us being material, how would confirm that it exists? Through contemplation?

(I listened to the video by the way .)

[Dark Matter]

DM,

You may perceive “Why?” as the central issue, but not everyone does, because it is not a question that has a definite or straight-forward answer.

That’s exactly my point. If you’re not interested in what must be in order for what is to be as it is, you’re not really interested in coming to know yourself or how we should live. IOW, you don’t give a damn about the heart of philosophy.

[Fanman]

DM,

That’s exactly my point. If you’re not interested in what must be in order for what is to be as it is, you’re not really interested in coming to know yourself or how we should live. IOW, you don’t give a damn about the heart of philosophy.

There's no point in trying to have a discussion with you. I have often thought that the criticism aimed at you was harsh, but when you state things like that, I'm not surprised by the way that other forum users react to you.