Belief, faith, doubt

[TreasureHunter12]

The ability of my heart to beat either came from nature(purposeless) or God(purposeful) and knowing which for certain is of the upmost importance when attempting to completely understand reality.

When it comes to the pursuit of mental and spiritual development, I am an outlier as I've put my entire life on hold for most of the last decade to focus on it. So I don't expect agreement on my understanding of reality. However, the only way to completely understand reality, beyond observation and the scientific method, is to understand the mind through deep introspection.

Is your entire objection based on my using of subconscious instead of automatic? Or are you claiming that beliefs are entirely conscious?

 

[TreasureHunter12]

When you believe on faith you believe in a secondary way. You believe not because you saw the thing yourself, but because someone who did see it testifies to what they saw, and you believe them.

And what is the difference between someone who consciously decides to believe the witness and someone who consciously decides not to? My point is that there is more going on beneath the surface that allows (or not) for one to be consciously receptive to the witness. It is what we are not aware of that is of upmost importance when it comes to beliefs.

Now, many might say it is the Holy Spirit within them that allows them to see the truth of the witness and my response is you might want to investigate that to be sure since the stakes are much too high to just assume that is the case.

 

[Chriliman]

When it comes to the pursuit of mental and spiritual development, I am an outlier as I've put my entire life on hold for most of the last decade to focus on it. So I don't expect agreement on my understanding of reality. However, the only way to completely understand reality, beyond observation and the scientific method, is to understand the mind through deep introspection.

It's difficult to say whether what you're doing is healthy or not.

Is your entire objection based on my using of subconscious instead of automatic?

That's at least part of it because what's automatic in the human body is not necessarily controlled by human subconscious.

Or are you claiming that beliefs are entirely conscious?

Yes, based on the common understanding of what it means to believe something. I cannot accept something as true without consciously understanding the truth value of it. If my subconscious believes something that I'm not consciously aware of then I wouldn't consider it my belief.

I believe things based on the truth value that I perceive and this is a conscious effort.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

It's difficult to say whether what you're doing is healthy or not.



That's at least part of it because what's automatic in the human body is not necessarily controlled by human subconscious.



Yes, based on the common understanding of what it means to believe something. I cannot accept something as true without consciously understanding the truth value of it. If my subconscious believes something that I'm not consciously aware of then I wouldn't consider it my belief.

I believe things based on the truth value that I perceive and this is a conscious effort.

Do you believe that we can consciously decide to believe whatever we intend to? If not, why not?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you believe that we can consciously decide to believe whatever we intend to? If not, why not?

No, I don't think we can consciously decide to believe whatever we want, at least that behavior isn't rational. I think rational beliefs are formed based on what we perceive as objective truth.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

No, I don't think we can consciously decide to believe whatever we want, at least that behavior isn't rational. I think rational beliefs are formed based on what we perceive as objective truth.

Why can't I consciously decide something is true and then have that belief form? That should work for whatever I want it to if our conscious is completely responsible for our beliefs.

 

[Chriliman]

Why can't I consciously decide something is true and then have that belief form? That should work for whatever I want it to if our conscious is completely responsible for our beliefs.

My consciousness is the means by which I accept objective truth.

You can decide something is true and then form a belief system around that, but that doesn't mean what you decided is true, is actually objectively true. We must rely on objective truth in order to continue having rational beliefs.

The question then is, why can I consciously accept objective truth? What's the point? What is the objective truth about reality? This is where belief and faith in God can begin for the rational thinker.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...at least I know my subconscious is not responsible for my hearts ability to beat. The ability of my heart to beat either came from nature(purposeless) or God(purposeful) and knowing which for certain is of the upmost importance when attempting to completely understand reality.

Your subconscious isn't responsible for your nails or hair growing, or any number of other cellular activities; the reality is that multicellular creatures are constructed from cooperating cells; there's a clear evolutionary progression - but what difference would it make if it was all somehow under a central 'subconscious' control?

 

[Chriliman]

Your subconscious isn't responsible for your nails or hair growing, or any number of other cellular activities; the reality is that multicellular creatures are constructed from cooperating cells; there's a clear evolutionary progression - but what difference would it make if it was all somehow under a central 'subconscious' control?

If it was all under a central human subconscious control, then you'd have to consider whether that subconscious was the cause of the function or if the subconscious is simply reacting to or is a result of functions that already existed.

I think it's pretty well accepted that natural functions give rise to subconsciousness and consciousness in humans, not the other way around. The question I then ask is, who or what put those functions in place and for what purpose if any? If you're purely a naturalist/materialist, then there can be no purpose other than that which human's(the result of said 'natural' functions) consciously apply.

I think there's more to it than that. I'm convinced that God put those functions in place for specific purposes, including, but not limited to conscious life on earth and that this is an objective truth, regardless of human consciousness.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

I think it's pretty well accepted that natural functions give rise to subconsciousness and consciousness in humans, not the other way around.

Do you know why that's well accepted? It's because there is no explanation for how the immaterial can influence the material. Yet, you have no problem believing the immaterial can effect the material by believing God (which I assume you consider an immaterial being) creating a (separate) material world that he can manipulate seamlessly.

When it comes to the fundamental nature of reality, you are a dualist, but when it comes to the mind-body problem you assume monism. That is hard to reconcile. But like I said, I feel any kind of dualism, when it comes to an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality, should be rejected.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If it was all under a central human subconscious control, then you'd have to consider whether that subconscious was the cause of the function or if the subconscious is simply reacting to or is a result of functions that already existed.

I think it's pretty well accepted that natural functions give rise to subconsciousness and consciousness in humans, not the other way around. The question I then ask is, who or what put those functions in place and for what purpose if any? If you're purely a naturalist/materialist, then there can be no purpose other than that which human's(the result of said 'natural' functions) consciously apply.

I think there's more to it than that. I'm convinced that God put those functions in place for specific purposes, including, but not limited to conscious life on earth and that this is an objective truth, regardless of human consciousness.

The little I can make out of that is some of the most confused thinking I've seen for a while... but if you're already convinced Goddidit, why bother with all this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you know why that's well accepted? It's because there is no explanation for how the immaterial can influence the material. Yet, you have no problem believing the immaterial can effect the material by believing God (which I assume you consider an immaterial being) creating a (separate) material world that he can manipulate seamlessly.

When it comes to the fundamental nature of reality, you are a dualist, but when it comes to the mind-body problem you assume monism. That is hard to reconcile. But like I said, I feel any kind of dualism, when it comes to an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality, should be rejected.

Yes, the interaction problem is a major fly in the dualist ointment, but is generally ignored or brushed aside.

 

[Chriliman]

The little I can make out of that is some of the most confused thinking I've seen for a while... but if you're already convinced Goddidit, why bother with all this?

I know, insert God and all the sudden it's all confused because God can't be the answer, just can't. Sounds like denial to me.

I'm completely open to other explanations, but they'll only come from man, not God.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you know why that's well accepted? It's because there is no explanation for how the immaterial can influence the material. Yet, you have no problem believing the immaterial can effect the material by believing God (which I assume you consider an immaterial being) creating a (separate) material world that he can manipulate seamlessly.

When it comes to the fundamental nature of reality, you are a dualist, but when it comes to the mind-body problem you assume monism. That is hard to reconcile. But like I said, I feel any kind of dualism, when it comes to an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality, should be rejected.

If you believe that truth is objective and that it's immaterial, then why wouldn't it have a real effect on the objective material world?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know, insert God and all the sudden it's all confused because God can't be the answer, just can't. Sounds like denial to me.

It was the stuff before you mentioned your conviction that was confused.

I'm completely open to other explanations...

Sure - after all, you're not yet convinced that Goddidit; oh, wait... "I'm convinced that God put those functions in place..."

... they'll only come from man, not God.

Of course, like all explanations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you believe that truth is objective and that it's immaterial, then why wouldn't it have a real effect on the objective material world?

 

[Chriliman]

It was the stuff before you mentioned your conviction that was confused.
Sure - after all, you're not yet convinced that Goddidit; oh, wait... "I'm convinced that God put those functions in place..."
Of course, like all explanations.

Could you try to explain why it was confused?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Could you try to explain why it was confused?

I'd guess that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and/or confused - you wrote it, you tell me

 

[TreasureHunter12]

If you believe that truth is objective and that it's immaterial, then why wouldn't it have a real effect on the objective material world?

To be honest, I don't use philosophy or the intellect to guide me when it comes to religion/spirituality; it's useful for clarity afterward but that's pretty much the extent of my interest in it.

I tried to point out some blind spots in your philosophical approach, but I think I've pretty much mentioned what I originally wanted in this thread, so I'm going to move on.

 

[Chriliman]

I'd guess that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and/or confused - you wrote it, you tell me

Generally what I get at this point. People claiming that I'm wrong without being able to show how my reasoning is wrong.

As I said before, I do appreciate your objective input in regards to subconsciousness and consciousness.