How does one come to believe something?

[Arsenios]

And materially configured mental processes are never truth nor error?

Neither... Is a chemical reaction truth or error? Mix soap and water and get suds - Is that an example of truth or error?

I don't like being called a materialist by people who don't understand me...

I don't either...

but I much less like to be called a materialist by people who do not understand materialism.

Definitely the worst...

I had better not call you a materialist, right?

Arsenios

 

[StTruth]

In some religious circles, making inane and irrelevant remarks is a sign of mystical wisdom. To me, it's pure lunacy. That is why I can't stand religious people in my church even though I've been an altar boy most of my life.

 

[Arsenios]

That is a totally fallacious statement. Truth or falsehood is independent of the mind (which is the process of the brain). Supposing there were no animals and no brains on this planet. That the moon is made of cheese is still a falsehood. Don't make a statement as if it were a truism when it's so obviously flawed.

Please forgive me...

Part of my job here is to stir your pots, so I make assertions that are designed to provoke thinking in a fresh way...

The mind is not exhausted by the chemical reactions of the brain...

It is more than these...

If it is so exhausted, mind is a chemical process - Or electrical - Or other...

Arsenios

 

[Freodin]

Neither... Is a chemical reaction truth or error? Mix soap and water and get suds - Is that an example of truth or error?

Truth, of course... although the chemical description is a little vague to be called "truth".
But if you mix "soap" and "water" you will get "suds". Reliably. Always.

I don't either...

Definitely the worst...

I had better not call you a materialist, right?

You had better not declare anything "materially configured mental processes" then without understanding materialism.

 

[StTruth]

Please forgive me...

Part of my job here is to stir your pots, so I make assertions that are designed to provoke thinking in a fresh way...

The mind is not exhausted by the chemical reactions of the brain...

It is more than these...

If it is so exhausted, mind is a chemical process - Or electrical - Or other...

Arsenios

Please forgive me. Part of my job is to point out errors and flaws in thought and argument. The Church did not canonise me St Truth for nothing. The mind, I assure you, is the firing of the synapses in some very complex chemical brain reaction. There is no poltergeist involved. No spirit, no ghosts, no pixies and no fairies. Just pure organic reaction.

 

[Freodin]

Please forgive me...

Part of my job here is to stir your pots, so I make assertions that are designed to provoke thinking in a fresh way...

The mind is not exhausted by the chemical reactions of the brain...

It is more than these...

If it is so exhausted, mind is a chemical process - Or electrical - Or other...

Arsenios

If we accept this very very simplified version... so what?

It is what we can work with. It is something that we can try to understand.

Is there a rational alternative? Is there even a "spiritual" alternative?

All that you can offer is a tautology: the mind is something that the mind is.

You can go and assert "It is more than these..." but there is no way of identifying this "more". It is so elusive that you could almost come to the conclusion... that it doesn't exist.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm sorry but it's evidence you have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'evidence'. A belief when communicated to another does not become evidence that the belief is true. Hence, my parents telling me about their beliefs cannot be evidence that the belief is true. It's just evidence that they have those beliefs and that is all.

You also wrote, "New evidence will either confirm your beliefs or cause you to doubt them...". Again, you are mistaken. What new evidence? Name me one. I'm persuaded there is none. If you mean my experiences will either confirm my beliefs or cause me to doubt them, it's still inaccurate. You see, Christianity (like any religion) is formulated so that the experiences won't make you lose your belief. All religions have to do that or they would lose all their followers. If a religion actually says that doing something will definitely result in something else, it'd be digging its own grave because that thing won't happen. So, for example, in Christianity, even if you pray for something legitimate and nothing happens, you won't lose your faith. Every religion must prepare its followers for such an eventuality because we all know prayers don't work. Once a person believes in a religion, that religion will prepare him so that all subsequent experiences he goes through will be interpreted to confirm the religion. If good things happen, it's God's blessings. If bad things happen, it's a trial from God or God has some plan that we know not of.

It's totally wrong to say religion is not evidence-less. It most definitely is.

Your entire response is based on your disagreement that 'evidence' is something that exists in reality that can be objectively analyzed. Right?

If not and you actually do agree that 'evidence' can be defined as something that exists in reality and can be objectively analyzed by anyone, then we agree.

So which is it?

If you hold to a different definition of 'evidence', that doesn't automatically make my definition wrong.

Agree?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yup...

So changes in people's lives is evidence that Vishnu exists as a god and not a demon. Odd coming from a Christian, but ok.

Because of the shift between an encounter with God and spiritual encounter?

An encounter with God IS a Spiritual encounter...
AND...
Not all spiritual encounters are with God...

You initially said that changes in people's lives are evidence of a god. Then you retreated to the position of "spiritual encounter" when I pointed out that your argument applies to any god. But since you seem to be flopping back and forth in your position, I take back the claim of dishonesty and replace it with a claim that you're just inherently inconsistent.

But directly, they know many gods, so that they can only understand the Christian God in terms of their pantheon of gods, so we have to cut them some slack and pray for them...

But we're talking about the Christian god being seen as a demon in their faith. Which is consistent with you claiming that Vishnu is a demon in your faith. Unless you're claiming that evidence that supports your case doesn't also support any other religion's case.

And I'm sure you wouldn't do that, because that would be dishonest.

Life indeed hands you changes in your life...

Glory to God!

I'll take this response as "No, I actually don't have any evidence that a life changing event necessarily can't be non spiritual in nature

I don't claim to be true - I claim to hate lies...

I sure try to be true, don't you?

You do realize that for something to be evidence of something, you have to also show that it necessarily can't be evidence of something else, right?

Been there done that...
Got the T-Shirt...
Burned it...

Now now, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you need to get violent with it.

 

[ScottA]

By that comparison, we're sharing the same cell....but you're pretending to have a key that lets you walk around....

Tell me what's on the wardens' desk and what he has to say.

Great - and thank you for taking the analogy to heart and not simply rejecting the idea - it is a good comparison.

One by one, based on our individual reception of the terms of our imprisonment, we are either granted parole or other privileges. In this analogy the whole idea of special treatment and privileged information, is perfectly reasonable (another good analogy, would be "insider information").

Anyway, what is on the Warden's desk...is not even secret, but is written and made public: terms, conditions, promises, benefits, what He has to say, and how-to info. But, I suspect that what your real question is regarding is the proof of the entire existence of God and the heavenly, spiritual realm - in which case, I can only tell you what my trip to His office revealed: I was there - and it confirmed the rumors and what is written, it afforded me a look back at my/our cell and gave me an overview of our prison as it is situated within the greater outside world.

But such privileges are granted - not really for good behavior, but for a changed heart...repentance, which comes from the realization that we are guilty of rebellion against God - not because we did anything in particular that is considered unforgivable as human activity goes, but because we are human...and He has explained the problem to be one of being guilty by association. An analogy for such guilt, would be like being covered with mud - and, hey, needing a bath is all the judgment necessary to be counted dirty. But to refuse the bath - that - is indeed, unforgivable.

 

[ScottA]

And what would keep him from pretending to know what is on the warden's desk and what he has to say?

Hey, I can do it! On the warden's desk is a signed pardon for your name. The warden says that you only have to confess your crime and it will be activated.

Nah, I think my way is better... so good in fact that no one has ever taken me on it: tell me something that only the warden and I can know. You didn't get it from me... that I know. So if you are correct, you must have gotten it from the warden.

Works every time.

Well, in fact, it fails every time. But I like to here the excuses why it fails.

The problem with your way...is not that anyone of us could not do exactly that - but, it is not we who decide, it is God who decides. So, if you don't hear it from us - we are not the problem. You need to take it up with God - give Him the same challenge, and leave us out of it.

 

[ScottA]

In some religious circles, making inane and irrelevant remarks is a sign of mystical wisdom. To me, it's pure lunacy. That is why I can't stand religious people in my church even though I've been an altar boy most of my life.

1 John 2:9
He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.

1 John 2:11
But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1 John 3:15
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

 

[bhsmte]

1 John 2:9
He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.

1 John 2:11
But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1 John 3:15
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Preaching.

 

[Freodin]

Preaching.

Irrelevant preaching on top.
It is bad enough to preach thought crime, equate "murder" with hate. But then you start to equate "hate" with "can't stand"... next, "can't stand" with "don't love"... then "don't love" with "don't follow the commandments of Jesus"... and BINGO... everyone is a murderer, worthy of execution.

 

[Freodin]

The problem with your way...is not that anyone of us could not do exactly that - but, it is not we who decide, it is God who decides. So, if you don't hear it from us - we are not the problem. You need to take it up with God - give Him the same challenge, and leave us out of it.

That is the problem with your way... if you do something you think is good... you and God are one, and God is speaking through you. If you fail at something, suddenly you are not responsible, and we should take it up with God, and "leave [you] out of it."

And on the other hand... you cannot "leave you out of it" either... leave us to God. No, when you say something and are asked for backing up your claims... then we are not listening to God... who is speaking through you. But if we are asking God... via you... then suddenly you don't have anything to do with the whole business anymore.

 

[ScottA]

Preaching.

Irrelevant preaching on top.
It is bad enough to preach thought crime, equate "murder" with hate. But then you start to equate "hate" with "can't stand"... next, "can't stand" with "don't love"... then "don't love" with "don't follow the commandments of Jesus"... and BINGO... everyone is a murderer, worthy of execution.

The message was limited to "brothers." My apologies for the public display of family matters.

 

[ScottA]

That is the problem with your way... if you do something you think is good... you and God are one, and God is speaking through you. If you fail at something, suddenly you are not responsible, and we should take it up with God, and "leave [you] out of it."

And on the other hand... you cannot "leave you out of it" either... leave us to God. No, when you say something and are asked for backing up your claims... then we are not listening to God... who is speaking through you. But if we are asking God... via you... then suddenly you don't have anything to do with the whole business anymore.

What you don't understand, is it is you who have set the terms: You refer to our humanity with questions pertaining to our Oneness with God, not knowing there is a difference.

For the record: We cannot act in our Oneness with God without Him making it so. And in our humanity, we can do nothing. On the other hand, we can speak for God...and so can a donkey, or a rock, and we do. Regardless, if you are going to ask us about matters of God, you may have to wait until He determines the time is right - which, simply puts us in a position of repeating the answer, until He does.

Sorry, the complexity is simply due to the multidimensional nature of God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Having no religious background or exposure other than hearsay, life spiraled downward to a point that I had nowhere else to turn, so in desperate jest I began talking to God - an he answered. Not audibly, but I was immediately taken in the spirit above the earth and shown my worth and purpose - then with a shot, I was back in my body, filled with peace. He then set me on a path that lead me to a bible and a couple of weeks to kill. When I read it (from cover to cover), it confirmed my experience and my experience confirmed it - the Author of the two was unmistakably One and the same. I then read the bible over and over again repeatedly from cover to cover for the next several years, each time revealing more and more. When I did finally end up going to church...what I heard did not always square with what I had come to know directly from God...but there is a very good reason for that, one we can talk about at some time.

OK, thanks for that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I agree that the supernatural is something really fanciful and my brain is unable to accept it. If I were born in a family without any religion and if I weren't an altar boy for the greater part of my life (I only stopped two years ago when I started growing taller), I wouldn't dream of being a Christian today. But this is something so many Christians refuse to accept and I always wondering who are they kidding? Of course there are the odd few who got converted along the way but in most cases we are Christians because our parents are Christians.

When you ask me whether I still 'believe', I need to know the definition of 'believe'. Since I'm a Christian, I will use the biblical definition of 'belief'. The word which Bible translators translate as 'believe' is the Koine Greek word 'pisteo'. The noun, 'pistis' is usually translated 'belief' or 'faith'. It's actually a poor translation but Christians (especially American fundamentalists) seize on it and spin a whole theology round it so that all you need to do is to believe and you're 'saved'. Which means the more gullible you are and can fall for any supernatural claptrap, the more likely it is for you to be saved. But that's cheapening the Christian faith. The biblical understanding of pistis requires action. Hence, Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats is all about action. Do you feed the poor? Do you look after the needy? Do you visit and help prisoners ie those who are oppressed or marginalised. Not ONCE did our Lord mention belief in that parable of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

So, using purely biblical definitions, yes I have pistis in the church or the faith. Right now, I'm still young and at school but when I'm older, I would like to do some social work along the lines of what Jesus says in the parable I mentioned. At one point in the Gospel, Jesus asks who loves him and believes in him? And Jesus Himself replies: Those who DO (action word again) the will of the Father. The reduction of Christianity to mere belief allows fundamentalists to be big on doctrine (that's where you can exclude other people) and to ignore the hard part of faith - our deeds.

What I meant by belief was not so much belief in the moral and ethical propositions of Christianity (which, by and large, I find admirable), but belief in the supernatural aspects of it. Your first sentence suggests that you don't accept the supernatural aspects - God, Jesus-as-son-of-God, etc., as real, but the rest suggests you wholly accept the moral and ethical message. Would that be fair?

And yet you still refer to 'our Lord' - is this out of habit, or convenience, or symbolism, or does it suggest you see Jesus as more than human?

What I'm really interested in is belief in the supernatural - where the boundaries are between natural and supernatural, and why people cross them (in either direction).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... in Christianity, even if you pray for something legitimate and nothing happens, you won't lose your faith. Every religion must prepare its followers for such an eventuality because we all know prayers don't work...

But of course. Consider what it would mean if intercessory prayer was effective, the implications for free will...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your entire response is based on your disagreement that 'evidence' is something that exists in reality that can be objectively analyzed. Right?

If not and you actually do agree that 'evidence' can be defined as something that exists in reality and can be objectively analyzed by anyone, then we agree.

You may have missed the point; evidence that someone holds a belief is not evidence that the belief is about something that is true.

You also forgot to answer StTruth's question about the 'something that exists in reality that can be objectively analyzed': "What new evidence? Name me one."