Why does God leave no tracks?

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Davian]

I did have some misgivings about using the term “faith” there because of the fideistic baggage it tends to carry with it. My point is that there are some beliefs we hold -- indeed, that we must hold if we're to be rational -- that can't be justified by any other beliefs that we hold, and one of those beliefs is that our cognitive faculties are generally reliable for producing accurate/true (not quite seeing the accurate/true distinction you're trying to make, I don't think) beliefs.

For me, the word "true" implies having the state of being true; it may be that we can never know what is actually true, and can only explore the world with (hopefully) increasing levels of accuracy. If you explore the world looking for "truth", the process would entail finding "truth", being wrong (as we historically have been), finding a new "truth", being wrong, finding yet another "truth", etc. Compound that with how the word is used in the religious vernacular; each religionist claims to have their "truth", even when those "truths" are mutually exclusive, reducing "truth" to "opinion". If I am only striving for accuracy, it allows for me to shift my position on the fly with the exposure to new information.

Now, I am not going to fix the world by complaining about it, but for the purposes of discussions such as this, I can make such a distinction.

While I agree that our cognitive abilities, in some cases, can produce accurate beliefs, I treat these beliefs as tentative conclusions, to be held until updated with new information. "Truth", it seems to me (and the religionists that I converse with) assumes that you have it right, and no new information is required.

Ultimately, all of the beliefs we hold -- including all the beliefs we have regarding the established methods and/or instruments we use, and any beliefs we might come to hold that would lessen our confidence in them -- are founded upon a belief that our cognitive faculties are generally oriented toward producing accurate/true beliefs (if they're working as they should, that is). If we didn't hold this belief, then we'd have to relinquish confidence in our faculties to deliver to us genuine knowledge.

I do not know what you mean by "genuine knowledge". I know that the sun comes up each morning following the schedule published in the local paper, and sets accordingly. I know this can be calculated years into the future and past. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? No.

Well, first of all, what I'm talking about there is a necessary condition for a belief to be true, not how we determine whether or not a belief is true. But that aside, I think that there is some way that the world actually is, and I trust that my cognitive faculties are generally reliable to discover it, even if they need to be assisted by certain methods and/or instruments.

That I can work with, but it seems that the religious would exempt their religious beliefs from such process. Does this describe you?

Again, I don't think I quite understand your distinction between truth and accuracy.

To expand on what I said earlier, the truth is absolute, and exclusive; accuracy allows for context and perspective, and is not necessarily exclusive. It is accurate to say that the Sun sets at about 9 pm at this time of year at this latitude, but I can also say that the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun at that same time without an apparent contradiction.

But we need to rely on our own faculties to tell us whether those of others are reliable and trustworthy.

Sure, and I hold them to the same standards of evaluating their cognitive abilities, assisted the same methods and/or instruments you allude to above.

I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with Metzinger's work, but I'm not quite seeing its relevance to what we're discussing here. Regardless of whether your faculties hand your beliefs off to your “phenomenal self” or not, I still submit that you confide in their ability to deliver beliefs that are accurate/true more often than not, generally speaking.

this has to do with where the "hand off" occurs. It may seem, from the first person perspective, that one is directly in control of ones cognitive abilities; this can be shown to be demonstrably false, through certain experiments and illusions, particularly illusions where they effect does not go away even when you understand intellectually that it is only an illusion, such as here where the two squares (A, B) are actually the same shade of grey.

As I gather more understanding of cognitive science, it seems that the "hand-off" occurs much further back than ones internal narrative would inform us of.

Gottfried Leibniz once remarked that “in fact, metaphysics is natural theology, and the same God who is the source of all goods is also the principle of all knowledge.”

As an ignostic, I wonder what you mean by "God" in this context. If this is the "God" of the Bible, it would seem odd that belief in the "God who is the source of all goods is also the principle of all knowledge.” would at the same time require one to believe that the vast majority of scientific knowledge is wildly inaccurate.

It can hardly be denied that God is portrayed in a less-than-savory manner in parts of the Bible, but those who would take such passages and use them to formulate twisted theologies that turn Him into a tyrannical monster would do well to realize that the fundamentals of goodness and reason aren't learned from the pages of any book -- not even the most hallowed of books. A God truly worthy of worship would have to be as Leibniz says -- the ultimate source of all goods and principle of all knowledge -- and any theology that doesn't comport with a healthy foundational understanding of reason and goodness, as gleaned from God's self-revelation through nature, should be consigned to the flames.

I have participated in several threads recently and called out where the theologies in which the "God" is portrayed as morally bankrupt (holding one responsible for things beyond ones control) and unethical (as a judge presiding over their own interests). this has been met with a variety of responses, from reluctant acceptance (and then being put on ignore) to wild, repeated rounds of evasion and obfuscation. Fascinating to observe.

Yes, I agree.



I have to admit, that outfit does suit him!

That image was pulled from his own website.

I'll take it that by “observer” you mean someone other than the person who's had the experience firsthand. If so, then I think such an assessment can be justified (from that perspective, that is). It might even ultimately be correct as well. For someone who's had such an experience firsthand, however, I think trying to convince him that it was “wholly imagined” would be a rather difficult task, to say the least.

But my task here is not to convince others, but to see if such individuals can coherently justify their level on conviction, and what happens when they fail to do so. Some get downright nasty.

I think in much the same way as one knows that the world he perceives around him is really real, and he isn't just a brain floating in a vat being experimented on by aliens (or what have you).

I don't worry about that. If what is perceived as reality is persistent, testable, and predictable, then it can be treated as reality until it behaves otherwise.

I believe that the world I perceive with my natural senses is real and not some illusion, but I can't strictly prove that it's real. It's at least possible (or at the very least conceivable) that it's just an illusion. I'd account for my religious experiences in much the same way, and if you were to have such an experience, I think you would too. You'd have an unshakable conviction that what you'd experienced wasn't just an illusion or hallucination or something of the like, but that you'd experienced something real, even if you couldn't strictly prove it.

I am still not sure of what you mean by "religious experience", but I assume from this context that you mean "an experience that is very convincing yet does not otherwise comport with observations of reality". Is that accurate?

And, I think it rather presumptuous of you to think that I have not had such experiences, and that I did not reject them when they failed to reconcile with what I perceive as reality.

If such claims fail to convince you, then they fail to convince you, and in such a case as this, it seems to me you'd be perfectly justified in not being convinced.

There are many here that would disagree with you. It seems that they need only tell you of their beliefs, or be aware of the Bible, and you are now [hypothetically] accountable, in their theology, for not believing in their "God" in their particular fashion/denomination, and you subject to any consequences that may be applicable for failing to believe (cue fire and brimstone) .

Tales of perpetual motion machines and immortality drugs seem to be of the sort that can be scientifically tested, whereas it has been my experience that claims of religious experience tend not to be of the sort that can be scientifically tested.

I see no such distinction, make no such distinction, and picked those examples specially for their lack of apparent distinction.

If they claim their experiences to have relayed to them information on how to make such things, and if that information turns out to be demonstrably false, then I think we can safely say that those experiences were not genuine.

Okay. Apply that to your religious experiences. What do we get?

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Iranaeus, Polycarp and Josephus I would call plenty close enough to that time to tell us what happened.

Iraneaus- Born 130 AD
Polycarp- Born 69AD
Josephus- Born 37AD

What do all these have in common? They are NOT contemporary to the alleged miraculous events.
Try again.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

days of John the apostle - and Revelation

I don't think you understand what contemporary means.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

John lived at the time of Jesus Christ...all the way to even
gaining the Book of Revelation.

John is written several decades after the alleged events. It is the last gospel written, making it written about 60 years later. The author of that gospel, like the rest of the gospels are UNKNOWN.

Again, name a contemporary historical account outside of the bible. Can you do it?

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Links can be found such as Word and how John said in Rev. 14
that he saw One like the Son of man - as in this is John the apostle that saw the transfiguration of Christ.

Stop talking in circles. You are making no coherent sense. Answer the question: Can you name one contemporary source that substantiates the claims that you are making? YES OR NO?

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[bhsmte]

The tempter will be gone - to the lake of fire.
caused beings to fall/some angels, Eve and Adam

Cool story.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/