I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Offline I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
- Login to post comments
Offline ....just curious Paisley, but did Sam Harris' spiritual conversion have any influence upon your decision to seek God ? If "yes" could you please demonstrate using ample quotations from his popular book "The End of Faith" ?
No. But Sam Harris actually made the same argument in his book (ironically entitled 'The End of Faith') which I am making in this thread - namely that faith itself actually underlies rationality. What he calls in the following excerpt the "irreducible leap that is intuitively taken" is what is commonly referred to as "faith."
Whatever its stigma, "intuition" is a term that we simply cannot do without, because it denotes the most basic constituent of our faculty of understanding. While this is true in matters of ethics, it is no less true in science. When we can break our knowledge of a thing down no further, the irreducible leap that remains is intuitively taken. Thus, the traditional opposition between reason and intuition is a false one: reason is itself intuitive to the core, as any judgment that a proposition is "reasonable" or "logical" relies on intuition to find its feet. source: pg. 183 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)
The bottom line is that faith is fundamental and anyone who disagrees with this is actually deluding himself.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline I really don't see how saying "I have faith and god is love" is helpful. It's like saying I am conscious, in awe, and care .... Now what ? How does that improve the "world view".
The only message I see helpful is, "all is one , we and this is god" ..... I am regreatably beginning to think, you Paisely, have no real interest in improving the "world view" ....... sorry, but ya got me bumming out mr. P ..... ??? I will think on why ....
Anyway, the "awe" is the source, da ..... Sheezzzz ..... "Faith?" ..... Are you god or not? , some one else asked you ...... Well I AM ..... You ???
- Login to post comments
Offline I really don't see how saying "I have faith and god is love" is helpful. It's like saying I am conscious, in awe, and care .... Now what ? How does that improve the "world view".
Do you believe you need help?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:I beg to differ. I said that God is love. Children understand this intuitively. In fact, it is only after they grow up and become sophisticated and "rational" that they lose touch with this simple trust.Paisley kept the gullibility and neediness, but shed the imagination and cuteness.
EDIT: To the topic of "god being love." As I've said before, we can nail down what behaviors we describe as "loving," and some of the physiology of the feeling of "love," either romantic or platonic; and it's not hard to figure out where and why "love" is demonstrated from a psychological standpoint. So if we already have this concept, which is really probably more like a broad description of a few varying behaviors and motives, I wonder what the parasitic concept of "god" is meant to add to it. If it doesn't add anything to it, but is rather being presented as a "source of love," then it defies the very context in which anything recognizable as "love" could be referred to. One might as well talk about the flavor of cheddar in gauss units. The situation we have here is actually worse than that, in that it's not even a category mistake, since we're only working with ONE category -- the "god" variable not even having a value to conflict with.
God is not in conflict. The ego is.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:I beg to differ. I said that God is love. Children understand this intuitively. In fact, it is only after they grow up and become sophisticated and "rational" that they lose touch with this simple trust.Apparently the trick is not to "grow up" and become "sophisticated". And by putting "rational" in quotes, are you now saying that atheists -- by growing up and throwing off this simple trust -- are rational after all? Or was that another "tongue-in-cheek" comment?
Shall the backtracking and ambiguities never cease?
The quotes indicate that the rationality is ostensible.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:I beg to differ. I said that God is love. Children understand this intuitively. In fact, it is only after they grow up and become sophisticated and "rational" that they lose touch with this simple trust.Paisley kept the gullibility and neediness, but shed the imagination and cuteness.
EDIT: To the topic of "god being love." As I've said before, we can nail down what behaviors we describe as "loving," and some of the physiology of the feeling of "love," either romantic or platonic; and it's not hard to figure out where and why "love" is demonstrated from a psychological standpoint. So if we already have this concept, which is really probably more like a broad description of a few varying behaviors and motives, I wonder what the parasitic concept of "god" is meant to add to it. If it doesn't add anything to it, but is rather being presented as a "source of love," then it defies the very context in which anything recognizable as "love" could be referred to. One might as well talk about the flavor of cheddar in gauss units. The situation we have here is actually worse than that, in that it's not even a category mistake, since we're only working with ONE category -- the "god" variable not even having a value to conflict with.
God is not in conflict. The ego is.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline God is good, god is great, and is us, God is bad, god is dumb, and us 
"What If God Was One Of Us?" -- The Lion King
- Login to post comments
Offline Is this the P message ? Turn on the love ! Celebrate ..... make every day a Holiday !
Madonna-Holiday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X7RyGBq2E8
I AM so in LOVE, so in AWE ! 
HELLOW Hellow ..... 
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:I beg to differ. I said that God is love. Children understand this intuitively. In fact, it is only after they grow up and become sophisticated and "rational" that they lose touch with this simple trust.Paisley kept the gullibility and neediness, but shed the imagination and cuteness.
EDIT: To the topic of "god being love." As I've said before, we can nail down what behaviors we describe as "loving," and some of the physiology of the feeling of "love," either romantic or platonic; and it's not hard to figure out where and why "love" is demonstrated from a psychological standpoint. So if we already have this concept, which is really probably more like a broad description of a few varying behaviors and motives, I wonder what the parasitic concept of "god" is meant to add to it. If it doesn't add anything to it, but is rather being presented as a "source of love," then it defies the very context in which anything recognizable as "love" could be referred to. One might as well talk about the flavor of cheddar in gauss units. The situation we have here is actually worse than that, in that it's not even a category mistake, since we're only working with ONE category -- the "god" variable not even having a value to conflict with.
God is not in conflict. The ego is.
Sure, why not toss some psychological terms into the postmodern idea bucket. Nothing has to fit together or make sense; we'll just feel our way through things, and perform spoken word pieces about how "cosmic" and neat-o the "universal consciousness" is. Then we can all pray to "Ja" and give each other flaxseed enemas.
Seriously, you've said absolutely nothing. I can't argue for or against your point, because you haven't made one. What could your statement even mean? What could it even be intended, by a blithering pseudo-panentheist idiot incapable of expressing a coherent point, to mean? All your statement amounts to is that the "ego" is in conflict with "god" which you've failed to distinguish from nothing.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:The fact is that quantum theory views matter as being both a wave and a particle.Is that in reply to something?
Yes. You said previously that something could not be in two different states at the same time.
I still have no idea what you're referring to.
magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:Okay. So if physics reduces all phenomena to a mathematical abstraction, then what does this imply? Where's the "thing-in-itself?" Or what's the "thing-in-itself?"You're conflating your reification of "love" with the fundamental question of existence. We can test the former without understanding to the latter. The latter doesn't affect how we approach anything at this point, so pretending to be informed by it is a laughable red herring and another gap into which to couch your hilarious god concept.
No. You're the one who is confusing mathematical abstractions for "reified objects." Mathematical equations simply show the relations between phenomena. They are not really material objects. If there is no "thing-in-itself," then there is no basis for materialism.
To reiterate, we don't need to know the fundamental nature of the universe to explain emotions. If there's more to it, and we find that out specifically, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but at the moment your argument is hot liquid fail.
magilum wrote:You've drawn a circle of logic with nothing inside or along it.You're making my point. This is what happens when you reduce all phenomena to a mathematical abstraction.
The old, "My argument is so weak, there must be something to it," trick, eh?
magilum wrote:"It's good for an uneducated man to read a book of quotes." -- Winston ChurchillYou're confusing sarcasm for intelligent wit.
Spoken like a man with his hand in the quotey jar.
- Login to post comments
and don't bogart that joint my friends , I meant that caring love ..... 
Most all people would agree life and this cosmos is amazing and "Gawedly". The more we discover, the more amazed we are, and I assume the awe will continue for a long time, probably until our demise.
I have a problem with the saying "god is love and light". It camouflages the inherent opposites, tho it doesn't necessarily imply a separation of we from god. There is the "caring and the indifferent (not caring)" . Our consciousness makes us the "caring", dealing with the the "non-caring". Yin-Yang. God is all, including hate and darkness.
Therefore the P god definition is too simplistic for the young. How does god (reality) work ? The children also need knowledge of danger, physical and mental. ( the beast in the beautiful forest, the rattlesnake in the grass, the kidnapper, food poisoning, etc etc .... )
And so the summary you provided Paisley, is not really helpful ..... and can even be dangerous. You have faith? Wow, you have "AWE" ..... You love Love ! ..... me too ..... I am atheist .....
When a child asks me what is god?, I say "this" is god, us included. How did all this happen ? No one knows. Does god know ? .... Well god is everything, so yes and no. Hey kid, if you want to know god, be a scientist, but never ever ever look for god in religion. Knowing about all religion is good, as long as you realize all is god. The ancient "golden rule" pretty much says it all .... regarding the bits of useful wisdom found in religions .... Hey kid, how bout let's go get some "gawedly love" , whatta mean old man ? .... an ice cream cone ! .....
Atheism Books.
You guys and your brains are so ridiculous. Don't you know about "tough love"?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yup, that's awesome god for ya, on your knees or else
.....
No. I think there is a set of human behaviours we call love. "Ultimate reality" (or just "reality" for people who don't need the extra horns-a-blowing) certainly has love in it.
If yes, then I'm certifiable. But why would I understand the theological significance of the statement "God is love" by denying something nonsensical? I think I finally understand the significance of "God is nachos", though. It's a revelation.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I understand both pantheist (the universe is God) and panentheism (God is the universe, plus something outside the universe).
How do you combine the two? What is your synthesis? (Seriously, I'm curious.)
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
That exactly what I mean, all in the same tune.
You're confusing an argument against a specific, with an argument against a generic. In general, I believe the intuitive mind is unreliable. That is, it synthesizes a lot of information into ideas. These ideas may be correct (that is, correspond with reality) or incorrect (or, just ridiculous shit that our minds made up). Our intuitive mind can solve a problem quickly, by coming to correct conclusion quickly; or, it can lead you off into the weeds with all kinds of crazy ideas that have nothing to do with reality. (This is similar to the problems with induction, which you pointed out earlier.) The intuitive mind presents possibilities, each of which is up to the analytical mind to distinguish as rational, or irrational.
The conclusion that God exists based on a happy feeling is irrational, as it excludes the rational mind. So what I'm saying is simply this: you present (as your only evidence) a feeling. A state of mind. A place you have been. That's it. This is not rational (as you have stated yourself.)
Now. I will also say that, as long as you recognize this as irrational, this self-exploration has merit. Not the same sort of merit as empirical evidence, but merit nonetheless. I would not base a view of reality on any feeling or concept based on this introspection. But I would allow this as a starting point of discussion, as long as everyone understood this had nothing to do with observable reality.
My problem is with your constant (and irrational) assertion that you have trumped rational empiricism with irrational (or non-rational, if you choose) introspection.
I'll respond to that as soon as you explain the epistemological basis for your metaphysics, which I asked for a long time ago.
However, I'll give you a head start: read some Lee Smolin. You'll understand that EQC does not equate with God.
[EDIT]
Damnit, not Lee Smolin (though you should read him, too). I meant, "read some Seth Lloyd." That's what I meant.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
That's it dammit. I don't no doctor P
WASP - I Dont Need No Doctor
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Px7QZYgp1tk
Atheism Books.
Paisley: it's because of things like this that I really like you. Seriously. I would've left this discussion a long time ago, except you still surprise me, in a good way. This is one of the best points you've brought up, though it has no relation to your argument.
Years ago, when I married, I was an agnostic atheist. I did not believe in God, but I understood the universe was so complex, so beautiful, I had an intuition of God. As I studied, I understood this was Spinoza's God, Einstein's God, the God of a perfect universe. I didn't believe this was God (any more than Einstein did, apparently), but I understood that God could exist. So marrying a believer was not hard. I thought Love Would Conquer All.
Since then, I have realized there are logical reasons God can't exist. But I also understand there are logical reasons people want God to exist.
So: yes, I believe my ex-wife is delusional. I believe my daughter is delusional. These aren't easy conclusions, considering the love I have for my daughter, and the respect I have for my ex-wife. However, these are also easy delusions. It's easy to believe in God, when the alternative is to understand that our only legacy is our affect on the people we love, the things we write, the ideas we imprint on others. These are not delusions on par with believing you are God (such as Manson, or others like him). This are mild delusions, almost respectable delusions.
Just to be clear: we all have delusions. My in that mankind is generally good. I believe we are getting better, that we are leaving adolescence behind, and moving on to a next stage (whatever that stage may be). When I said we all had non-rationality, this is what I meant. I do have irrational beliefs.
The difference is, I don't try to claim my irrational beliefs trump rational beliefs.
I like you more all the time. I'm grinning my fool head off at this.
You are at your best when you are at your most honest. If you want to continue the discussion of your knowledge of God, I'd be happy. This, to me, contains more possible fruitful discussion than anything you've said so far.
It's not intellectually dishonest. I have presented my epistemology, my basis of knowledge. You have not. The only intellectual dishonesty is yours. I have been forthright, honest. You have hidden behind platitudes and inane wordplay. I believe you truly mean everything you say, so I think calling it "intellectual dishonesty" is not quite correct, either. I think you just haven't developed a full epistemology, which is why I've been harping on it.
My worldview is based on something that has given us a coherent ontology that is congruent with reality. The reason I call this out is simple: any epsitemology must be coherent, and it must be congruent with observed reality. Otherwise, it is not rational. I'm describing the merest, simplest, most complete form of rationalism available. And all I ask of you is this: provide an epistemology that is coherent, and congruent with observed reality. It might not be that provided by science; your ontology might be completely orthogonal to that provided by science. (There is a lot of evidence that the ontology currently provided by science is not the last word in realistic congruence.)
Dude, I don't doubt your sincerity. It's your logic I question.
As far as my limiting people with my own metaphysics:
As soon as you come up with an epistemology to support your metaphysics, I'll take it seriously, as long as it is coherent, and congruent with observed reality. I only limit those without defined, internally-consistent limits of their own.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
We are ONE ! I did say I love you and thanks , really mr. P , This has been blessing.
....yes, a blessing ! ( a blessing, like accidentally shooting yourself in the hand with a nail gun or stepping into a pile of dog poop while walking barefoot.
)
Why don't you say the truth instead of engaging in mischaracterizations?
To begin with, I simply stated that the scientist and the mystic are searching in their own way for the same thing - namely, a unversal law or principle to explain everything. The scientist calls this law the elusive "theory or everything" while the mystic calls it "love."
Secondly, when you challenged me on this, I quoted Albert Einstein who stated that the mystical is both the source for true science as well as true religion.
While I do believe that God is love, I do not believe it can be proven by the scientific method. This is why I said the only "proof" is faith. Just because you are insisting that I prove it according to your preconceived methodology does not mean that I must oblige.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What's the incompatibility between pantheism/panentheism and biology?
I believe God is love and that love is a triadic relationship in which the lover and the beloved are united as one in love. The term "trinity" literally means "three in unity."
Materialism itself is actually the view that permanent elementary particles constitute ultimate reality and that all perceived change is simply a re-arrangement of these elementary particles based on purely deterministic laws. However, such a view is no longer tenable in light of the theory of relativity and quantum theory. The bottom-line is that there are no permanent elementary particles. So, what you call the physical is actually quite ephemeral and illusory.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes. You said previously that something could not be in two different states at the same time.
No. You're the one who is confusing mathematical abstractions for "reified objects." Mathematical equations simply show the relations between phenomena. They are not really material objects. If there is no "thing-in-itself," then there is no basis for materialism.
You're making my point. This is what happens when you reduce all phenomena to a mathematical abstraction.
You're confusing sarcasm for intelligent wit.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead