Is belief a choice?

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Ken Hemingway	Re: Is belief a choice?	#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 258 02/28/05 19:13:56 Smarty Pants	Mad, I've read quite a few of your posts now, and I never seem to get any closer to understanding what it is about religion that interests you. Sometimes I think that you are interested in it as a social and cultural phenomenon. But that would not preclude you from recognizing the falsity of many of the beliefs upon which it is based. Perhaps you are like an anthropologist who has gone native, and is reluctant to distance himself too far from his subjects for fear of losing an empathic connection he relies upon - or perhaps you are afraid that if you confronted the truth too directly it would undermine your belief in the value of what you spend so much effort investigating?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Ken Hemingway	Re: Is belief a choice?	#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 258 02/28/05 19:19:33 Smarty Pants	Alternatively, Mad, perhaps you could tell us what you think are the core beliefs which make someone either (a) a monotheist, or (b) a Christian. Then whether you yourself hold any of those beliefs.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Is belief a choice?	#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/01/05 03:43:24 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Ken Hemingway: Mad, I've read quite a few of your posts now, and I never seem to get any closer to understanding what it is about religion that interests you. That's probably the most complicated question I've been asked on BookTalk. I am interested in them as social and cultural phenomenon, as well as intellectual phenomenon, which people tend to exclude. But that doesn't describe the whole of my interest, and I reserve judgement on the validity of religious belief until I feel satisfied with my understanding of the context in which religious belief takes place. One of the crucial mistakes in the popular modern evaluation of religious belief, I would say, is thinking that it necessarily attempts to occupy the same creative or intellectual space as philosophy, science or the arts. or perhaps you are afraid that if you confronted the truth too directly it would undermine your belief in the value of what you spend so much effort investigating? And what truth would that be? Alternatively, Mad, perhaps you could tell us what you think are the core beliefs which make someone either (a) a monotheist -- that's rather simple, I'd say. A monotheist is anyone who believes in the existence of a single deity to the exclusion of all other deities; certain conclusions tend to arise therefrom but are not entirely necessary to the core belief -- or (b) a Christian -- this is a rather more complicated question. The first belief, I would say, is in a modified form of the Judaic God, or rather of the continuity of the Judaic God in the form of an explicitly Christian God. The second belief is in the existence of Jesus, though that belief may be literal, mythical, or abstractly theological. That is to say, that once you've established the notion of Jesus, Christianity permits a number of variations. Mainline Christianity, I would say, is characterized by the imposition of Pauline interpretation, which posits a historical Jesus with a somewhat specific theological slant -- ie. that Jesus is the incarnation of a particular character of God, and that via a cosmologically significant act of sacrafice Jesus has removed a metaphysical obstacle between God and man (the guilt of sin). Some theological work is necessary to maintain Christianity as a strictly monotheistic tradition, and some would argue that it is nearly impossible to do so (this is, incidentally, one of the Islamic arguments against Christian theology). Then whether you yourself hold any of those beliefs. I believe in God, though I'm more than upfront about the fact that such belief is not susceptible to logical proof. My argument in BookTalk have mostly been geared towards demonstrating the "reasonability" of theism, as opposed to its presumed rationality or irrationality. (Have I made the differences between reasonability and rationality clear elsewhere, or should I reformulate the distinction here?) Having established that tenent of belief, the rest of my theological beliefs tend to follow a line of descending confidence. A God may exist, but it is beyond the capacity of humans to say anything concrete about God with any real certainty. Forced to speculate, I would say that the conception of God that makes most sense to me is largely Hellenistic in the Aristotelian sense. That includes characteristics of monotheism and a certain abstract purity. That is not to exclude the possibilities explored by other religious traditions, and part of my study in comparative religion is of a personal interest. As for Christianity, there's a lot I could say in its defence both as an instance of religion in general and in defence of Christianity for its own sake, but I'll consign myself to outlining the points at which I diverge most from the doctrine of mainline (Pauline) Christianity. Probably the most notable departure is my interpretation of the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which I read in the Gospels as institutional rather than cosmological. That isn't to say that I reject the notion of an afterlife altogether, just that I don't think that's what was implied in Jesus' references. The cosmological, almost Zoroastrian concept of a dualistic afterlife seems to me an implication of the Pauline interpretation of Messianism in Christianity, although these are ideas that I'm still exploring in my reading. The second major departure is along cultural and ethical lines, by which I mean that mainline Christianity seems to me to have falsified much of the ethical content of Jesus' teachings in favor of a materialist notion of Christendom. The question of the central assertion of Messianic Christianity -- ie. that Jesus was the incarnation or "son" of God -- I leave open as a possibility. I hope that clears some things up for you, though I hope it doesn't nail be down too much for the simply reason that I myself and reserving judgement in the desire of maintaining an honest search for truth.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Ken Hemingway	Re: Is belief a choice?	#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 258 03/01/05 09:05:46 Smarty Pants	Mad: Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Now, when you say: A monotheist is anyone who believes in the existence of a single deity and I believe in God, what is it that the terms God and deity refer to?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Is belief a choice?	#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/01/05 14:28:27 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Oh boy. At first I thought I was merely satisfying a point of curiosity, but this is beginning to look like an attempt to argue me out of theistic belief. Fine, I'll play along for the moment. Now, when you say: A monotheist is anyone who believes in the existence of a single deity and I believe in God, what is it that the terms God and deity refer to? I'll suggest three basic minimum requirements for a monotheistic deity and leave it at that. There's so much variability in terms of the conceptions of deity that anything beyond those suggestions would likely be falsified by the evidence. The first attribute would be holiness, a sense of being "wholly other", that is, distinct from what we recognize as merely natural or merely incarnate or simply "mere". The second attribute, and this is more to the point in monotheism, would be absolute, a sense of deity as exclusive or representing some form of limit that is not exceeded by anything else. And the third would be existence, which is to say that a monotheist does not believe in a strictly hypothetical God but asserts the reality of that god, even if its reality is distinct from that of the natural world. Now, as regards my belief in God, I would say that it conforms to those three requirements, save in that it permits doubt on the matter -- that is to say, it is not a blindly confirmed belief. As I mentioned in my last post, it only goes beyond the minimmum requirements of deistic belief (which is not necessarily to say strictly monotheistic belief) with some lessening of confidence. Make of that what you will.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Ken Hemingway	Re: Is belief a choice?	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 258 03/01/05 18:27:32 Smarty Pants	Mad wrote: Oh boy. At first I thought I was merely satisfying a point of curiosity, but this is beginning to look like an attempt to argue me out of theistic belief. Not really, Mad. I don't have a great passion to pick arguments. But I am curious about theists for a couple of reasons. One: maybe they have figured out something that I've gotten badly wrong. I truly believe that if I came to the conclusion that there really is a loving God looking after the world I would be very thrilled. Two: Maybe there is some way of looking at God language which enables it to be used to speak profoundly about spiritual issues. If that were true, I'd want to understand it. Now, what I find interesting about your three characteristics is how little they tell me. Let me quote some things that have been said about God, and the conclusions that I draw (offset). In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So, God can create things. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. God has a Spirit. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. God says things. Also, it sounds like he can do magic. And God called the light Day God can name things. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply. God can bless things. And God saw every thing that he had made God can see things. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day God can rest. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden God plants gardens. Now surely you can see why, reading this, I would come to the conclusion that God is, in some ways at least, a person. The things that are said about him are all things that only make sense if you are talking about something which at least has most of the characteristics of persons. But you don't say anything about the personhood of God. You say he is holy, absolute and existent. Is that because you are talking about a different God than the Jahwist is? If that's not it, why do you not mention what must surely be a central feature of the nature of God? Is it because you assume I know all this? But this is what I get so confused about. Innocent theists seem to have no problem with saying that God is kind of like a person. They say they believe in a personal God, and have utter disdain for people (often theologians) who reject the idea of a personal God. I think I know how to deal with this kind of theist. We just flat out disagree. But more sophisticated (?) theists seem to distance themselves from the idea of a personal God. And I wonder if what they are saying is something I could believe and all we disagree about is whether the language being used is - what I would call - misleading? But I find it very difficult to get any clear idea of what these people are saying at all. It almost sounds - forgive me - as though they are being evasive. Can it really be that they can read Genesis and think it is talking about the God they believe in, but that God is in no way a person? I find that very, very puzzling.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Is belief a choice?	#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/02/05 16:46:23 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Ken Hemingway: Now, what I find interesting about your three characteristics is how little they tell me. If you want a plethora of information, you're better off talking to a traditional theist. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. God says things. Also, it sounds like he can do magic. Before you can draw that conclusion, you have to arrive at a sound definition of magic. My reading suggests that the best working definition of magic would read something like, "Appropriation of divine power via a professed connection to the supernatural." That wouldn't really imply in the case of God. A more traditional interpretation of the above quoted verse would be that God Creates by speaking. Now surely you can see why, reading this, I would come to the conclusion that God is, in some ways at least, a person. Perhaps, but the verses which depict God in the act of creation on a cosmological scale pretty easily preclude the possibility that God is a human person. The one conclusion that you neglected to draw from the passage is that God is more powerful than any known living being, which is a crucial distinction, wouldn't you say? The things that are said about him are all things that only make sense if you are talking about something which at least has most of the characteristics of persons. Again, perhaps, but you also have to look at the context in which they are spoken. The book of Genesis is not an explicitly theological text, nor was it meant to be if we put some confidence in modern critical theory. To that end I'd refer you to David Rosenthal and Harold Bloom's compilation and trasnlation of "The Book of J", which extracts the passages of the Bible that may confidently be asserted to belong to a single author. The resulting work is of an overwhelmingly literary cast. An explicitly theological tradition in Judaism developed alongside the more narratological and historically inclined segments of the Bible, and those, I would say, are more instrumental in understanding the God at root in the traditions of the Book. But you don't say anything about the personhood of God. That's because I'm not entirely certain that it's appropriate to speak of God as a person. Is that because you are talking about a different God than the Jahwist is? I'd say it's because I'm talking about God in a different way than the Jahwist. I tend to agree with Bloom and Rosenthal that the Jahwistic segments of the Bible were written with a specifically literary ambition in mind, one built on a core of irony, and that they were not intended to be taken as theologically sound. Bear in mind that the Jahwistic portions of the Bible were penned during a Renaissance of Judaic culture during or immediately after the reign of Solomon. That isn't to say, of course, that the Jahwist did not have a religious purpose in mind, but the only evidence that really points to a literalistic interpretation of God is the inclusion of the Jahwistic verses in the Torah, which was the work not of the Jahwist but of a Redactor some centuries down the road. They say they believe in a personal God, and have utter disdain for people (often theologians) who reject the idea of a personal God. In the Judeo-Christian tradition there are, so far as I know, three basic phenomenon that lead to an insistence on the personal God. The first we've already dealt with to some extent, which is that the Jahwistic portions of the Bible depict personal encounters between individuals and Jahweh. These encounters are of a very specific type, though, distinct from the more modern notion of a personal God, namely in that the individuals are chosen by God and that their election is exclusive. But again, with the Jahwist we're likely not dealing with a text intended to argue a particular theological model. The second is the experience of the mystics, and until I can get around to reading Abraham Heschel's two volume "The Prophets", I'm going to assume that the Biblical prophets more or less fit into that mold. Mystical encounters are distinct from the first class because they tend to take place in social circumstances that make their validity more questionable -- that is not to say more dubious or less dubious, but merely to distinguish them from a past that is drawn in rather legendary colors. But even beyond the question of literary character, mystical encounters with God suffer the distinction of being theologically uncertain: that is to say, that most if not all mystical exegeses hover around the theme of changes to the prevailing theological model. This character of mysticism almost demands evaluation, whereas the suggestion that one merely has a personal connection with God is no more controversial than the claim that a person feels a personal connection with such and such celebrity. The third example is specifically Christian, and especially Protestant, though the idea seems to have reflected backwards into Catholicism. The Protestant notion of a personal God is historically rooted in the rejection of the intermediary function of the Priesthood in Catholicism. That is to say, that the notion of the personal God must, in some ways, be evaluated along political lines. It arose historically as a response to the political influence that the intermediary functions afforded the Church. And it draws on the previous two examples for much of its strength, though in doing so it ignores their essentially elitist character. Those are the three primary models I can see for the assertion of a personal God, and they leave quite a bit of room outside those specific traditions for a theology that does not assume personal communication between God and humanity. Can it really be that they can read Genesis and think it is talking about the God they believe in, but that God is in no way a person? But why should Genesis be the only available basis for a belief in God? The Jews believed in God -- and likely a non-personified conception of God -- long before Genesis was written or canonized.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Ken Hemingway	Re: Is belief a choice?	#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 258 03/02/05 18:46:10 Smarty Pants	Well, Mad, thanks again for all your efforts. I think at this point I'm ready to give up. I'll continue to look for people who want to talk about what is sacred or spiritual in the world and in life, but I think I'm going to have to restrict myself to people who willing to do so without talking in terms of gods. To me the effort of trying to figure out what theists mean by the terms they use, and why they think they can make the claims they seem to make, distracts too much from the goal I want to see us tackle.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Is belief a choice?	#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/02/05 22:56:52 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I'm afraid that if you're looking for a more or less direct definition of a deity, you're going to have to look at the question both theologically and historically. A good starting point is the Greeks. Primitive Greek religion begins with the notion of deity as that which is greater than humanity. That's an ontological categorization -- greater in terms of power of being -- and a rather simple way of thinking about it is that anything immortal is greater than humanity because humans are mortal. For that reason, all sorts of things become gods in primitive thought, from natural objects like the elements to more abstract notions like justice. Monotheism is a bit like early natural science in its assertion of unity; just as the first philosophers sought the unity of the world in the concept of nature of physis, monotheists seek the unity of being in God. I hope that helps. Good luck.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lawrenceindestin	Re: Is belief a choice?	#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 04/28/05 09:24:33 Brand Spankin' New	I enjoy Karen's writing and thinking. Your comments, like Karen's comments are, are trying to find an answer without acknowledging the paradigm may be defective. I offer the following thoughts. If anyone would like to see the conclusion I will be happy to complete the publication. Thank you for letting me "blog." Dogma - Life or Death? Dogma is to my spirit, as an egg shell to the chick. I was birthed within it and could not develop free from Dogma's relentless presence, but if I do not break free of it, Dogma will entomb my soul. My use of the word Dogma is limited to religious doctrine. Dogma is a theological term for doctrine, or a body of doctrines, relating to matters such as morality (what a god wants the believers to do or not do), and faith (what a believer develops as a result of trusting the god of that Dogma over time). Dogma is set forth in an authoritative manner by employee(s) of an organized religion. These principles, beliefs, or statements of ideas or opinion about their god, are usually required to be considered absolutely true in order to be a member of the organized religion stating the Dogma. Dogma, as thus defined, is humanity's attempt at a logical explanation of and a personal belief system about, life after death. Each moment of life in the body and mind, is an experience most people call an empirical fact. The death of the body is a fact most everyone acknowledges. Whether there is a spirit of the person, that does not die, is something to believe or not but it is not a fact. Only the god of a personal belief system offers an explanation about life after death for that believer. Dogma, on the other hand, which is the logic of man about a god, offers much more than an explanation about life after death. Dogma directs the life choices of believers, and through civil government, non believers as well. It is the nature of those who publicly declare their Dogma to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, also declare their Dogma is a fact of life that is true, absolutely true, for all persons. The fact is, the answer to the question of life after death, is that there is no answer - only belief . . . the singular, individual, and unique belief of each person. At this point a side trip may be appropriate. I wish to present some comments my good friend Dr. Maarten Van Swaay wrote. He observed some mis-perceptions about 'truth,' 'proof,' 'science,' and belief when he wrote: Most people outside the domain of science see the 'scientific method' as progressing from proof to proof. Scientists have a very different view: they speak not of 'proof', but of 'subject to falsification'. The difference is profound! Why do scientists shy away from 'proving truth'? Because they can argue that 'proof of truth' is unattainable! A proof of truth would require an exhaustive search of the universe to confirm the absence of even a single exception. Such an exhaustive search is unbounded, and therefore impossible. But scientists do speak of the 'laws of thermodynamics', the 'laws of motion', and such. So what does that mean? Such sets of 'laws' started as hypotheses, which were then subjected to sustained challenge, to test whether they would stand up to such challenge. In other words, science progresses by a persistent search for evidence that reveals that a hypothesis is false. For the laws of thermodynamics those challenges continued for some 150 years. Initially, hypotheses collapsed about as fast as they could be formulated. But as understanding of 'heat' grew, the model describing that improving understanding became more resistant to challenge, and eventually became accepted as a 'scientific theory'; a model that has been refined in response to challenge to the point where further refinement becomes a rare event. But not an impossibility! Newton's laws of motion withstood challenge even longer: more than 200 years. But then Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism led to a need to refine Newton's laws of motion. And Einstein became famous for formulating the refinement in the form of his special and general theories of relativity. It is worth noting that Newton's laws remain valid in their original form for all but some very esoteric conditions. Physicists speak of 'relativistic' speeds: the extremely high speeds at which the differences between rest mass and dynamic mass become noticeable and significant. Einstein's insights did not dismiss Newton's laws; they refined them. And that makes good sense: Newton's laws of motion serve admirably to explain the dynamics of everything we observe in the everyday world. Dismissal of those laws would require replacing them with something equally powerful and equally general. For some ideas, one can argue persuasively that they are not accessible to falsification (Such as life after death.) Then one must conclude that such ideas 'cannot be proved false'. But that is not the same as concluding that in the absence of proof of falsehood an idea must therefore be true. The idea may well be true, but we have already seen that 'proof of truth' is logically unattainable. If for some idea, proof of falsehood is also unattainable, then only 'belief' is left, and that belief cannot be open to external challenge. That belief in the unfalsifiable we place in the domain of faith. Science restricts itself to what is observable and falsifiable: it deliberately - and quite properly - refrains from entering into the domain of faith. Conversely, if - as I just explained - faith addresses questions that are not falsifiable, then faith cannot enter into the domain of science. There is no overlap between the two domains, not because anyone has declared that taboo, but because the domains are intrinsically mutually exclusive. They are not incompatible. With more than 2,800 organized churches/religions at the turn of the 21st Century, in just America alone, and each group stating their Dogma is not only factually true but is the only Dogma in the world that is true, it is little wonder so many people are plaintively asking as they did in the 60's TV show, "Would the real God please stand up?" Whether anyone else is asking, I did. By what right do the Dogmatists tell others that a mere belief is a fact? By what right do the Dogmatists tell others that a mere belief is the absolute truth? More importantly, what right do they have to use coercion to force me to believe their Dogma is true? The Dogmatists have the same right as me, the right of free speech. My angst about the Dogmatists is the mind control exercised over their listeners. They may not affect everyone the way they did me, but they kept me in their egg shell for a long, long time. They told me to believe their Dogma or I'd go to Hell after death. What's a boy in an egg shell to do? Conform or rebel? Choose life or death? Choose Heaven or hell? As George Orwell expressed so perceptively there really is no choice for a child. "To grasp the effect of this kind of thing on a child of ten or twelve, one has to remember that the child has little sense of proportion or probability. A child may be a mass of egoism and rebelliousness, but it has not accumulated experience to give it confidence in its own judgments. On the whole it will accept what it is told, and it will believe in the most fantastic way in the knowledge and power of the adults surrounding it." Some children never grow up. I wonder if the Dogmatists know they are the eggshell entombing childlike minds? I wonder if the Dogmatists' pride in their own opinions gives them the peace they say passes all understanding? I wonder if the Dogmatists ever consider whether their listeners might have a stronger relationship with their god outside of Dogma? Just as a chick is not supposed to die in its shell and only attains maturity by leaving it, the spiritual relationship with my god takes place outside of Dogma. I propose help for those who wish to consider breaking free from Dogma. The First Amendment to the American Constitution is not an absolute right. It has been interpreted many times to deny absolute freedom of speech when there was not a level playing field. That is, when the words of the speaker could not be readily and easily considered as true or false by the listener. Under such conditions the courts hold the harm to society outweighs the benefit of free speech to a speaker. One example of that ruling is shouting "Fire" in a crowded room when no fire is apparent. There is no debate that organized religion is big business. There is no debate that Governments can regulate business to protect its citizens from fraud and wrong doing. Is it not in the government's interests to assist its citizens from getting fleeced by willful misstatements of material facts? A statement that is false, and the speaker knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the statement was false, made with the intent that the listener rely on it, and the listener does rely on it and is damaged, is a fraudulent statement. The governments have penalties for people and businesses who commit fraud. Because there is no substantive basis to establish the fact of god, therefore there is no justification for one person telling another person who or what to believe about god. Maybe it is time to level the theological playing field. Maybe it is time for a Dogmatist to be restricted to say, "I believe these are the words of god" but deny the Dogmatist the right to say, "These are the words of god." Under the Health, Safety, and Welfare clause, granting the government the power to do so, America has truth in lending, truth in advertising, and truth in bargaining for goods and real estate. Is it too far fetched that the government also requires truth in theology? The reader may think this criticism of what a Dogmatist should or should not be allowed to say is a difference without a distinction. An argument only one trained in law or semantics would be concerned about. If you think so, you err. The fraudulent proclamation of Dogmatists is the first of three erroneous beliefs which are the pillars holding the cauldron of strife that guarantee chaos will continue to be poured out on the world unabated.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Is belief a choice?	#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 04/28/05 21:41:37 Indisputable BookTalk Master	If that was directed at me, you presume too much. I suggest that you take a look at some of the threads I've contributed to in the Philosophy/Religion forum. I think you'll see that my understanding of the differences and relationship between religion and science is a bit more sophisticated than you might have imagined from this thread.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lawrenceindestin	Thank you for commenting	#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 04/29/05 09:47:46 Brand Spankin' New	Thank you for reading my thoughts. No offense meant and I hope none taken. When my essay is completed I hope it will show that the solutions to answering the question of a god simply cannot be derived from within a particular paradigym but must come from outside all of them without creating yet another Dogma. I think I've done that. Yesterday I started a blog and will be working on it. I won't put anything else here because it may be inappropriate. The blog site is lawrenceindestin.blogspot.com. Best wishes, Lawrence
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: Thank you for commenting	#33	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 04/29/05 10:14:29 BookTalk Owner	lawrenceindestin Definitely one of the best essays I've read on BookTalk! So impressive that I am forwarding a copy to my father to read, as he follows BookTalk but doesn't post. I hope you stick around and contribute more. And when you have that Blog further developed I just might add a link to it on our Home page in the Recommended Blogs section. Chris
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lawrenceindestin	your comment	#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 04/29/05 13:43:00 Brand Spankin' New	Mr. O'Conner, you will never know the encouragement your words gave to me. I'm a no name, no body that is 72 years old and you heard me. "It don't get no better than that." Thank you so much. I'll really gin up production and finish writing my thoughts. When I do I'll definitely let you know. As an aside, if you get the chance, and have the inclination, to give this site to Karen Armstrong, I can't think of anything better than being in a dialog with her on my topic. Best wishes and thank you for BookTalk. Lawrence
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lawrenceindestin	Thoughts on the topic	#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 06/11/05 12:32:08 Brand Spankin' New	It is a concern to me that my thread seems to have shut down comment on the topic "Is Belief a Choice?" I offer the continuing thoughts in hope of encouraging others to comment. When I quoted Dr. VanSwaay's comments, I did so because I believe they establish that it is bad form to use Dogma to prove the truth of Dogma or anything else. It is bad form to do so because it is illogical. The Torah, Koran, and Bible are Dogma. Thoughts, to be believed if you choose, but not tools establishing facts about life after death. I want to extend my comments on Dogmatists. And in doing so address the topic of this forum "Is Belief a Choice." I emphasize that I do not impute malevolence to the Dogmatists. Pride probably, but pride is something most all of us must work through or around. What keeps the Dogmatists beating their drums, and what keeps the congregation listening, is, the fact neither seems to appreciate the difference between a life principle and a personal experience. My thesis statement, that we are all born and develop within the eggshell of Dogma, if true, can be logically extended to state that everything anyone initially knows about their god is derived from some other person's Dogma. But, at least in my case, somewhere along the path of life I had a personal encounter with my God. I've been doing business with my God ever since. My God is very real to me. My God is a very important part of my life and my reality. Many Dogmatists proclaim they also have a personal experience with their god. I hope it is the personal experience the Dogmatists have with their god that is the cornerstone of their Dogma; anything else would be a conniving scam. Hopefully then, the Dogmatists' statements are based on his or her personal experience with their god and their belief in the truth of the Dogma of their religion that apparently prepared them for their personal experience. However, in their ignorance or pride, the Dogmatists elevate their personal experience with their god and use it to reverse engineer the logic of man that created their Dogma to validate that Dogma as a life principal for all. Let me show you the impossibility of elevating a personal experience to be a life principle for others. A life principle is a fact of life that applies to all persons, at all times, throughout all of history. Gravity is a life principle. Breathing is a life principle. A beating heart is a life principle. But a personal experience, that is not associated with a life principle, is just a personal experience. It is my belief the Dogmatists, who use their personal experience to validate their Dogma, confuse these two separate facts of life. There are life principles that assist us in living in reality and there are personal experiences that assist us in living in reality. That we all use the knowledge derived from both does not mean both knowledge sets are applicable for all people. Life principles are, personal experiences are not. An example of confusing life principles with personal experiences follows: A man, six feet tall, bumps his head while walking through a five-foot door. Assuming he has the authority, and assuming he has the desire to keep others from the pain, he issues the dogmatic statement that all persons should bow their heads when walking through a five-foot door. Would not the person who is four feet tall question the wisdom of this Dogma? There is more dramatic proof of the truth of my premise about personal experiences. Have you ever seen a beautiful sunrise or sunset, or experienced the power of a thunderous storm or the howling of a tornado or hurricane? If you have then you have had a personal experience. No one has ever been able to replicate their personal experience in another, by words, art, argument, persuasion, or even force. It just can't be done. We use metaphor to describe but words cannot replicate the experience for another. To have a personal experience with your god is just that - your personal experience. Another example of the confusion in society caused by elevating a personal experience to a life principle for all is exemplified by an old story. It may be a clich but quite appropriate as a metaphor for my point. It is the story of four blind men, from a colony of blind men, who came upon an elephant. One touched its trunk, one its ear, another rubbed its leg and the last its tail. When the blind men returned to camp they each described this new creature they had encountered. As you can imagine they were limited in their description of this creature by their personal experience. After each described what the creature was like they got into a terrible argument as to which one was describing the "real" creature they each had experienced. Each blind man elevated his personal experience in the belief he was describing a life principle. So it is with Dogmatists who try to make their god your god. We can easily see the foolishness of the blind men but we are blind to our foolishness in not seeing the Dogmatists doing the same thing. To say I struggled to live a life, which conformed to my Dogma, does not convey the torture and pain my spirit suffered. In spite of great and continuous effort I failed to fit into a size 12 god. To this day, for me to witness anyone unsuccessfully struggling with an impossible task brings tears to my eyes. One day in Wyoming, I was totally done in at a rodeo when a little 12 year old girl roped a small calf but wasn't strong enough to bulldog the critter to the ground. There they were, two precious creatures, caught in an irresolvable standoff. That pretty much sums up my relationship with god when all I had to see him was through the eggshell of my Dogma. The god of that Dogma did not deliver on what I thought that Dogma had promised me. Dogma promised me it understood who god was, what god wanted, and what I would receive if I followed the ritual and beliefs the Dogma taught. Because we are dealing with the concept of god that only exists in thinking, this god can only come from one's personal belief. The Dogmatists, in defining god from their personal experience and belief, just as the blind men above, limit the nature of god to the confines of their mind and experience. Any god of the Dogmatists is a size 12 god and that one size fits all believers of that Dogma. All believers of that Dogma must stuff their personal experience and beliefs into the Dogmatists' one size god. People have not, and I submit cannot, conceive of words that will provide a life principle description of God. Words that establish such a life principle are exclusively within the purview of a supernatural force we call God. In my befuddlement of not being able to resolve my issues, I often asked my God, "Why do you make it so hard to be acquainted?" "Why do you make it a guessing game as to who you are and what you want?" "If you wanted me to figure this mess out, why didn't you make me a whole lot smarter?" "Have I missed the cut? Do you really want me to go to Hell?" You, my reader, may not realize it but my questions reveal the bind I think many of us labor under when we try to know and understand our God. In my pride, I thought I was supposed to be smart enough to sort through all the Dogma of the world and then be wise enough to choose the "Right God." I actually believed it was my responsibility to make the "Right Choice" under the penalty of hell for being wrong or the blessing of heaven if I guessed right. I hope you will realize that it is a premise of this essay that it is impossible for anyone to know if they have chosen the "Right Dogma." Even in this ultimate question of life-I not only must trust in my answer-I can do nothing else. Even my personal experience with God, which ignited my spirit at the moment, and generated such great conviction for the reality of God, ebbed after a time and I wonder if I only "dreamed." I had a great shock when I read, What I Believe, by Pier Teilhard De Chardin. He was a life long Jesuit Priest and paleontologist who also wrote The Devine Milieu. His final words were, "When I close my eyes in death, I really don't know if I will see the face of God." If Chardin didn't gain confidence from the Dogma he followed, I never would. I have to admit that Chardin's reality is also my reality and possibly yours. However, my peace came when I realized this issue, the issue of my limited capacity to understand. But the real peace came when I realized it was my oversized pride in taking the responsibility for finding god was the problem. It is not my problem to find the right god, it is God's problem. The issue with my God and me, is Trust. All I can do is trust with the knowledge and understanding I have. If that isn't good enough, it is my God's problem. I've done all I know to do. And Trusting my God is all I can do. There is a saying that people will always believe in god because the idea of power, united with perfection, satisfies and stimulates the soul. (Karen Armstrong) It is also a pleasant thought to be friends with an omnipotent force, who promises to intervene in our behalf, as we slog our way through life's adversities. We, who have the god of our belief system answering our prayers, know what god means to each of us. My god, as my friend, is a very pleasant thought for me, but my trust in god is based on his faithfulness. My god faithfully answers my prayers. That does not make my god a "Jack-in-the- Box" that jumps out at my bidding to give his power to my will. The point is, I believe it is impossible for belief to be a choice until one escapes the eggshell of other peoples' Dogma. As long as a person remains within the eggshell of Dogma, that person's belief is a superstition. When you know what you believe and why you believe it, you have stepped outside of Dogma and into the world of a personal belief and the concomitant challenge of total trust in the god of your choice. I emphasize that I am not insinuating that God does not, or cannot, interact in your life until you make such an independent choice. I'm talking from our side of the fence. I wouldn't presume to speak for his side of the fence. Trusting the god of your belief system to lead, guide and direct your moment-to-moment activity is not for sissies. If you are still singing Frank Sinatra's I Did it My Way, at your birthday parties, you haven't gotten the picture I'm painting. This little paragraph is the seed of my solution to the Dogma Dilemma thus far presented. When this essay is completed I hope it will show that the solutions to answering the question of a god simply cannot be derived from within a particular paradigm but must come from outside all of them without creating yet another Dogma. I think I've done that. But for now I believe it will be helpful if you knew more about the other two pillars holding the cauldron of strife.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Thoughts on the topic	#36	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 06/11/05 14:07:23 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I copied this to the Religion forum, as it may get more attention there. Mr.P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
julian1226	Re: Is belief a choice?	#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2 07/21/05 10:06:56 Brand Spankin' New	belief is not a choice...cause it is not a religion..it is about"believe" no matter what your reaction is...it does exist.. we have to face the truth..face the reality...sth does exist no matter you confess it or not...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Is belief a choice?	#38	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 07/21/05 10:07:55 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Huh? The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Jeremy1952	Martin Gardner	#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 907 07/27/05 15:28:08 Enlightened One	I racked my brain and my google trying to remember Gardner's name, because he is a skeptic/theist, who I remembered having said that faith was a conscous choice for himself Profile Martin Gardner; December 1995; by Yam; 3 page(s) The clerk at the Barnes and Noble bookstore in downtown Manhattan is not all that helpful. Having had limited success with smaller retailers, I am hoping that the computer can tell me which of Martin Gardner's 50 or so books are available in the store's massive inventory. Most of his books, of course, deal with recreational mathematics, the topic for which he is best known. But he has also penned works in literature, philosophy and fiction. I am looking specifically for The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, Gardner's essays that detail his approach to life. The clerk tells me to try the religion section, under "Christian friction." Is he kidding? A scowl breaks across Gardner's otherwise amicable face after I relate the story. He is puzzled, too, but for a different reason. The book has nothing to do with that, Gardner insists. He makes it a point to describe himself as philosophical theist--in the tradition, he says, of Plato and Kant, among others. "I decided I couldn't call myself a Christian in any legitimate sense of the word, but I have retained a belief in a personal God," Gardner clarifies. "I admire the teachings of Jesus, but to me it's a little bit dishonest if you don't think Jesus was divine in some special way"--which Gardner does not. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lawrenceindestin	Re: Martin Gardner	#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 07/28/05 09:35:22 Brand Spankin' New	Thanks for the reference. Sounds as though Martin Gardner and I came to similar conclusions. I'll try to find his essay. I'm still working on my essay. Best wishes, Lawrence
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Is belief a choice?

Quick Reply