|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 24, 2015 12:15:03 GMT -5
To my mind, we choose our beliefs all the time, unless we are very young or very damaged. Most of us (not all) choose beliefs that are somewhat in line with the basic laws of the material universe, our socio-economic reality, and normally shared with at least some other people we know. And there are some who cannot believe things that do not have some underlying verifiable support. It might be because your approach to life is not like everyone who is reading and posting here. Some are able to convince Themselves of various 'truths' or beliefs simply by thinking they are true over and over, never requiring any actual proof. Others need something more concrete. The observable facts?Perhaps because some people, like yourself, believe things in spite of the facts that do not support their beliefs. For some the willing suspension of disbelief is easier than for others whether at a film or in everyday life. Thanks. Apparently the part I was missing is that there is a group of people who are in sole possession of “reality” aka, “the truth”. Hallelujah!!! I have no problems with observable facts, never have. On the other hand, the absence of “observable facts” has never been enough to constitute “proof” for me, nor should it be for any other reasonable human being. (Now, I am aware that you can take that statement, like many statements bound by the limits of language, and push it to the point of absurdity so that it can be summarily dismissed. Or you could pause and consider if there might be a sliver of truth to it.) I am keenly aware that there is a non-empirical part of our world that is “real”. In the past couple of years, I have enjoyed becoming acquainted with Lothar Schafer’s contributions to our understanding of life. “Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live” is a good read. He writes: “It is interesting that many languages have several words for what we call reality. In the German language, for example, there are two words, Wirklichkeit and Realität, that both have the meaning of reality, but they aren’t synonymous. Rather, they describe different modes of being real. The first is derived from the German verb wirken (to have an effect) and the second from the Latin word for things, res. All material things are, of course, real, but nonmaterial entities are also real if they can have an effect in the world. The entities of the realm of potentiality in nature are of that kind; they are not things but forms. Nevertheless they are real, because they have the potential to manifest themselves in the empirical world and to have an effect in it.” He also writes: “The shocking truth is that, at the root of matter, at the level of atoms and molecules, the notion of matter is lost in a realm of nonmaterial forms; and actuality turns into potentiality. Hans Peter Durr proposes: “Reality reveals itself primarily as nothing but potentiality.” (And you think I can’t choose a belief without being unmoored from reality…really???) “The empirical side is very very important. But at the same time, we have to realize that it cannot be the complete picture.” ~Menas Kafatos To me, conversations like the following are well worth considering:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 13:19:27 GMT -5
Maryhig, that story of Lazarus and the rich man is one reason I quit professing. I cannot imagine being in heaven with a front row seat watching people in hell suffering and not being able to do anything about it. That would be hell for me. I was 12 so my reasoning was pretty simplistic at that point. Since then I thankfully came to realize heaven and hell are constructs of religion and were not a teaching within Christianity until later on in it's evolution to what you see today. Doesn't that story bother you? It truly makes me sick, yet people bring it up time after time and say how they hope to be on the right side of the divide? How horrifying that would be actually. Snow, In that parable (which is what it is) it doesn't say anywhere that Lazarus can see the rich man suffering, It's the rich man seeing Lazarus. And he's in that way because of the hardness of his heart whilst he was alive. The rich man doesn't just mean rich in money but rich in God, and Lazarus being poor just needed a bit of help and a few words about God to help him. ( These are the crumbs) But the rich man walked by! Any man or woman who is rich in God and walks past anyone in need of help whether it be in the flesh or spiritually will be held accountable! Because we know better. In the bible Jesus didn't have harsh words for the people who didn't know. He forgave them and told them to sin no more. It was for the people that say they knew God that Jesus rebuked. Because they say they believed but didn't live it. And even turned people away from God. If you read Matthew 23. Jesus here is talking to the scribes and Pharisees, he is hard because they say they are God's people yet they are living wrong and teaching the people the wrong way. He calls them blind fools. Yet the woman caught in adultery he tells her that her sins are forgiven and not to sin anymore. This parable is for people like me who know God, not for people who don't know him. I know that what I do in my life I will be held accountable for. I'm glad Jesus told this parable because it makes me think about myself and about me getting my life right. And helping me open my eyes to the need of others. But just to touch on heaven and hell and feeling sorry for the people in hell. What about the people who are beheading children in Iraq. Or people who are abusing the innocents in vile ways. Or the people who led all those Jews including babies into the Gas chambers. Etc. Etc. What about these people, a lot of them profess to know God like priests etc. And they go to church praying. This is just a cover for the vile things they do! So should they be sitting in heaven with Lazarus in Abrahams bosom. That gulf is there for a reason. It's to stop the children of heaven seeing the children of hell. Not the other way around. This can also happen whilst we are here on earth, God can help blind us to wickedness. If we let him in. Thats why Jesus says we have to become as little children to enter in. God wants an innocent heart within us and all that is corrupt gone. Really? then can you explain to me how Abraham could see the rich man and talk to him? And if Lazarus was in Abraham's 'bosom' then he could hear and see it too.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 24, 2015 14:58:02 GMT -5
And there are some who cannot believe things that do not have some underlying verifiable support. It might be because your approach to life is not like everyone who is reading and posting here. Some are able to convince Themselves of various 'truths' or beliefs simply by thinking they are true over and over, never requiring any actual proof. Others need something more concrete. The observable facts?Perhaps because some people, like yourself, believe things in spite of the facts that do not support their beliefs. For some the willing suspension of disbelief is easier than for others whether at a film or in everyday life. Thanks. Apparently the part I was missing is that there is a group of people who are in sole possession of “reality” aka, “the truth”. Hallelujah!!! I have no problems with observable facts, never have. On the other hand, the absence of “observable facts” has never been enough to constitute “proof” for me, nor should it be for any other reasonable human being. (Now, I am aware that you can take that statement, like many statements bound by the limits of language, and push it to the point of absurdity so that it can be summarily dismissed. Or you could pause and consider if there might be a sliver of truth to it.) I am keenly aware that there is a non-empirical part of our world that is “real”. In the past couple of years, I have enjoyed becoming acquainted with Lothar Schafer’s contributions to our understanding of life. “Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live” is a good read. He writes: “It is interesting that many languages have several words for what we call reality. In the German language, for example, there are two words, Wirklichkeit and Realität, that both have the meaning of reality, but they aren’t synonymous. Rather, they describe different modes of being real. The first is derived from the German verb wirken (to have an effect) and the second from the Latin word for things, res. All material things are, of course, real, but nonmaterial entities are also real if they can have an effect in the world. The entities of the realm of potentiality in nature are of that kind; they are not things but forms. Nevertheless they are real, because they have the potential to manifest themselves in the empirical world and to have an effect in it.” He also writes: “The shocking truth is that, at the root of matter, at the level of atoms and molecules, the notion of matter is lost in a realm of nonmaterial forms; and actuality turns into potentiality. Hans Peter Durr proposes: “Reality reveals itself primarily as nothing but potentiality.” (And you think I can’t choose a belief without being unmoored from reality…really???) “The empirical side is very very important. But at the same time, we have to realize that it cannot be the complete picture.” ~Menas Kafatos To me, conversations like the following are well worth considering: My thought after viewing the clip. There isn't a quantum world and a Newtonian world. Science has different models to explain reality at different scales. Quantum physics is the best model to explain the very small Newtonian physics best explains what you can see. General relativity best explains the very large. As far as I know, all mater and energy can be measured. It's not true we use only 5% of our brains. www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp"Unity of life", "levels of concsciouness", etc I don't know and don't think they know either. One of the problems of math is that an equation can be true and not be represented by reality. Some solutions can be proved mathematically but can not be tested ie string theory. Interesting ideas but they need some reality based evidence before you can take them as anything more than conjectures. There is an interesting article in the Jan 2015 edition on the theory of everything. www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530020.500-gravitys-secret-how-relativity-meets-quantum-physics.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 15:41:18 GMT -5
It is about our hearts. Eph 3:17 "That christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love."
Open hearts. Eph 1:18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened so that you will know what is the hope of his calling,what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,"
Soft heartsHeb 3:1-19 "do not harden your hearts" No, bubbles, it isn't about our "hearts."
"Hearts" in the way you mean doesn't really exist. It is a metaphor, a figure of speech .
Believing in a god & believing that god cares about us & intercedes on our behalf , are thoughts that come from our minds.
When I reflected on why I believed, I begin to realize it all was a construct of my mind, metaphysical attempt to answer why certain things happened to me and others.
Well I'll be dam, so when my wife tells me she loves me with all her heart, that thought comes from her mind? I'll see about that.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 24, 2015 15:50:55 GMT -5
No, bubbles, it isn't about our "hearts."
"Hearts" in the way you mean doesn't really exist. It is a metaphor, a figure of speech .
Believing in a god & believing that god cares about us & intercedes on our behalf , are thoughts that come from our minds.
When I reflected on why I believed, I begin to realize it all was a construct of my mind, metaphysical attempt to answer why certain things happened to me and others.
Well I'll be dam, so when my wife tells me she loves me with all her heart, that thought comes from her mind? I'll see about that. Your mind is what your brain does. Mind is an emergent property of your brain. There is no body + spirit, just a body. No ghost in the machine or ghosts outside the machine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 15:53:23 GMT -5
Well I'll be dam, so when my wife tells me she loves me with all her heart, that thought comes from her mind? I'll see about that. Your mind is what your brain does. Mind is an emergent property of your brain. There is no body + spirit, just a body. No ghost in the machine or ghosts outside the machine? Mind over matter, eh!
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 24, 2015 15:58:15 GMT -5
Your mind is what your brain does. Mind is an emergent property of your brain. There is no body + spirit, just a body. No ghost in the machine or ghosts outside the machine? Mind over matter, eh! You forgot the rest .. If you don't have a mind - it doesn't matter?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Feb 24, 2015 16:04:51 GMT -5
Snow, In that parable (which is what it is) it doesn't say anywhere that Lazarus can see the rich man suffering, It's the rich man seeing Lazarus. And he's in that way because of the hardness of his heart whilst he was alive. The rich man doesn't just mean rich in money but rich in God, and Lazarus being poor just needed a bit of help and a few words about God to help him. ( These are the crumbs) But the rich man walked by! Any man or woman who is rich in God and walks past anyone in need of help whether it be in the flesh or spiritually will be held accountable! Because we know better. In the bible Jesus didn't have harsh words for the people who didn't know. He forgave them and told them to sin no more. It was for the people that say they knew God that Jesus rebuked. Because they say they believed but didn't live it. And even turned people away from God. If you read Matthew 23. Jesus here is talking to the scribes and Pharisees, he is hard because they say they are God's people yet they are living wrong and teaching the people the wrong way. He calls them blind fools. Yet the woman caught in adultery he tells her that her sins are forgiven and not to sin anymore. This parable is for people like me who know God, not for people who don't know him. I know that what I do in my life I will be held accountable for. I'm glad Jesus told this parable because it makes me think about myself and about me getting my life right. And helping me open my eyes to the need of others. But just to touch on heaven and hell and feeling sorry for the people in hell. What about the people who are beheading children in Iraq. Or people who are abusing the innocents in vile ways. Or the people who led all those Jews including babies into the Gas chambers. Etc. Etc. What about these people, a lot of them profess to know God like priests etc. And they go to church praying. This is just a cover for the vile things they do! So should they be sitting in heaven with Lazarus in Abrahams bosom. That gulf is there for a reason. It's to stop the children of heaven seeing the children of hell. Not the other way around. This can also happen whilst we are here on earth, God can help blind us to wickedness. If we let him in. Thats why Jesus says we have to become as little children to enter in. God wants an innocent heart within us and all that is corrupt gone. Really? then can you explain to me how Abraham could see the rich man and talk to him? And if Lazarus was in Abraham's 'bosom' then he could hear and see it too. Ratz The parable is addressing justice. We cant take it in a literal sense. It is a metaphor. The rich man acting selfishly while Lazarus had need the rich man could have met. Abrahams bosom was a metaphor used by the jews who lived in the time of Jesus to stand for 'the home of the jews,' 'stand for the Kingdom of God.' Its also about relationship. Lazarus was comforted. He wouldnt be literally sitting in Abrahams bosom. Do you think anyone could speak burning in hell? More like screaming their lungs.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 24, 2015 16:36:52 GMT -5
My thought after viewing the clip. There isn't a quantum world and a Newtonian world. Science has different models to explain reality at different scales. Quantum physics is the best model to explain the very small Newtonian physics best explains what you can see. General relativity best explains the very large. As far as I know, all mater and energy can be measured. It's not true we use only 5% of our brains. www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp"Unity of life", "levels of concsciouness", etc I don't know and don't think they know either. One of the problems of math is that an equation can be true and not be represented by reality. Some solutions can be proved mathematically but can not be tested ie string theory. Interesting ideas but they need some reality based evidence before you can take them as anything more than conjectures. There is an interesting article in the Jan 2015 edition on the theory of everything. www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530020.500-gravitys-secret-how-relativity-meets-quantum-physics.htmlI think your comments are fair enough, particularly for it being a 13 minute clip of rather meandering responses. I’m most certainly not proselytizing. I’ve never seen actual ideas/beliefs as being particularly significant, having a more Dr. Phil “How’s that working for ya?” test for their validity. Ever since, I read Fritjof Capra’s “The Tao of Physics” followed shortly by Gary Zukav’s “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”, years ago, I have been interested in explorations in this direction. I know some scientists are scornful of the whole “What does it all mean?” direction of inquiry, but I quite like the emerging “natural philosophers”. From the very beginning, I liked these kinds of ideas, they instinctively felt right to me. I’ve tended to follow them through the years and haven’t paid much attention to detractors. This, I suppose, would be an example of one choosing one’s beliefs. I choose to believe that there is "something more", and that there is significance to the universe and our existence here. I particularly like the tie backs into various wisdom traditions.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 24, 2015 16:54:26 GMT -5
My thought after viewing the clip. There isn't a quantum world and a Newtonian world. Science has different models to explain reality at different scales. Quantum physics is the best model to explain the very small Newtonian physics best explains what you can see. General relativity best explains the very large. As far as I know, all mater and energy can be measured. It's not true we use only 5% of our brains. www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp"Unity of life", "levels of concsciouness", etc I don't know and don't think they know either. One of the problems of math is that an equation can be true and not be represented by reality. Some solutions can be proved mathematically but can not be tested ie string theory. Interesting ideas but they need some reality based evidence before you can take them as anything more than conjectures. There is an interesting article in the Jan 2015 edition on the theory of everything. www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530020.500-gravitys-secret-how-relativity-meets-quantum-physics.htmlI think your comments are fair enough, particularly for it being a 13 minute clip of rather meandering responses. I’m most certainly not proselytizing. I’ve never seen actual ideas/beliefs as being particularly significant, having a more Dr. Phil “How’s that working for ya?” test for their validity. Ever since, I read Fritjof Capra’s “The Tao of Physics” followed shortly by Gary Zukav’s “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”, years ago, I have been interested in explorations in this direction. I know some scientists are scornful of the whole “What does it all mean?” direction of inquiry, but I quite like the emerging “natural philosophers”. From the very beginning, I liked these kinds of ideas, they instinctively felt right to me. I’ve tended to follow them through the years and haven’t paid much attention to detractors. This, I suppose, would be an example of one choosing one’s beliefs. I choose to believe that there is "something more", and that there is significance to the universe and our existence here. I particularly like the tie backs into various wisdom traditions. I think you make / find your own meaning in life. My greatest joys comes from discovery. There are strange happenings which remain a mystery; quantum entanglement, super position, multiverse, ourselves, etc. There could be gods even more wonderful than have thus far been imagined, but for me to believe any I need more than a wish. My world view is closest to Humanism, as explained in these.... youtu.be/DZN8Ne1nmr4youtu.be/-WaAIz76Hbk
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 24, 2015 18:53:24 GMT -5
I think you make / find your own meaning in life. My greatest joys comes from discovery. There are strange happenings which remain a mystery; quantum entanglement, super position, multiverse, ourselves, etc. There could be gods even more wonderful than have thus far been imagined, but for me to believe any I need more than a wish. My world view is closest to Humanism, as explained in these.... youtu.be/DZN8Ne1nmr4youtu.be/-WaAIz76HbkSeems like a pretty reasonable approach to life to me. I learned a couple of things about secularism from the second clip that I did not know before. Certainly, given a choice, I would choose to live in secular society every time. (Hmmm… I wonder if this would be a good test for religious fanaticism?) I understand about joy from discovery – and I certainly have this drive in me. Sometimes, I think, almost too much. I hadn’t really consider this before, but if I was to have one label applied to me, it might be “mystic” (modern sense). I would consider that a life well lived. I don’t see choosing belief as simply based on a “wish”. It is more of a practice, a process that you dedicate your being to – and would depend on what you wanted to believe and your individual make up and core values. For example, if I was to receive a tablet of stone declaring “Thou shalt become a Muslim.” I don’t know what form that tablet would take at this stage of my life. If I was younger, it might have taken the form of a romantic attachment or the threat of death. Or the thought of rejection from a tribe that I was attached to, and wasn’t sure how well I would do without them. It would have to be something that truly motivated me and that somehow aligned with my core values (or at least did not violate too many of them). I would probably immerse myself in the teachings, most particularly Sufism, as that is the part of Islam that resonates with me. I would surround myself with individuals who already believe what I want to believe. I would ignore most things that did not support my new chosen world view. I would focus on anything that did. Provided that no core values were being compromised in the process, I don’t think it would take too long. I think we all do this in one form or another. It would be even easier if you received this edict as a child, before you had even formed many of your own core values. Provided the indoctrination is not so severe as to compromise your sense of self, there is still a point where the choice will eventually become “yours”, unless you actively reject it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 24, 2015 22:52:27 GMT -5
Thanks. Apparently the part I was missing is that there is a group of people who are in sole possession of “reality” aka, “the truth”. Hallelujah!!! This was not an idea that I expressed. Requiring proof to support claims only means that you can test the foundation of your beliefs. It sounds like you are framing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. However, like Russell's teapot, there are, at times, good reasons for thinking that something does not exist. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. Foregoing any discussion of Schafer's views on quantum mechanics I agree that non material things can be termed real if they have an effect in the world. Gravity is a good example. It can be measured by anyone any where and the results can be verified. Its effect is measurable. However, when attempting to appy the same test to something like prayer the results do not support the contention that it is real. In numerous tests no effect has been detected. There is a difference in wanting to believe something is real and demonstrating that claim to be true. No, I don't. But Dürr and others have tried hard to posit a hyperspace by using quantum entanglement. And they took the big step to state that this hyperspace may be the afterlife or heaven. Of course he now knows if his memories were indeed stored in the proposed photon cloud within electrons!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 25, 2015 11:30:18 GMT -5
It sounds like you are framing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. However, like Russell's teapot, there are, at times, good reasons for thinking that something does not exist. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. Not at all. In the event of absence of observable facts, I would lean heavily to the “I don’t know option”. Perhaps because we have not yet collected sufficient information. But I would not close my mind to the possibility that it is also unknowable, given our current stage of evolution. When it comes to personal belief that does not harm anyone else, I don’t think the burden of proof necessarily falls on anyone. If it harms someone else, or someone thinks that you should modify your beliefs or behavior to fit in with their way of seeing the world, then I think burden of proof might come into play. If not, no one needs to prove anything to anyone. Foregoing any discussion of Schafer's views on quantum mechanics I agree that non material things can be termed real if they have an effect in the world. Gravity is a good example. It can be measured by anyone any where and the results can be verified. Its effect is measurable. Then there would be, say, a thought. I have them. Sometimes (not always) my actions are preceded by them. If you were to tell me that you have them too, I would trust that, though I cannot see them or measure them. Sometimes I might suspect that I can even see evidence of them. So, we can perhaps agree that thoughts are real, because they have an effect in the world. They are something that can exist a long time before being spoken or written or otherwise assembled to create something in visible reality. Do they not become real until they are observable, measurable, verifiable? But they feel real to me? I certainly have no problems retrieving them, thousands of times per day. Over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 25, 2015 14:04:04 GMT -5
Not at all. In the event of absence of observable facts, I would lean heavily to the “I don’t know option”. A sound decision. There is no need to prove anything to anyone unless you are trying to convince them. This would include situations, for example, where parents try to have medical treatment withheld because of their belief in prayer. Good points. I will have to have thoughts about this! It may come down to determining what constitutes a thought. It could perhaps be compared to magnetic tracks on recording media where the tracks in themselves are real and can cause fluctuation in a magnetometer but then there is also the effect they could impart in the world if interpreted into sound or decoded into signals to activate other systems. The thought that formed and was then immortalized in your post - it seems it could be real on multiple levels and at different times.
|
|