Christ says, "I am the way." The way which God's being establishes is his Word, who also is God. Who also is a person. The 'Tao' is how that Chinese philosopher understood him, albeit impersonally as without revelation.
I still have no clue what "the way" is. It's just as useless as the "God is love" quote. The words are there, but I can't see any meaning. It's just nonsense.
At least I understand now what you mean by 'nonsense'. The way is embodied in the life of God, which is in turn given to us in the life of Christ himself. The scripture bears witness, though it alone is insufficient.
And I still don't understand how morality is related to any of this.
Quote from RiverC »
How do you know what you know?
By applying critical thinking, the scientific method and skepticism.
Quote from RiverC »
Some people told me that I trust, I read some
And where did those people get their knowledge from? How did the authors of the books get their knowledge from? From reading the Bible? From first-hand experience? How do you know their experience was real?
Some of all of the above. For some, their personality and what they are able to do bears witness to the truth of what they speak. These people are typically called 'saints', but that term doesn't help you much.
Quote from RiverC »
some I experienced firsthand
Do you think firsthand experience leads to reliable knowledge? How can you be sure that you're attributing the origin of your experience to the correct cause?
You don't have to answer all of these questions, but I'd like at least some clue as to where you get all this "knowledge" from.
First you doubt, then you pursue, then if you persist, what is real is revealed. Sometimes it may take all of your life for the results to be conclusive. But if it is true, what does anything else really matter?
The way is embodied in the life of God, which is in turn given to us in the life of Christ himself. The scripture bears witness, though it alone is insufficient.
[...]
Some of all of the above. For some, their personality and what they are able to do bears witness to the truth of what they speak. These people are typically called 'saints', but that term doesn't help you much.
I don't understand how someone's personality can be evidence of anything. A person can have a strong conviction about something and still speak utter nonsense.
Yes, but not everyone. If it were one person I could write it off. But there's too many. And across too great a stretch of time. I am aware of the cult nonsense where a person who is very charismatic dupes someone into something because they are good at making people 'feel' like they're right. It is a great danger.
Quote from RiverC »
First you doubt, then you pursue, then if you persist, what is real is revealed.
Or what you think is real. Unfortunately people have a tendency to discover what they wanted to discover, instead of consistently applying skepticism.
I agree. But what has me on the trail is the fact that I have and often discover precisely what I did not want to discover. What I feared, in many cases, has proven to be true. But of course, not in all cases, Thank God.
Huh? That sentence I bolded is really really untrue. Even of humans. "The bottom line is, that many social animals will behave in a way that their group considers acceptable in order to fit it." That sounds more like it. Social animals (humans included) will happily torture someone if thats what society demands.
I'm talking about altruism, and it's definitely not "really really untrue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
It's also yet another gross exaggeration that people will happily torture other humans. Can you give an example of a society that considers random acts of murder and rape moral?
Quote from theicychameleon »
Humans break these instincts all the time
Maybe you're assuming that morality is supposed to be an absolute thing that must be followed without exception in order to be considered morality. I don't. I think morals are heuristics (rules of thumb). Which means you will find people who don't always follow them, but in general those morals are considered to be true.
I would agree that altruism is genetically coded for (under certain situations) but I wouldn't equate that to a universal morality. It can be broken too easily and if the social code runs against it it will win out easily.
Example of society that permits murder and rape: Serveral eras in Japan's history come to mind. For an extended period of their history Samurai had an absolute legal right of life or death over peasants called "Keisatsu yodatsu" (could be wrong on the name, don't have the rescources handy to check it). They could murder anyone of a lower class for any or no reason at any time and there are numerous examples of them doing so.
Rape is a little harder, but heres a proposed example in the same context: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/Forced_Affection.html Also many social customs of ancient Japan would easily qualify as rape in a modern context.
Also in most communist societies I can think of (USSR, CCP, DPRK, People's Rep. of Vietnam, Khmer Rouge in cambodia) murder and torture were practically a way of life for quite a few decades, its less well documented but I see no reason to assume that rape was uncommon.
Basicly, while I agree that Humans, as a social animal, are genetically presisposed to altruism and morality under certain circumstances it by no means manifests as actual behaviour in even the majority of cases. Its only one influence on human behaviour, and one of the weaker ones at that. We are much more informed by our social environment and cultural contexts than our instincts.
@RiverC: What a lovely description of God! I wouldn't say I believe it but thats a very simple and beautiful theological model.
Do not underestimate the importance of beauty. Among the things that I learned, one was that beauty is somehow real. As in, that it is not only a way of telling us what is good to eat or mate with, or good to calm us down or focus us. Those things all appear to be correct, but they are sort of the tip of the iceberg. There is a good reason why men (artists, poets and others) have gone literally mad over beauty for centuries. I don't think it is something one should seek exclusively, for that is bent, but if there is one human value I'd list, it is to love beauty.
Benn idly browsing this thread since my long forgotten post pages back.
Quote from PowerZ »
Faith and reason exclude each other only in that faith can not be explained by reason. A reasonable person can be both—a believer and a nonbeliever. And a religious person can be both—rational and irrational; the latter arises when faith wants to be explained by reason.
I had to bite this one.
Yes, it's true that faith cannot be explained with satisfaction by reason. It's also true that faith is an undesirable defense for reason. The problem here, as I see it, comes when we impose reason onto the real world. That is, reality includes more than simple reason. Reason is a human construct, a pattern finding, defining, categorizing, tool which is critical for making sense of the world. Yet, despite it's tremendous application, reason finds itself humble and human. It's something too small and limited to account for reality, and because of this, functions best off assumptions, guesses, and feelings. When used in a practical sense, reason finds itself running off of foundations which one might be tempted to call "faith", or untested (and untestable) assumptions.
In reality, reason and faith cannot be mutually exclusive, because in order to do that, we would have to have a much broader and penetrating basis and application for reason than is humanly possible.
It's something too small and limited to account for reality
So which part of reality cannot be accounted for by reason? What practical gap does faith fill? Certainly my power bills would be a lot cheaper if all this technology was powered by faith rather than a well grounded understanding of physics put into practice.
When used in a practical sense, reason finds itself running off of foundations which one might be tempted to call "faith", or untested (and untestable) assumptions.
Which assumptions would those be?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
I should point out that it has been shown that a mappable section of the human brain specifically generates spiritual feelings. It doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does strengthen the possibility that that the recurrence of religions throughout human history may not be due to an external scource.
Yes, but not everyone. If it were one person I could write it off. But there's too many. And across too great a stretch of time.
This is the same argument that is often used for alien abductions. The only difference is that there has probably been more people who have claimed to have religious experiences. Regardless, this is the same logical fallacy that was brought up earlier. Just because a lot of people claim something doesn't mean that there's any truth to it.
Well, alien abductions are just another kind of religious experience, probably. Seraphim Rose thought so, and based on the fact that the Irish, many centuries before any notions of 'space technology' were basically reporting that air demons were abducting people's souls and giving people technology I think that either there really are aliens, or the aliens are just demons, who would be aliens anyway.
Quote from RiverC »
I am aware of the cult nonsense where a person who is very charismatic dupes someone into something because they are good at making people 'feel' like they're right. It is a great danger.
I don't see the difference between "cult nonsense" and the rest of religious nonsense. They all make the same kind of claims and offer the same kind of evidence. I'm not convinced that there's any rational argument for accepting the claims of one cult over the other.
There is a danger in any of this, jmp... I'll not lie. 'cult' nonsense, though, refers to religions which center around a single human personality alone. Take from that what you will.
I should point out that it has been shown that a mappable section of the human brain specifically generates spiritual feelings. It doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does strengthen the possibility that that the recurrence of religions throughout human history may not be due to an external scource.
Well, the brain is clearly the medium for the transmission of feeling, since it is the nervous system. I can't imagine feeling anything without there being some activity in the brain. How would God make you feel this or that. expect via the brain? Think about it for a moment. If I am having thoughts, neurons must be firing. This does not mean I am the one firing them.
Anyway, what are 'spiritual feelings'? I don't really understand that. There's just feelings, as far as I can tell.
Well, alien abductions are just another kind of religious experience, probably. Seraphim Rose thought so, and based on the fact that the Irish, many centuries before any notions of 'space technology' were basically reporting that air demons were abducting people's souls and giving people technology I think that either there really are aliens, or the aliens are just demons, who would be aliens anyway.
It doesn't matter if they're a kind of religious experience or not. (In fact, I'd be inclined to believe that they are just like religious experiences -- malfunctions in the brain.) The argument is still fallacious. The mere fact that many people believe in something doesn't add any truth to it.
Again, like I said, you have to know the people and judge for yourself. I have judged for myself, and I will find out if I was correct. It is possible I was wrong, but this is true of anything.
Quote from RiverC »
There is a danger in any of this, jmp... I'll not lie. 'cult' nonsense, though, refers to religions which center around a single human personality alone.
How is a cult centered around Jesus any different from a cult centered around any other person?
Considering that if we're going to be consistent about the 'cult', such cults usually center around the personality of a living person and cease when that person dies. Christianity only becomes something after Jesus dies, so something is completely amiss. Unless you're going to admit that Jesus still lives, I think it's a dead end.
How is a cult centered around Jesus any different from a cult centered around any other person?
Cults centered around Jesus are not churches.
The Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, are centered around God.
Same thing. Jesus is God. I mean, that's what they (and I) believe. Three persons, one godhead, constant interdwelling etc. In truth it is impossible for us to argue that we're not a cult of personality around Jesus, who is God, but frankly it doesn't matter in that case, because the problem of cults of personality is that the person is a mere human with flaws, which are the source of the destructiveness of the cult. If that human person also happens to actually, in reality and not just in their own head, be God, it is an entirely different matter. That's all.
Plus the cults of the saints >:smile.gif: Too many cults! Too many personalities! Still one God, though.
I understand that there's a general movement to replace faith in God with faith in Science. I don't know if I'll have any success illustrating this. It's a pretty high level discussion for a message board discussion.
Quote from Yourself »
So which part of reality cannot be accounted for by reason? What practical gap does faith fill? Certainly my power bills would be a lot cheaper if all this technology was powered by faith rather than a well grounded understanding of physics put into practice.
Your power bills are the result of a well grounded physics. They are also the result of many other more human factors (such as the monetary value of energy, for instance, and what costs are directed to you as opposed to the government). All of our technology is a mixture of the reasonable and the unreasonable, but that's far too complex a topic for my point. To make it clear, let me simplify it down.
Staying with physics is good, because several aspects of physics highlights exactly what I'm talking about. I think the two best points here would be 1) within the scientific method and 2) within axiomatic methods. Of course, physics is hardly just an axiomatic (or formal) system. It's not even united, which has been a point of concern for people such as Stephen Hawking (who in his latest book attempts to circumvent the problem with a pragmatic appeal, abandoning the old positivistic ones he's used in the past). How can physics (or math), which is a self contradictory system, possibly be based entirely on reason? The answer is that it isn't.
I think a lot of people prefer to see the world black and white. Something is either completely uncertain or completely certain. If one were to show that absolute certainty was not present in some way of thinking, these people would abandon it entirely. The problem is, we have no absolute certainty about anything. We have to fumble around and guess at what the real world is like. Sometimes, these guesses become more than simple shots in the dark, they become powerful tools for predicting phenomenon in the real world. When that happens, our hypothesis has evolved into a "theory". Yet, these theories do not guarantee certainty. At their core, they all carry assumptions which are either unprovable because the instruments are unavailable or because their nature is unprovable.
Physics is riddled with these assumptions. We might be able to measure, distribute, and charge for power, but that doesn't mean we understand what exactly it is we're dealing with. We have a workable understanding so far as it allows us to predict and manipulate phenomenon, but we also have severe limitations on our understanding of it. A brief look at quantum physics would reveal an unending list of assumptions which, like axioms, guide our predictions. Yet these axioms are simply taken for granted because they work, not because they've been proven.
Now, we don't need the right assumptions to be able to predict phenomenon. In fact, previous systems in the past which have been shown to be in error have been very effective tools. Newton's laws of motion stand as a prime example of this, but the list is far bigger. A good example of this in action would be the rise of homeopathy. There was a point in our history where one had a greater chance of survival from infection or disease by avoiding the doctor. The medical practice, for a long time during its youth, did more harm than good. Alternative treatments such as homeopathy came about because they appeared to work. This faulty premise correctly predicted the results, though. Homeopathy was more effective than the doctor (as was doing nothing at all, of course). Now, it still lingers even though that no longer holds true. The faulty premise was accepted, and for a minority, hasn't been shaken.
The same is true throughout science. Faulty premises abound in our sciences, but we can't make good predictions without them. We don't know everything about the universe, so we guess. Those guesses are often wrong, but we have no way of knowing otherwise because they are untestable. Yet, these faulty premises can and often do lead to accurate predictions, so they linger on until a new model comes around. Often times, many possible models can lead to the same predictions. It's really quite a mess, but at the same time, inspiring. This, I think, is where humility plays such a vital role in the sciences. We know that our sciences don't have purely reasonable foundations, and so, we don't claim to have any sort of knowledge about reality other than our "theories" on the subject.
Quote from Yourself »
Which assumptions would those be?
The most famous and easiest to look up information comes with the conflict between the assumptions in quantum and relativity physics.
Relativity Physics:
- The speed of light is constant.
- Time and space are relative.
- Mass and energy are equivalent
- Deterministic
Quantum Physics:
- Time and space are constant.
- Uncertainty
- Probabilistic
It's not only in physics where our systems openly contradict each other. It's throughout much of our sciences and even our formal logic systems (such as in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory). How can such deep contradictions and inconsistencies survive reason? Is it reasonable to believe in that which accurately predicts phenomenon? If so, then one must admit that homeopathy was once a reasonable choice. One must admit that there may be reasonable reasons to believe in a god or gods. But, if one shuts the doors to these things in light of reason, one must turn back and look at the sciences. Are they reasonable? Do they contain any fewer assumptions than other theological or metaphysical claims? I think any sophisticated intellectual would have to shake his head, smile, and humbly say, "no".
@Metadigital: I fear you may have cut your sophisticated intellectual short :smile.gif:
He would have to shake his head, smile, and say, "No, there are many assumptions within the fields of science. They are openly labelled as such and subject to proof and disproof by experimentation. There are also many facts which are confirmed by experimental observation."
Well, there are obviously some pretty bad metaphysical and theological claims out there, of course, and they are often put forward as "proofs" or some such nonsense. That's one of the reasons why I'm not religious, but at the same time, they cannot be ruled out simply because they are metaphysical. They should just be treated with extreme skepticism (whether part of a scientific paradigm or not).
@Vathaus, thanks :smile.gif: This article is where I first read about it years back: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... s-god.html I don't know if you have a subscription to NS but if you're interested you might find that issue in a library. Its well worth a read.
@RiverC: What exactly do you mean about the transmission of feeling? Are you referring to parapsychology? If so theres no known physical method by which brains could transmit information without detection, and despite extensive experimentation in the area no extra cranial signals have ever been detected and no individual has ever been able to display parapsychological abilities under scientific conditions, or at least not consistantly.
Of course its possible that god is making us feel spiritual. I can't really prove that he isn't :smile.gif:, but nearly every human culture worldwide has constructed religious beliefs of some sort and this is sometimes cited as proof that the existence of gods is an obvious and natural conclusion. The fact that every human has a brain structure that will more than likely lead them to believe in whatever religion is taught locally (regardless of whether god exists or not) and the fact that evolutionary conditions exist that provide a logical explanation for the existance of such a structure somewhat debunks the argument.
As information its somewhat neutral, it could be interpreted to reinforce theistic philosophy or to disprove it, either way at least we know where our religious feelings come from :smile.gif:.
Regarding your second question regarding feelings. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying all feelings are the same, they don't feel that way to me. But using neuro-imagine technology neurologists can identify which areas of the brain produce which emotions. In this case feelings which have been described as "a sense of oneness with the world" and a feeling of being "spiritually connected to those around us" are produced by a specific part of your brain. Its difficult to talk about feelings in a scientific context since all of the words are poorly defined and heavily loaded but basicly the feeling you get when you feel close to god is probably being produced by that centre.
The irony is that we as Orthodox Christians are more or less commanded to disregard feelings in general; I guess 'spiritual feelings' refer to a class of feelings (since there are quite a lot of them as far as I can tell) that are generally associated with heightened spiritual states? But our Fathers tell us to distrust such things, as obviously such states could be induced outside of any real interaction with the Spirit of God. The neuro-psychology proves what the monks were saying in the fourth century.
Here is an example of our 'spirituality' as it would be given to a seeker: "You need a spiritual pilgrimage. Close your mouth." :wink.gif:
I should point out that it has been shown that a mappable section of the human brain specifically generates spiritual feelings. It doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does strengthen the possibility that that the recurrence of religions throughout human history may not be due to an external scource.
It has also been proven that there are ocean springs in the ocean and was stated in the Bible but no one believes this either.
theicychameleon, here are the verses. That is, if I found the ones Alcatraz is referring to.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
This doesn't literally describe Hydrothermal vets. All it says, is Springs were under the sea. I find quotes such as this, where people take it very loosely, to make it imply what they want it to. Such as Isaiah 40:22;
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
They say that this correctly stated the shape of Earth. However, the Book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. They say this was written before Aristotle proposed the idea of a spherical Earth.
The first person to propose a spherical Earth, and correctly calculate the circumference of the Earth was the Greek/Egyptian Astronomer Eratosthenes, who was alive 276/194 BC.
However, "Circle," is, translated into Hebrew, "Chuwg," which, depending on the context, means “circuit,” or “compass." They say that this implies that the Earth was spherical.
One flaws in taking Bible quotes seriously, is many of these things (Not all, but some) were already explained by the time that many people say the Bible was written and complied, (I don't know the exact dates) during the latter years of the Roman Empire, as a tool to keep the people under control.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The issue with Religion, is Faith is all it is. It is the strong believe that you are right, despite other people believing different things than you. Many people have Faith in other Religions, worshiping other Gods, what makes you so certain your correct?
This is where the "Psychology of Faith," comes in. To keep things simple, I'll just use Wikipedia's definition of "Faith"
Quote from Wikipedia »
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
The basis of Religion is that it is Supernatural, something that Humans cannot comprehend, prove incorrect/correct, touch, see, or hear. This is, from someone studying Science, fundamentally flawed. If Humans cannot comprehend it, it cannot be proven wrong. I could claim I was abducted by Aliens the other day, but I cannot prove that with physical evidence. I have a strong belief in the Supernatural. Which comes straight back to Faith.
If you have a strong belief in something which Humans cannot proof wrong, then their is no point really thinking about it, and attempting to prove it. As the Supernatural cannot be proven right or wrong, as you need Evidence for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Actually, it was the Saducees who were the powerbrokers. The Pharisees were just highly regarded because they were very adept at keeping the law in an outward fashion. The Pharisees weren't unimportant, but as for political power it wasn't in their bag of tricks. The Saducees were the temple sect, and they (unsurprisingly) vanished when the temple was destroyed. Among the Pharisees some became what we now know as Jews and some became Christians. This is one reason for the traditional animosity between Jews and Christians.
I find this stuff fascinating. So many people take things like the bible for granted and don't bother to question where it all comes from.
Indeed. I find that one of many things that many people ignore in debates of Theology. They merely debate what is in the Bible, not where it came from.
However, I don't have much knowledge in the subject, so I can't really debate it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Wow, really? I was way off. I thought the sauducees were driven into the mountains when the romans came and preached a more peaceful version of judaism. Just shows how wrong I was :ohmy.gif:.
I find this stuff fascinating. So many people take things like the bible for granted and don't bother to question where it all comes from.
We Orthodox get a lot of stuff hammered into our head in catechism, but also there are a lot of people that know church history that are always giving podcasts and speeches and such. Byzantine history is a big thing because it's really a blank spot in Western history.
It was the Essenes who were 'peaceful', the Sadducees and Pharisees were by-in-large neutral (religious parties) but there were a group called the Zealots (one of the disciples was a member) who instigated the roman aggression.
At least I understand now what you mean by 'nonsense'. The way is embodied in the life of God, which is in turn given to us in the life of Christ himself. The scripture bears witness, though it alone is insufficient.
Some of all of the above. For some, their personality and what they are able to do bears witness to the truth of what they speak. These people are typically called 'saints', but that term doesn't help you much.
First you doubt, then you pursue, then if you persist, what is real is revealed. Sometimes it may take all of your life for the results to be conclusive. But if it is true, what does anything else really matter?
Yes, but not everyone. If it were one person I could write it off. But there's too many. And across too great a stretch of time. I am aware of the cult nonsense where a person who is very charismatic dupes someone into something because they are good at making people 'feel' like they're right. It is a great danger.
I agree. But what has me on the trail is the fact that I have and often discover precisely what I did not want to discover. What I feared, in many cases, has proven to be true. But of course, not in all cases, Thank God.
Do not underestimate the importance of beauty. Among the things that I learned, one was that beauty is somehow real. As in, that it is not only a way of telling us what is good to eat or mate with, or good to calm us down or focus us. Those things all appear to be correct, but they are sort of the tip of the iceberg. There is a good reason why men (artists, poets and others) have gone literally mad over beauty for centuries. I don't think it is something one should seek exclusively, for that is bent, but if there is one human value I'd list, it is to love beauty.
Seriously, didn't we cover all of it in the last one?
/sigh
Going to go start reading from the beginning... =(
Rockin' High Check it out!
I had to bite this one.
Yes, it's true that faith cannot be explained with satisfaction by reason. It's also true that faith is an undesirable defense for reason. The problem here, as I see it, comes when we impose reason onto the real world. That is, reality includes more than simple reason. Reason is a human construct, a pattern finding, defining, categorizing, tool which is critical for making sense of the world. Yet, despite it's tremendous application, reason finds itself humble and human. It's something too small and limited to account for reality, and because of this, functions best off assumptions, guesses, and feelings. When used in a practical sense, reason finds itself running off of foundations which one might be tempted to call "faith", or untested (and untestable) assumptions.
In reality, reason and faith cannot be mutually exclusive, because in order to do that, we would have to have a much broader and penetrating basis and application for reason than is humanly possible.
So which part of reality cannot be accounted for by reason? What practical gap does faith fill? Certainly my power bills would be a lot cheaper if all this technology was powered by faith rather than a well grounded understanding of physics put into practice.
Which assumptions would those be?
The Wikipedia page on Evolutionary psychology of religion is an interesting read.
And you might want to check out this story on the supposed "Godspot" in the Human brain.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Well, alien abductions are just another kind of religious experience, probably. Seraphim Rose thought so, and based on the fact that the Irish, many centuries before any notions of 'space technology' were basically reporting that air demons were abducting people's souls and giving people technology I think that either there really are aliens, or the aliens are just demons, who would be aliens anyway.
There is a danger in any of this, jmp... I'll not lie. 'cult' nonsense, though, refers to religions which center around a single human personality alone. Take from that what you will.
Well, the brain is clearly the medium for the transmission of feeling, since it is the nervous system. I can't imagine feeling anything without there being some activity in the brain. How would God make you feel this or that. expect via the brain? Think about it for a moment. If I am having thoughts, neurons must be firing. This does not mean I am the one firing them.
Anyway, what are 'spiritual feelings'? I don't really understand that. There's just feelings, as far as I can tell.
Cults centered around Jesus are not churches.
The Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, are centered around God.
Again, like I said, you have to know the people and judge for yourself. I have judged for myself, and I will find out if I was correct. It is possible I was wrong, but this is true of anything.
Considering that if we're going to be consistent about the 'cult', such cults usually center around the personality of a living person and cease when that person dies. Christianity only becomes something after Jesus dies, so something is completely amiss. Unless you're going to admit that Jesus still lives, I think it's a dead end.
Same thing. Jesus is God. I mean, that's what they (and I) believe. Three persons, one godhead, constant interdwelling etc. In truth it is impossible for us to argue that we're not a cult of personality around Jesus, who is God, but frankly it doesn't matter in that case, because the problem of cults of personality is that the person is a mere human with flaws, which are the source of the destructiveness of the cult. If that human person also happens to actually, in reality and not just in their own head, be God, it is an entirely different matter. That's all.
Plus the cults of the saints >:smile.gif: Too many cults! Too many personalities! Still one God, though.
Your power bills are the result of a well grounded physics. They are also the result of many other more human factors (such as the monetary value of energy, for instance, and what costs are directed to you as opposed to the government). All of our technology is a mixture of the reasonable and the unreasonable, but that's far too complex a topic for my point. To make it clear, let me simplify it down.
Staying with physics is good, because several aspects of physics highlights exactly what I'm talking about. I think the two best points here would be 1) within the scientific method and 2) within axiomatic methods. Of course, physics is hardly just an axiomatic (or formal) system. It's not even united, which has been a point of concern for people such as Stephen Hawking (who in his latest book attempts to circumvent the problem with a pragmatic appeal, abandoning the old positivistic ones he's used in the past). How can physics (or math), which is a self contradictory system, possibly be based entirely on reason? The answer is that it isn't.
I think a lot of people prefer to see the world black and white. Something is either completely uncertain or completely certain. If one were to show that absolute certainty was not present in some way of thinking, these people would abandon it entirely. The problem is, we have no absolute certainty about anything. We have to fumble around and guess at what the real world is like. Sometimes, these guesses become more than simple shots in the dark, they become powerful tools for predicting phenomenon in the real world. When that happens, our hypothesis has evolved into a "theory". Yet, these theories do not guarantee certainty. At their core, they all carry assumptions which are either unprovable because the instruments are unavailable or because their nature is unprovable.
Physics is riddled with these assumptions. We might be able to measure, distribute, and charge for power, but that doesn't mean we understand what exactly it is we're dealing with. We have a workable understanding so far as it allows us to predict and manipulate phenomenon, but we also have severe limitations on our understanding of it. A brief look at quantum physics would reveal an unending list of assumptions which, like axioms, guide our predictions. Yet these axioms are simply taken for granted because they work, not because they've been proven.
Now, we don't need the right assumptions to be able to predict phenomenon. In fact, previous systems in the past which have been shown to be in error have been very effective tools. Newton's laws of motion stand as a prime example of this, but the list is far bigger. A good example of this in action would be the rise of homeopathy. There was a point in our history where one had a greater chance of survival from infection or disease by avoiding the doctor. The medical practice, for a long time during its youth, did more harm than good. Alternative treatments such as homeopathy came about because they appeared to work. This faulty premise correctly predicted the results, though. Homeopathy was more effective than the doctor (as was doing nothing at all, of course). Now, it still lingers even though that no longer holds true. The faulty premise was accepted, and for a minority, hasn't been shaken.
The same is true throughout science. Faulty premises abound in our sciences, but we can't make good predictions without them. We don't know everything about the universe, so we guess. Those guesses are often wrong, but we have no way of knowing otherwise because they are untestable. Yet, these faulty premises can and often do lead to accurate predictions, so they linger on until a new model comes around. Often times, many possible models can lead to the same predictions. It's really quite a mess, but at the same time, inspiring. This, I think, is where humility plays such a vital role in the sciences. We know that our sciences don't have purely reasonable foundations, and so, we don't claim to have any sort of knowledge about reality other than our "theories" on the subject.
The most famous and easiest to look up information comes with the conflict between the assumptions in quantum and relativity physics.
Relativity Physics:
- The speed of light is constant.
- Time and space are relative.
- Mass and energy are equivalent
- Deterministic
Quantum Physics:
- Time and space are constant.
- Uncertainty
- Probabilistic
It's not only in physics where our systems openly contradict each other. It's throughout much of our sciences and even our formal logic systems (such as in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory). How can such deep contradictions and inconsistencies survive reason? Is it reasonable to believe in that which accurately predicts phenomenon? If so, then one must admit that homeopathy was once a reasonable choice. One must admit that there may be reasonable reasons to believe in a god or gods. But, if one shuts the doors to these things in light of reason, one must turn back and look at the sciences. Are they reasonable? Do they contain any fewer assumptions than other theological or metaphysical claims? I think any sophisticated intellectual would have to shake his head, smile, and humbly say, "no".
Well, there are obviously some pretty bad metaphysical and theological claims out there, of course, and they are often put forward as "proofs" or some such nonsense. That's one of the reasons why I'm not religious, but at the same time, they cannot be ruled out simply because they are metaphysical. They should just be treated with extreme skepticism (whether part of a scientific paradigm or not).
The irony is that we as Orthodox Christians are more or less commanded to disregard feelings in general; I guess 'spiritual feelings' refer to a class of feelings (since there are quite a lot of them as far as I can tell) that are generally associated with heightened spiritual states? But our Fathers tell us to distrust such things, as obviously such states could be induced outside of any real interaction with the Spirit of God. The neuro-psychology proves what the monks were saying in the fourth century.
Here is an example of our 'spirituality' as it would be given to a seeker: "You need a spiritual pilgrimage. Close your mouth." :wink.gif:
It has also been proven that there are ocean springs in the ocean and was stated in the Bible but no one believes this either.
This doesn't literally describe Hydrothermal vets. All it says, is Springs were under the sea. I find quotes such as this, where people take it very loosely, to make it imply what they want it to. Such as Isaiah 40:22;
They say that this correctly stated the shape of Earth. However, the Book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. They say this was written before Aristotle proposed the idea of a spherical Earth.
The first person to propose a spherical Earth, and correctly calculate the circumference of the Earth was the Greek/Egyptian Astronomer Eratosthenes, who was alive 276/194 BC.
However, "Circle," is, translated into Hebrew, "Chuwg," which, depending on the context, means “circuit,” or “compass." They say that this implies that the Earth was spherical.
One flaws in taking Bible quotes seriously, is many of these things (Not all, but some) were already explained by the time that many people say the Bible was written and complied, (I don't know the exact dates) during the latter years of the Roman Empire, as a tool to keep the people under control.
The issue with Religion, is Faith is all it is. It is the strong believe that you are right, despite other people believing different things than you. Many people have Faith in other Religions, worshiping other Gods, what makes you so certain your correct?
This is where the "Psychology of Faith," comes in. To keep things simple, I'll just use Wikipedia's definition of "Faith"
The basis of Religion is that it is Supernatural, something that Humans cannot comprehend, prove incorrect/correct, touch, see, or hear. This is, from someone studying Science, fundamentally flawed. If Humans cannot comprehend it, it cannot be proven wrong. I could claim I was abducted by Aliens the other day, but I cannot prove that with physical evidence. I have a strong belief in the Supernatural. Which comes straight back to Faith.
If you have a strong belief in something which Humans cannot proof wrong, then their is no point really thinking about it, and attempting to prove it. As the Supernatural cannot be proven right or wrong, as you need Evidence for that.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Indeed. I find that one of many things that many people ignore in debates of Theology. They merely debate what is in the Bible, not where it came from.
However, I don't have much knowledge in the subject, so I can't really debate it.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
We Orthodox get a lot of stuff hammered into our head in catechism, but also there are a lot of people that know church history that are always giving podcasts and speeches and such. Byzantine history is a big thing because it's really a blank spot in Western history.
It was the Essenes who were 'peaceful', the Sadducees and Pharisees were by-in-large neutral (religious parties) but there were a group called the Zealots (one of the disciples was a member) who instigated the roman aggression.