Moderator: Dan~
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Atheists and others may think they are minisinterpreting those beliefs, but still there is a huge empircal component and also a utilitarian one, even in the supposedly faith based religions ((by utilitarian, I mean that many people, especially people who are born again or find god in rehab or convert or return to the church find that it helps them turn their life around. IOW it works for them. This is not proof for others, but it is important not to confuse this with simply choosing to make a leap of faith.
And what's it telling you??But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.
And that is telling in and of itself.
• 62% of people in the world define themselves as religious.
• 74% of people globally believe we have a soul and 71% believe in God; while 56% believe in heaven, 54% in life after death and 49% in hell.
• There is a connection between religiosity, beliefs and socio-demographic characteristics - such as age, income and education level. In general, as education and income levels grow higher, religiosity levels tend to diminish. On the other hand, the expression of different beliefs is higher among young people.
• The most religious countries are Thailand (98%) and Nigeria (97%), followed by Kosovo, India, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Ivory Coast (all of them with 94%). China is the least religious country, where almost 7 out of 10 people are atheists, more than double than any other country, and 23% consider themselves non-religious people.
• As for the different beliefs that were analyzed: God, soul, life after death, hell and heaven; the most believing countries are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea.
phyllo wrote:And what's it telling you??But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.
And that is telling in and of itself.
phyllo wrote: It seems that the majority of the world has reached some conclusions:• 62% of people in the world define themselves as religious.
• 74% of people globally believe we have a soul and 71% believe in God; while 56% believe in heaven, 54% in life after death and 49% in hell.
• There is a connection between religiosity, beliefs and socio-demographic characteristics - such as age, income and education level. In general, as education and income levels grow higher, religiosity levels tend to diminish. On the other hand, the expression of different beliefs is higher among young people.
• The most religious countries are Thailand (98%) and Nigeria (97%), followed by Kosovo, India, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Ivory Coast (all of them with 94%). China is the least religious country, where almost 7 out of 10 people are atheists, more than double than any other country, and 23% consider themselves non-religious people.
• As for the different beliefs that were analyzed: God, soul, life after death, hell and heaven; the most believing countries are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea.
You had one point in that post :Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise?
Who can doubt that religion works for many or that claims have been made regarding empirical proof of God's existence.
But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.
And that is telling in and of itself.
If one says that "an apple exists on this table" ... You wouldn't say that it's a historical, cultural or existential contraption. Right?How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?
phyllo wrote:And it seems to be that if people don't react as you expect, then it's evidence that your particular interpretation is correct. In fact, your expectations may be unreasonable. I don't know exactly you expect people to be doing ... wearing sackcloth and ashes? ... Constantly talking about God on forums? ... Making it part every discussion?
Apparently 71% of people feel that they have enough evidence to believe that God exists.
That has to count for something. But you just dismiss it.
iambiguous wrote:Prior to today, the last time you posted here was on December 12th. I figured you were using that time to come up with considerably more sophisticated arguments to use against me.
Nope.
I make these points...
1] My point however is that what is of greater importance [at least to me] lies in exploring why each of us thinks it is telling us something different.
How [as a value judgment] this is embedded in dasein.
That and whether [through the tools of philosophy] we can arrive at an argument here that reflects the most rational and/or virtuous thing that it can tell us.
2] Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise? Go back 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 5,000 years...all the way back to the time our species was first able to even imagine and then to grapple with the idea of God and religion.
How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?
...and all you are able to come up with is this?!phyllo wrote:And it seems to be that if people don't react as you expect, then it's evidence that your particular interpretation is correct. In fact, your expectations may be unreasonable. I don't know exactly you expect people to be doing ... wearing sackcloth and ashes? ... Constantly talking about God on forums? ... Making it part every discussion?
Apparently 71% of people feel that they have enough evidence to believe that God exists.
That has to count for something. But you just dismiss it.
There is barely anything at all here to respond to.
I didn't dismiss your point, I reacted to it with considerably more substance than you did to mine.
phyllo wrote:This is one reason that I have lost interest in talking to you.
You dismiss my posts. You insult me. And you act as if I'm wronging you in some way.
Same in the other thread about objectivity. You suggest that I'm doing something wrong but you base it on no reasoning.
Wer will, der kann.Let's just agree to disagree and move on to others. You know, if that's possible.
I think that is stretching the idea of faith. This would mean that my taking golf lessons from a particular golf pro would entail my having faith. Which, if we keep the definition of faith very, very open, would be true, but I think it's a trivial truth. To me faith has to do with believing despite the absence of any reason and even in the face of what seems like counterevidence - like your 12 year old daughter dies of leukemia and you still think God exists, is Good and there was a good reasons for this death. I know Hinduism fairly well, or one little portion of it. Here is why local and Westerner visitors might find themselves meditating at an asharm outside Mumbai. Good friends of theirs suggested it and they had interesting experiences and a sense of peace. It is part of a family or village tradition that they have not questioned. They met the guru and were stunned by the apparant peace and equanimity of this person. They asked how they achieved this and the gurus said 'meditation is central' So they gave it a try, had experiences that they liked and appreciated or that they were supposed to or were 'supposed to', so they keep going. Or they read about it and became curious and thought,what the heck,then experiences kept them coming back. Their intuition says it sounds like a good idea. So they give it a try. Their family or friends pressure them to go to the arsham and despite their skepticism during darshan they have a religious experience of oneness. They like this. They want more. They are told to meditate. They participated in the religion as kids, left it for a while as a young adult, went back because they missed it or hoped they would find something they feel they are missing.felix dakat wrote:Karpal Tunnel---Okay. Thanks for explaining your POV. I accept that my POV is Abrahamic and embedded in a subculture. I didn't claim ultimacy for it. Mystical experiences sometimes seem to occur unexpectedly. But they require interpretation, and at that point the individual's cognitive set and culture come into play. One can usually examine the past and find evidence of unconscious preparation as for example in the presence of significant cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, it's hard for me to imagine even a non-Abrahamic religion without an element of faith in it. For example, why would an adherent practice meditation if they didn't have faith in the results? When they lose faith, they stop practicing.
Most religions have internal contradictions, and while questioning all things can be a good start, some things need more questioning than others. So you have a general heuristic to question, fitting in with Christianity a whole lot of other stuff that can be quite (self) abusive and in Buddhism with a very effiencient system of self-control and disengagement.Ecmandu wrote:Both in the Christian bible and the Buddhist canons, we are asked to question all things.
phyllo wrote:If one says that "an apple exists on this table" ... You wouldn't say that it's a historical, cultural or existential contraption. Right?How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?
Even if you could not see it personally, you would not say it.
But if one says that "God exists" ... You say would that it is a historical, cultural or existential contraption.
What gives?
Just as the existence of God is either demonstrated to others or it is not demonstrated to others.In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.
There is the crux of it. It's not the actual existence or demonstration of existence which is different. It's what people do with it later which troubles you.But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of "I" upon dying.
phyllo wrote:In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.
Just as the existence of God is either demonstrated to others or it is not demonstrated to others.
But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of "I" upon dying.
phyllo wrote: There is the crux of it. It's not the actual existence or demonstration of existence which is different. It's what people do with it later which troubles you.
Once you realize that, then you can go on to identifying which behaviors bother you and what can be done about them, if anything.
Nor do you need to.On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually "works" for you when confronting conflicting goods.
phyllo wrote:Nor do you need to.On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually "works" for you when confronting conflicting goods.
phyllo wrote: Your solution to behaviors that you find problematic, is to undermine people's confidence in their beliefs by calling them "cultural, historical, existential contraptions".
phyllo wrote: Instead, perhaps you ought to confront your own feelings and expectations about those behaviors. IOW, maybe you ought to work on yourself instead of working on others. That's much more under your control.
You don't believe in God and you don't have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.
A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.
All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don't try anything that they are doing. At least you haven't done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don't appear to be working on yourself at all.Come on, how do we "work on ourselves" other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.
phyllo wrote:You don't believe in God and you don't have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.
But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.
phyllo wrote: A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.
Therefore, another person's confidence can't be something that ought to produce a change in you.
Come on, how do we "work on ourselves" other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.
phyllo wrote: All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don't try anything that they are doing. At least you haven't done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don't appear to be working on yourself at all.
It seems like we're the animals in the zoo kind of entertainment/distraction for you. "Don't those monkeys act funny".
Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?iambiguous wrote:
And around and around we go. I'm the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.
And how comforting and consoling that must be.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?iambiguous wrote:
And around and around we go. I'm the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.
And how comforting and consoling that must be.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am glad to see that your epistemology now includes being persuaded by the confidence of others as they tell you their stories.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: You'll be a Bible thumper soon. I mean, I think Phyllo is probobly not the apex confidence believer out there. There are religious forums....
Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people's arguments?...we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.
To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".
What is there but the attempts themselves?
I don't think that existence is insignificant. I don't think that 'infinitesimal' is equal to 'none' or 'nothing'. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.
Maybe there are no dots to connect. Maybe what you do here and now has nothing to do with what happens after death. For example, the Stoics did not pursue virtue in this life in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment in an afterlife.In the spirit of the OP, why don't you connect the dots between the manner in which you construe your value judgments on this side of the grave and the manner in which you imagine the fate of "I" -- your "I" -- on the other side of it.
In fact, the discussion I would be most curious about regarding this is the one between you and Phyllo.
phyllo wrote:...we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.
To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".
What is there but the attempts themselves?
Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people's arguments?
My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.
phyllo wrote:I don't think that existence is insignificant. I don't think that 'infinitesimal' is equal to 'none' or 'nothing'. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.
Those are important differences between us.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]