the belief that spiritual beings exist...... - Page 2

[Smokering]

If we have brains that think, reason, feel, then this is evidence, for me at least, that logic is a product of my mind.

So if all the humans suddenly stopped thinking, would logic cease to exist? Would the law of non-contradiction, for example, cease to exist, so that A could be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense?

And since the mind is a physical thing which can be measured, mapped, etc

No; mind and brain are not the same thing. Strongly correlated, yes, but not identical. Or when you say 'narrow-minded' do you mean someone has a skinny brain?

The trick, for me, is going from concept to reality. And I just don't see God existing in reality.

Well, to start with I disagree that 'reality' means 'physical reality'. Conceptual reality is still reality. As for physical reality, if we're talking about the Christian God (and being a Christian I have no particular wish to defend any other version), the Bible's quite clear that He isn't part of this universe (leaving aside the Incarnation, which can't be empirically studied in 2009 anyway). If scientists were to 'find God' lurking in the rings of Saturn, that wouldn't be the Christian God. So I find your objection puzzling; it's like saying "I only believe in trifle, and I can't find any fish in my trifle, therefore fish doesn't exist". Fish isn't supposed to be in trifle! (Or beef, if you're a fan of Friends).

How would I even translate the concept of God to reality the way I can translate the concept of words and numbers?

I'm not sure what you mean. How would you find the concept of God pragmatically useful? Well, I'm not sure how you would, because theists find their own ways of incorporating God into their worldviews. But theism can impact on people very pragmatically, which was sort of the point in my original post on this thread. Belief in God can have direct and major consequences on what someone eats, how she dresses, how she thinks and formulates her worldview, what she chooses to do for a living, how she uses her money, her sexuality, her time, her Sundays....

By "truth" I mean humans are searching and have been searching for the same answers since forever. Why am I here? What is the purpose to my life? How did I get here? Where are we (as humans) going? Does God exist? Are we alone in the universe? What is the meaning of life? What constitutes ethics?

You're conflating different types of questions here. Most of these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones; so science is unable to answer them. "What is the purpose to my life?" is a nonsense statement under a naturalistic worldview; at best, your life may be seen to have an evolutionary function, but nothing that could be described in terms of purpose and meaning. Those are concepts, not empirically verifiable data. The 'truth' at the top of the scientific mountain is not the same as the 'truth' at the top of the religious mountain (mountains, more accurately).

Also (and I was supposed to stick this somewhere in my middle of my reply, but I'm sleep-deprived), there's the issue of intentionality. Propositions have it; physical phenomena don't. So if a thought is about something, it must be more than or other than a physical phenomenon.

[Sailor]

If you're really interested in the side of the atheists or non believers, I highly recommend Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion. Maybe not the best title that he could have chosen, as it's off putting, but he both explains his argument and responds to arguments from the religious side. It's a great book if you're interested in how the "other side" sees things. Very logical/science based, though. And not so much philosophical.

Logic ceasing to exist - I'm not sure I understand your question. If humans had no skills of reasoning, we'd be on the level of living as primitive animals - on biological instinct alone. Therefore, we'd have no capacity for reason, and it would not exist within our brain.

Would logic disappear from the world? No. Because logical systems/orders occur in the natural world as evidenced by its laws, i.e. gravity - you walk off a cliff, you will fall off. Or in biology - get a seed, some soil, water, and sun, and it will grow. When an animal is in one place, it can't, at the same time, be in another. When a cat is a cat, it can't at the same time be a dog. This is basic logic. Most of the stuff taught in those 101 classes originated from observation of the natural world. Of course, I only took the first 4 weeks of that class before losing interest, so maybe they covered something I don't know about in terms of its history. As beings without the capacity for reason, though, we'd never be able to figure out these processes as our brains would not have the capabilities. So, for us, in our brain, logic would not exist. But, the world and it's laws/rules would remain. Until another species came along with the capacity for reason, and re-discovered everything.

Re: mind/brain - sorry, I meant brain in that sentence.

I think science does go after the question of why we're here. But, I think of it in a more pragmatic sense versus spiritual. As in, a plant produces oxygen, that is it's purpose. Next up for us - mapping the human DNA, and the purpose of humans. I just read a fascinating book on this - The Cosmic Serpent, DNA and the Origin of Human Knowledge. I highly recommend it. It's not an atheistic book. If anything, it contains some of the best arguments I've heard for intelligent design. Based in science.

Anyway, I mean the purpose question in the scientific sense. Others answer that question in a philosophical way - my point was only that we ALL ask these questions and go after their answers in the ways that make the most sense to us.

In regards to God existing outside of the universe - here is my main point on this: the proof that you cited comes from the Bible. There is no other corroborating evidence for this. And I, personally, view the Bible as I do the creation and myth stories of other cultures - an interesting fiction, one that makes for great anthropoligcal study, but not a scientific treatise on the existence of spiritual beings.

Which is why, going back to the original question, for me, faith is not based in fact, and thus a leap. I mean, if you KNOW something exists - what is the purpose of faith? It's just fact. And I'm not saying that faith is a bad road. As I see it, faith takes a lot of courage and trust, and a lot of people receive many benefits/lessons from it. It's just not something, I, personally, am capable of or really understand, despite going through 8 years of Catholic school and confirmation. I just never "got it" either logically or philosophically or otherwise. But, I know it's a great source of comfort and purpose for a lot of people.

[Smokering]

You seem to be contradicting your previous position. First you said logic was simply a function of the human brain, now you're saying it's inherent in nature. If you believe that abstract concepts such as logic exist, does that mean you no longer hold to a naturalistic worldview?

As in, a plant produces oxygen, that is it's purpose.

One could scientifically say that a plant's function within an ecosystem is to produce oxygen - ie, that is what it does. But 'purpose' implies a consciousness and design. Secular science doesn't allow for intelligent design, and evolution is unguided, so by definition 'purpose' is an unscientific term. It's a subtler form of the is/ought fallacy: because a plant produces oxygen (is, evidential) its purpose is to produce oxygen (ought, philosophical).

I've read a little of Dawkins and was rather flabbergasted that he's so popular. He's pretty much beneath contempt in presuppositional circles (and famously refuses to debate presups) simply because of his failure to grasp the distinction between philosophy and science. I pretty much gave up on him when he used the cancer patients and prayer study to prove God doesn't exist... Still, as I haven't read The God Delusion, if you could summarise any of his logical arguments I'd be interested. Maybe in a different thread, though, I think we've taken this one far enough off-topic as it is!

In regards to God existing outside of the universe - here is my main point on this: the proof that you cited comes from the Bible. There is no other corroborating evidence for this.

There is, actually. A number of presuppositional arguments support the idea that if a God existed, He must exist outside the physical universe.

I mean, if you KNOW something exists - what is the purpose of faith? It's just fact.

I think, again, this depends on the definitions. "Do you have faith that chair won't break under you?" Well, you know it won't; it's a certainty in your mind; so you could call it fact or faith, either way. Interestingly, one of the shades of meaning 'faith' has in the Bible is an intellectual assent to a proposition; another meaning is that intellectual assent plus the behavioral consequences of believing. So when Christians say "Have faith" they may mean the latter, as in "Believe what you know to be true and act like you believe it". It's the difference between believing intellectually that the bridge will support you, and stepping out onto it. So in that sense, faith definitely has a purpose. Clear as mud?

[Vespertina]

Originally Posted by Sailor

I've never seen a logical proof in terms of God. I've never seen any logical/scientific/biological/etc. evidence for it.

The Bible is not evidence for me. It's anecdote. Neither are any relics that the Vatican claims are originals. They've never let anyone outside of the Church study them. Nor do I think miracles are proof - especially the type where people see Mary or other Saints. Once again, the Vatican has almost 100% control of the studies of those. Same goes for all other religions - I've never seen proof.

Using the Tanakh and New Testament as "evidence" of the supernatural is circularity. All mythological text can only be validated by itself -- nothing external to it. Jewish theology is validated by Jewish theology itself. New Testament theology can only be corroborated by the the text itself. I can no more "trust" the claims of the supernatural found in either the Tanakh and New Testament than I can The Iliad and The Odyssey. With fantastic claims comes fantastic evidence. El, Yahweh, El Shaddai or whatever titles given to Yahweh and the theology surrounding the deity is supported by the theology. Jesus, Yeshua or whatever and the "Holy Spirit" are New Testament concepts and ideas. Also, only supported by the New Testament and theologies that adopted it, Book of Mormon. Jesus is viewed as a prophet in Islam. The Qur'an is only supported by itself. That is generally the way it goes with revelations of "Truth." Miracles? Am I expected to trust the plot themes, motifs, claims, and miracles found in other ancient mythos?

Part of the reason is that science does not prove non-existance. So, if you can't see it, feel it, touch it, or study it under a microscope or via other equipment ... in science, it doesn't exist. And science simply does not prove that something doesn't exist. That would be illogical. The burden of proof always lies in those who believe it does exist.

"Existence" of the supernatural has to do with metaphysics. It's not a realm science can explore. There's nothing testable or observable. Nothing concrete or tangible. Yahweh+Jesus+Holy Spirit are no more or less tangible than Zeus or Mithra. Which is to say that they aren't. Unless traditional theists are willing to accept the idea that science or philosophy gives way to multiple deities, not just their own, then there's nothing extra special about their mythological deities. Certainly, if "science" has nothing to say when it comes to Neptune or Apollo what makes one think it's going to validate Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

And, while I have read of people trying to do this. I've never come across any real, valid proof. Usually it takes the form of philosophical discussion and logical discourse. Unfortunately, it's not very convincing to my mind.

Which tend to be transparent -- philosophical discussions arguing for a specific deity. One still has to put forth a descent argument for the "supernatural" and then put forth why their definition or understanding of said deity exists. It also helps that one defines the word "god" because it's rather meaningless until one assigns characteristics and qualities to it. When their definition and understandings come from nothing other than mythological text there's nothing to really grasp onto. All cultures or belief systems that propose beliefs about the supernatural describe their deities much the same way. Again, all of this would be circular reasoning.

I've yet to find a convincing argument for Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Would you say traditional theists find claims for Mithra, Sol Invictus, Apsu, Ra and an assortment of others convincing? I treat all concepts the same, in that I'm skeptical of all of them. I especially don't do anthropomorphic and omnimax deities or Absolutism.

Which is why, to me, faith is something one holds against all odds. It's a leap of trust, or courage - however way you'd like to look at it.

Faith concerning revelations of Truth, I would have to agree. For me it's not so much about there being a lack of evidence. For me, it has to do with what I find to be illogical and irrational. Kind of similar to before when I was a Christian and thought all other god-beliefs and belief systems were devoid of any merit, irrational, misguided and deluded by the mythical antagonistic character "Satan." See, before I had no problem rejecting deities in other belief systems. I was an atheist relative to all deities except the ones I believed in. Now, I just add Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to my list. One can also say I add Satan since in traditional theology an entity with such powers or characteristics is elevated to deity status. But, since mainstream theology strives to be "monotheistic" no such status is given to poor ole Lucifer.

If you had the facts of God's existence, there would be ZERO need for faith. You'd simply KNOW.

One could even say that if a deity truly existed you wouldn't need to be taught or indoctrinated with a doctrine or theology. Everyone's understanding of a deity or entity is based the text they adhere to. Unless one is a deist or believes in a non-specific entity, all attributes, characteristics, qualities and traits are based out of text. They are interpretations and there are many of them.

If a deity was self-evident it would just be known. One wouldn't have to be taught or instructed about it. There would be no need for doctrine or revelations of Truths and mythical stories and elaborate motifs.

By the way - I have absolutely nothing against religion. I'm merely stating why I, personally, do not see the proof, and why I'm just not capable of that leap in faith. In anything - not just religion. I don't even have faith in my partner. I KNOW, based on facts and precedent, who he is and why I trust him. I can even write it up mathematically.

...

I enjoy many philosophies, especially Eastern philosophies. I don't do classical theism or theism at all. It's often believed that atheists and other nontheists are bitter and angry toward religion or Yahweh and Jesus. That anger and bitterness are the cause for our "falling away" or becoming backslidden. My dad still sees me as a backslidden Christian and believes my soul will be spared because he accepts OSAS (once saved always saved) doctrine. My lack of belief in Ishtar is not due to anger or bitterness and the same applies to Odin and Freya, along with Ra, Isis and the thousands of others. The same applies to the gods of the Abrahamic faiths. I fully accept and recognize faith is an important part of many people's lives. 99% of our relatives are Christian.

[Vespertina]

I'll also add that I couldn't really get into "The God Delusion." Some kind of atheist I am. It seemed like he was trying to claim science disproves all First Cause theories and concepts. Science is silent on the matter. It's clearly a philosophy book with philosophical objections and ideas.

And while I can be pretty critical of classical theism, I got bored with it not long into it. Maybe I'll pick it up again. Had it been the book I read when I began doubting theism or when I first renounced the faith I might have enjoyed it. I think its appeal depends on the objections or "convictions" some hold. Some hold more theological and philosophical objections and others scientific objections. When I was a theist I devoured apologetic material like Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. I thought they were great. The material I was drawn to during my discovery were writings or books by former theologians, NT scholars and apologists. I identified with their objections more because they spoke a language I understood and identified with.

"Science" was the enemy growing up. I was pretty ignorant of it for quite sometime. I was a vocal YEC, so the science stuff took some time to understand. Boy was I glad I ditched YEC in favor of theistic evolution later on in my Christian walk.

[Kidzaplenty]

:

[Smokering]

Using the Tanakh and New Testament as "evidence" of the supernatural is circularity. All mythological text can only be validated by itself -- nothing external to it.

So? Circularity is a necessary component of a first principle.

Which tend to be transparent -- philosophical discussions arguing for a specific deity.

Not necessarily. It's true that most Christian philosophers are candid about their Christianity, but the good ones are very careful to distinguish between arguments for theism, arguments for a 'Christian-ish' God (omniscient, transcendent or whatever) and arguments for the specifically Christian God. But there's nothing wrong with the latter, if it's argued well. If it can be philosophically proven, say, that a God must be both many and one in order to solve the problem of unity and plurality, that's a good argument for a trinitarian God rather than a unary one.

One could even say that if a deity truly existed you wouldn't need to be taught or indoctrinated with a doctrine or theology.

Strawman. If a certain kind of deity whose existence and nature was self-evident to man existed, sure. But I don't know any religion which makes that claim. Christianity says that some basic things about God can be known through conscience and general revelation, but not enough for salvation or even to necessarily lead people into Christian theology.

[Bluegoat]

You seem to be contradicting your previous position. First you said logic was simply a function of the human brain, now you're saying it's inherent in nature. If you believe that abstract concepts such as logic exist, does that mean you no longer hold to a naturalistic worldview?

:

To put it another way, do you think that when we understand something logically, it reflects something objective, outside of ourselves? To say that it exists only in our brain would mean that it did not exist in the object at all.

And there would be the additional problem that the same issue would apply to physical phenomena. For example, when we see something, say a dog, we don't directly absorb it. Rather we see an image through the mechanical action of our eye, which is then highly interpreted by our brain. So there is a sense in which the dog that we see is an object created by our brain. But most people do not go on to say that there is no actual dog.


I suspect, though, is that what you are saying is that logic, or the logos, as the Greeks would say, is not separable from material reality, except in thought. And that we learn about the nature of things, there logic, by observing them and abstracting the logic from the material substance. Much in the same way that we see a number of separate objects and abstract the idea of "three" from them. But you would say that "threeness" has no existence outside of the objects themselves, it is not an immaterial entity of some kind. Which makes me think that perhaps you are a closet Aristotalian?

So if we carried this over to your idea of Truth, perhaps you would say that truth simply is what it is, it is the sum of reality.

Now, even if we assume that it is true that we learn logic from abstracting it as it exists in the material world, it DOES NOT follow that there are no purely logical or spiritual entities. It might be the case, or it might not. Now some people have made the argument that it is impossible to know anything about those entities, we can only know about the ones we can observe in the material world. But that is a mistaken assumption - if we can actually understand the reason that we apprehend from the material world, and use it to make predictions about other physical objects that we don't know about (as physicists do with mathematics) then we could, theoretically, follow reason to other, purely immaterial entities.

What we couldn't do is confirm their existence by experiment.

But this is a rather backwards way to approach the question of the relation of philosophy and science, as any beginning text on the subject will tell you. Science rests on a philosophical foundation, so if you throw out philosophy, there is no way to keep science.

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by Smokering

You seem to be contradicting your previous position. First you said logic was simply a function of the human brain, now you're saying it's inherent in nature. If you believe that abstract concepts such as logic exist, does that mean you no longer hold to a naturalistic worldview?

I was giving one example as to why logic seems real to me versus a deity. I didn't want to make my post any longer than it was already by adding more examples. I tend to be verbose, in case no one noticed. Hence the brain example.

In regards to nature, I am saying that it's a fairly ordered system. I think reality/earth/the universe (though I know some philosophies contradict this) is outside of me. It exists regardless of whether or not I exist. In other words, it's not a projection from my human brain. So, Australia would exist even if I knew nothing of it.

Within this natural system, there is a fairly logical order to things. And we can pick up on this using the reason component within our brains. Hence the development of logic, not only in math, but also in linguistics.

Re: faith - I understand your definition now! Finally, lol. It actually helps me out a lot in terms of understanding faith/religion. Thanks.

Re: Hawkins - I can't say I'm a huge fan of his either. I think he's pretty offensive. But, I do think some of his chapters make valid points. I read him when I was already an atheist, but some of his chapters were helpful to me in terms of understanding "modern" atheism as a whole.

To summarize him, I'd have to go back to the library and check his book out. I don't want to make a mistake in paraphrasing him, as it's been several years since I read the book.

There was a better philosopher (who is now dead) and he's famous for accepting debates/discussions. At seminaries - even. AJ Ayer is the name. His stance was that he thought the existence or non-existence of God was meaningless, and totally unverifiable. But he did identify as an atheist - for lack of a better term, mainly. Which is, really, my stance as well. He used to say he could convert anyone towards his viewpoint given enough time. His books are interesting reads, and his most famous one is probably Language, Truth, and Logic.

For those of you who are interested in an incredible book that, I think, is very supportive of intelligent design ... I highly recommend The Cosmic Serpent - DNA and the Origins of Human Knowledge. It's just incredible. It's written by an anthropologist, and is very fact based. As I said, it's the best argument I've seen for intelligent design.

I'd actually recommend it to the OP - if you're struggling with faith, and feel like you've lost it, and you don't want to lose it - this book might help you in keeping it.

[Collinsky]

I'd really like to add to this conversation that there are more ways of seeing things than the Christian/theistic and atheist views. And it is possible to have deeply held beliefs, and faith in the reality of a spiritual realm beyond our own, that is not based on any holy book. There really is no holy book for my faith. And all holy books are for my faith, depending on how you look at it.

The concept of God-the-Father is simply a way of envisioning that which we can't envision. So are angels, fairies, any personification of the Divine. Listening to a person who is not of your particular belief talking, it sounds like fairy tales and gullibility, no matter how articulate or educated they are in their faith tradition (or lack thereof.) These are easily rejected, but just because it ceases to make logical sense and doesn't hold up in the face of questioning doesn't mean that all spirituality is also proved to be false. The bathwater has to go, but not necessarily the baby.

There is a whole other paradigm that is both separate from and encompassing of the dichotomy of theism vs. atheism. I am not monotheistic (or duotheistic, or henotheistic, or polytheistic) but neither am I without a deep faith in the Divine. I can not prove my experience. I could share verses that are a common thread uniting all religious traditions that inform my belief, but in the end they are not proof. The only proof is personal experience, and I don't mean "visions" or sightings, although that might be the case for some, I doubt it is for the majority.

OP, you might be interested in reading The Feminine Face of God, which is not about any particular religious tradition, and in fact encompasses many divergent belief systems.

[Vespertina]

Originally Posted by Smokering

So? Circularity is a necessary component of a first principle.

Do you suppose circular reasoning works in the grand scheme of it all? Yahweh and Jewish theology are Truth to the Tanakh. Yahwist theology isn't True to Zarathushtrianism or Hinduism or an assortment of other mythologies. Similarly, the theology surrounding the New Testament is only validated by itself and, well, the Book of Mormon since it accepts the New Testament. Although, the Book of Mormon is taken as a second revelation of Truth. Each theology a faith system is based off can only be supported by the text itself. Of course Christians believe the Tanakh gives way to the New Testament, but it's obvious Jews don't think so. Is the Qur'an valid according to the New Testament? Not according to mainstream Christian theology. Is the Book of Mormon supported by anything other than its own theology? Mainstream Christian theology would say Mormon theology is on its own and separate from the Christian faith.

So, how does circular reasoning work when "Because the Tanakh says so," "Because the New Testament says so," "Because the Qur'an says so," and "Because the Book of Mormon says so" leads to the individual theologies validating themselves and only themselves. One can say the Tanakh is Right and all others false per Jewish theology. The other theologies have something different to say. The basis of classical theism rests on Jewish theology, yet the "proof" that it's outmoded or irrelevant isn't really "proof" at all. It's just mere claims. So, when one asks why the New Testament is True, where would the answer derive from? Not the Tanakh, at least not to Jews. Jewish theology only supports the New Testament to those that adhere to or accept New Testament theology.

When the answer is given and it's "Because it says so right here in the Synoptics and John's Gospel" that points to none other than circular reasoning. Should the Jewish faith surrender to the Christian faith based on circular reasoning? Can the same be said for the theology that appeared after the New Testament, the Qur'an? Should then Christians surrender to Islam simply because Islam proposes a new revelation of Truth? What about the Book of Mormon? That's just classical theism. If I professed a belief in Mazda Ahura should I expect everyone else to follow suit just because there are claims made for such entity or "higher power" in the Gathas and Avestas. Would these be "proof" that Mazda Ahura exists? Could I use the text to invalidate Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Could I expect others to all of a sudden turn to the Mazdayasni faith just because I share some scriptures? I mean, the only way one can come to know Mazda Ahura is through the theology or text the Wise Lord is based on. Just as Christian theology requires one accept Christ because the text says so, could I expect one to accept the Wise Lord because the text says so?

Which deity exists? I mean, all deities exist according to the theologies they originate from. Are the Gathas and Avestas "proof" that the Wise Lord exists the same way the Tanakh and New Testament are "proof" that Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist? Which one deserves *the* title "God"? The first deity ever proposed? The first *true* monotheistic faith system? The oldest? Or, how about the newest?

Unless one is polytheistic or monistic in that they believe all beliefs systems past and present represent some Ultimate Truth or Cosmic Consciousness then it's anyone's guess and circular reasoning fails to work, as far as what is Absolute Truth and what isn't.

Not necessarily. It's true that most Christian philosophers are candid about their Christianity, but the good ones are very careful to distinguish between arguments for theism, arguments for a 'Christian-ish' God (omniscient, transcendent or whatever) and arguments for the specifically Christian God. But there's nothing wrong with the latter, if it's argued well. If it can be philosophically proven, say, that a God must be both many and one in order to solve the problem of unity and plurality, that's a good argument for a trinitarian God rather than a unary one.

Good Christian philosophers and apologists like William Lane Craig? Yes, I'm familiar with his arguments. "Nothing wrong" is subjective, of course. I don't find arguments specifically for the Yahweh+Jesus+Holy Spirit combo convincing. If you're a Christian, do you find arguments for just Yahweh appealing, like Judaism and Islam? What about theologies that aren't trinitarian? Would this many in one deity concept be similar to Hinduism? Hinduism is monotheistic, polytheistic, dualistic, nondualistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, panendeistic, henotheistic and even atheistic depending on the philosophy. Trinity concepts are common to ancient "Pagan" faiths and is even part of Hinduism. Hinduism is monotheistic because there's one Almighty God or Supreme Being, Brahman. It's polytheistic because Brahman has many (thousands) of emanations, manifestations, incarnations and avatars. It's henotheistic because followers may direct their worship toward one specific incarnation, emanation, avatar or manifestation of Brahman. Some prefer Vishnu, others Brahma or Siva. Essentially, it's the same Supreme Being being worshiped. Some might consider it pantheistic, that Brahman and the universe are completely united as One. Others might suggest that it's panentheistic in that the universe is part of Brahman but Brahman transcends the universe/creation. Then there's panendeism, which suggests the same as panentheism but instead exhibits qualities or characteristics of a deistic type entity. Dualism and nondualism are other types of philosophies within the Hindu faith. In a sense, like Christianity, going with the many=one concept Hinduism is monotheistic.

I know there aren't too many theologies within Christian theism that propose a universal "Supreme Being has many faces and names" theme. The majority tend to literally believe in their respective deity(s) without the esoteric bits or inclusion of other faiths and theologies. Are you of the belief that it can be philosophically proven that gods exist? If yes, would this apply to all god concepts? Would you say all of the deities ever proposed throughout recorded history are "real"? Just some? If so, which concepts and ideas make the most sense? "Make sense" is pretty subjective, right? 'Cause Yahweh alone makes sense to Jews. The trinity concept makes sense to trinitarian Christians. Allah makes sense to Muslims. Gods and Goddesses to Pagans and the list goes on.

Strawman. If a certain kind of deity whose existence and nature was self-evident to man existed, sure. But I don't know any religion which makes that claim. Christianity says that some basic things about God can be known through conscience and general revelation, but not enough for salvation or even to necessarily lead people into Christian theology.

To the bold, like what? The same can be said regarding other theologies. So... that means what, exactly? In order for one to really and fully come to know Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit they have to be taught or instructed New Testament theology. All of the tenets, principles, doctrines, sub doctrines, standards, etc., would need to be taught, otherwise, whatever the supposed basic characteristics or qualities of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that can be known through conscience and general revelation could easily be, say, Brahman or Ra. Perhaps Mazda Ahura? Without relying on personal conviction that is based on a specific theology or text, who's to say it wasn't some other deity being realized, not Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Anything relatively non-specific can be attributed to other deities. To the Hindu, knowing God through one's conscience or by revelation points ultimately to Brahman. To a Zarathushti all of this would point to Mazda Ahura. Maybe to one that worships the Egyptian pantheon it would point to Ra.

Man, that was a lot. LOL, sorry.

[Vespertina]

Originally Posted by Collinsky

I'd really like to add to this conversation that there are more ways of seeing things than the Christian/theistic and atheist views. And it is possible to have deeply held beliefs, and faith in the reality of a spiritual realm beyond our own, that is not based on any holy book. There really is no holy book for my faith. And all holy books are for my faith, depending on how you look at it.

The concept of God-the-Father is simply a way of envisioning that which we can't envision. So are angels, fairies, any personification of the Divine. Listening to a person who is not of your particular belief talking, it sounds like fairy tales and gullibility, no matter how articulate or educated they are in their faith tradition (or lack thereof.) These are easily rejected, but just because it ceases to make logical sense and doesn't hold up in the face of questioning doesn't mean that all spirituality is also proved to be false. The bathwater has to go, but not necessarily the baby.

There is a whole other paradigm that is both separate from and encompassing of the dichotomy of theism vs. atheism. I am not monotheistic (or duotheistic, or henotheistic, or polytheistic) but neither am I without a deep faith in the Divine. I can not prove my experience. I could share verses that are a common thread uniting all religious traditions that inform my belief, but in the end they are not proof. The only proof is personal experience, and I don't mean "visions" or sightings, although that might be the case for some, I doubt it is for the majority.

OP, you might be interested in reading The Feminine Face of God, which is not about any particular religious tradition, and in fact encompasses many divergent belief systems.

I added that book to my amazon list. Would you say you're pantheistic or panentheistic? While I'm atheist relative to classical theism, I do find other philosophies appealing. I tend to identify with pantheism, but more in the abstract sense. Some refer to the Divine as Energy, Cosmic Consciousness or a natural Intelligence. My interest in pantheism was influenced by Taoism. I also find panentheistic philosophies appealing.

To the bold, when you say this is this kind of like believing all of the Truths that have been proposed or revealed are connected? Like they all come from the same source? That maybe said source revealed itself differently to different cultures and people? Or, that the various theologies throughout recorded or human history reflect Man's understandings at specific points in time or history? We're all individual, so maybe the human race being so diverse can account for the differences [and similarities] in theologies? Theologies have also been shown to evolve and become more and more elaborate over time.

[Smokering]

Sember Gumby: You seem to be conflating two issues: logical validity and real-life persuadability. How likely someone is to be convinced by a circular argument is one thing, and will depend on a whole host of factors largely related to the convincee. But the ability of an argument to convert millions is a different thing to its truth or validity; and my point was that circularity is a) not a formal fallacy, and b) necessary for constructing a first principle.

Not all circular arguments are created equal, either; and it's certainly not as if one has to accept or reject all circular religious arguments as if they are the same. One can examine each for internal consistency and logical validity. (For instance, a religion that takes as axiomatic multiple sources of revelation, such as the Bible plus the Book of Mormon or the Bible plus Sacred Tradition, can be critiqued by checking the sources of revelation against each other for contradiction).

You then seem to be arguing that because there are many belief systems, all claiming truth, it is therefore impossible to know which is true. I don't see how that follows. And it's certainly true that while religious argument often doesn't convert folks of differing presuppositions to another religious POV, that isn't always the case. My husband did a dramatic volte-face from atheism to Christianity; and the world is full of Christians-turned-Buddhists, Moslems-turned-Catholic, Wiccans-turned-Hindu and probably every other permutation you can think of. So "it never works" simply isn't an accurate argument.

Are you of the belief that it can be philosophically proven that gods exist? If yes, would this apply to all god concepts? Would you say all of the deities ever proposed throughout recorded history are "real"? Just some? If so, which concepts and ideas make the most sense? "Make sense" is pretty subjective, right?

I think there are some very strong arguments in favour of a specific kind of God. "Prove" is a pretty daring thing to say; I can say I've never heard any decent counterarguments, but I wouldn't bet my life on "prove". But no, the arguments with which I'm familiar wouldn't work for any deity; 'deity' is a rather vague term. The argument from reason supports a general theism, but a theism of omniscience, therefore it would not apply to Greek or Roman gods. An argument from intelligent design would necessitate a god with the specific attributes of creativity, power, order and intelligence as well as the ability to interact with the material world; I don't know if that applies to all conceptions of God, but I doubt it. As for "making sense", being persuasive is certainly subjective, as I said above; but logical validity is not a matter of personal opinion. I once debated a woman who was convinced that she could accept the premises of a logically valid syllogism and deny its conclusion (no joke: she actually believed it was intellectually valid to say "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, oh, but I don't believe Socrates was mortal"). No amount of persuasion could convince her that she was being unreasonable; but that doesn't mean the truth of the matter was up for debate. She was wrong; objectively so.

Also, it would certainly be illogical to say that all the gods proposed throughout history really existed, as several of them are mutually exclusive! You can't have two Only One Gods...

To the bold, like what? The same can be said regarding other theologies. So... that means what, exactly? In order for one to really and fully come to know Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit they have to be taught or instructed New Testament theology.

I'm not sure I see your point. According to Christian teaching, one can deduce to a certain (limited) extent attributes of God such as His power and creativity from nature, and His moral character through conscience. As you say, these things are not sufficient for salvation, as "No-one comes to the Father but by me [Jesus]". (Some Christians will disagree with me here, FTR). And as you say, other religions might claim similar things; but so what? I'm not arguing that one will look at a sunset and be led irrevocably and logically to the Christian God. I said as much in my quoted post.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Semper Gumby

I know there aren't too many theologies within Christian theism that propose a universal "Supreme Being has many faces and names" theme. The majority tend to literally believe in their respective deity(s) without the esoteric bits or inclusion of other faiths and theologies. Are you of the belief that it can be philosophically proven that gods exist? If yes, would this apply to all god concepts? Would you say all of the deities ever proposed throughout recorded history are "real"? Just some? If so, which concepts and ideas make the most sense? "Make sense" is pretty subjective, right? 'Cause Yahweh alone makes sense to Jews. The trinity concept makes sense to trinitarian Christians. Allah makes sense to Muslims. Gods and Goddesses to Pagans and the list goes on.

To the bold, like what? The same can be said regarding other theologies. So... that means what, exactly? In order for one to really and fully come to know Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit they have to be taught or instructed New Testament theology. All of the tenets, principles, doctrines, sub doctrines, standards, etc., would need to be taught, otherwise, whatever the supposed basic characteristics or qualities of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that can be known through conscience and general revelation could easily be, say, Brahman or Ra. Perhaps Mazda Ahura? Without relying on personal conviction that is based on a specific theology or text, who's to say it wasn't some other deity being realized, not Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Anything relatively non-specific can be attributed to other deities. To the Hindu, knowing God through one's conscience or by revelation points ultimately to Brahman. To a Zarathushti all of this would point to Mazda Ahura. Maybe to one that worships the Egyptian pantheon it would point to Ra.

Man, that was a lot. LOL, sorry.

There are some philosophical and religious systems that say that we cannot examine metaphysics or talk about god. But for those that do allow for it, they come to some very similar basic conclusions - though they take those in some rather different directions. They pretty much describe a divine "reality" that is in some way a first principle of all else, that is unified and radically one, and that is in some sense transcendent and immanent at the same time.

For me, it is not surprising that reason takes most people/systems/religions to that place, because we are all the same kind of being living in the same universe, searching after Truth.

Religious systems follow a similar pattern at the theological level, but religion is also expressed poetically. In some cases the poetry and theology stick close together, and in some cases they are quite opposed.

A good example of the latter is Greek paganism. The poetic form was all the Greek myths that are so revealing and wonderful. The philosophical version are probably best exemplified by the works of Plato. Plato was very critical of the poets, although he expressed his own views using poetry. His problem was not the use of poery per se, but that the poets told lies about the gods; that their stories induced people to believe things that were untrue to the character of the divine. (for example Zeus's philandering.)

(As an aside, I'd be interested to know if there is a similar split in neo-paganism? I have mostly seen poetic versions.)

Hinduism, as you have pointed out, has reconciled these two streams to a large degree, but you can see quite clearly the poetic and theological streams of thought.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism tend to be very careful about trying to keep poetic expression and theological ideas together, probably due to their understanding of the nature of the scriptures. They can't take quite the same approach as Hinduism or Greek religion. But there are places when there are poetic ideas that have to be understood in light of theological understanding. A good example are instances where God seems to change his mind, which theologically is an unacceptable idea. Others are more obvious, we don't think Jesus is literally a plant because he said he was a vine.

But it is possible to look at the differences between different religions, and see what the major reasons for their disagreements are. And if you can see them, you can try to come to conclusions about their various merits or lack thereof.

[Collinsky]

Originally Posted by Semper Gumby

I added that book to my amazon list. Would you say you're pantheistic or panentheistic? While I'm atheist relative to classical theism, I do find other philosophies appealing. I tend to identify with pantheism, but more in the abstract sense. Some refer to the Divine as Energy, Cosmic Consciousness or a natural Intelligence. My interest in pantheism was influenced by Taoism. I also find panentheistic philosophies appealing.

To the bold, when you say this is this kind of like believing all of the Truths that have been proposed or revealed are connected? Like they all come from the same source? That maybe said source revealed itself differently to different cultures and people? Or, that the various theologies throughout recorded or human history reflect Man's understandings at specific points in time or history? We're all individual, so maybe the human race being so diverse can account for the differences [and similarities] in theologies? Theologies have also been shown to evolve and become more and more elaborate over time.

Currently pantheist, with some panentheistic leanings which I'm pondering. I go back and forth between the two related but different conceptions. Definitely influenced by Taoism and Hinduism, the mystics (of any faith), and earth-based spirituality. (From a very fundamental, conservative Torah-observant Christian background. I've run the gamut. ) I am no longer a believer in classical theism - that god, IMO, does not exist. That doesn't mean that that imagery and mythology can't be used as a pathway to the Divine; just that it is not necessarily an accurate, and certainly not a complete, picture. I do refer to the Divine as the Universe, Source, the Tao, and Energy, as well as as God/dess. I wouldn't say I'm an atheist, ever, because I feel more devout than I did when I wore a headcovering and debated early church history passionately.

I do believe that all truths are connected, that all beliefs point in the same direction. They become polluted over the years, away from the original pure intent, but that core truth remains. If you lay the holy books next to each other, you see that the mythology differs (and is usually extremely influenced by the culture of that book) but that the actual teachings are very similar. They all say the same thing, in different ways, to a different audience. I think it is less about how the Divine reveals itself (because I don't think it's ever NOT revealed, kwim?) and more about the filters through which we understand it.

One of my favorite authors - and another I'd recommend - is Matthew Fox, a former Catholic priest - the Catholics did not like his preaching the concept of "Original Blessing" rather than original sin. He writes about deep ecumenism, and his book One River, Many Wells is awesome. The basic idea behind it is that "God" is an enormous body of water under everything - and that each religion is a well tapping into that. We can say, "Our well is the only true well!" or that only some wells are okay - when the reality is that that says more about us than it does about the source we are drawing from.

[hquest_98]

Originally Posted by momma4fun

woops, accidentally lost some of that.....

i believe that there is an underlying energy to everything.

i feel like that's even scientifically accurate, in that we know there's something bigger that we haven't discovered yet.

but i'm not sure i believe that the energy can take form without matter......

i think it would be super cool if there were such things as fairies and angels, or if i existed in a similar energetic form after my body dies.......

that would be a huge step for me. i feel like i'd just have to decide, i have faith in this because it makes me feel good.

it seems almost impossible for me to believe that not only does energy congregate into forms outside of matter, but that these forms are also part of a hierarchy............

Energy can absolutely take form without matter. Right now, there is energy all around us that science cannot explain and yet know for a fact that it is there! Somehow, we are surrounded by forces and energy that cannot be defined by our current standard of scientific measurement. (I have a B.S. in Physics)

My husband and I believe that in every living thing on Earth (including the Earth itself) is something we call LifeConscious. It propagates through water and tells DNA how to function. How does a baby "know" to cry when it needs something? How does a baby kangaroo (joey) know to crawl out of its mother's womb into her pouch at 4 weeks? These instincts come from LifeConscious. We believe that this "lifeforce" exists all over the universe and that when we die, we join with it and we can continue in this fashion. Our soul, spririt, or whatever you want to call it is powered by this LifeConsciousness and gives us the ability to continue after our body dies. If you like, you can visit my website to read more about LifeConscious and the new project we're working on called The Linear Heritage of Women.

www.lifeconscious.com

[Thao]

Man, I've been busy recently and so didn't notice this thread! Hope y'all don't mind me entering the fray a little late...

momma4fun, I think believing in something because it makes you feel good is rather... unwise. Belief should not be a random decision based on feelings; it ought to correspond to reality. If you have cancer it may make you feel better to believe the cure rate is 70%, but if it's only 3% you're doing yourself a disservice. For anything that matters, belief must be rational.

Agreeing, but if you are implying that the main motivator that causes people to place their faith in this or that belief system is rational reasoning then I would disagree. I am making the assumption here that there are multiple rational belief systems from which to choose, encompassing all different religions as well as atheism/agnosticism. No belief system can be conclusively proven; the best anyone can do is start with a set of unprovable statements (axioms) and build a logically consistent belief system on those. This has been done by philosophers, theologians, and scientists from all different schools of thought and religion.

If applied to the analogy you give, it would not be a case of someone having conclusive proof that they have cancer and choosing to ignore it because it makes them feel good; it would be equivalent to a case of someone having vague symptoms that could be rationally explained by any number of different diagnoses and no amount of further testing can possibly bring further clarity.

So in that case, how does one choose which diagnoses, or belief system, in which to place their faith?

I submit that this is where feeling/emotions DO play the decisive role. Naturally we explore the issues rationally for as far as it can take us, but in the end all of us -- even the most rational of us -- have faith in a belief system because it is emotionally satisfying to us. Because at some deep level it makes us feel connected to an ultimate truth, or offers us the comfort of believing that God is in control, or whatever it is that personally fulfills us. If a particular belief system does not give us that inner peace, we move on to another equally rational one that does.

Note that I am not talking about belief systems that are obviously irrational here; I do agree with you that belief systems have to be rational. But given the plethora of rational belief systems from which to choose, it is emotion that plays the key role, even more so than rationality, in which belief system we choose. As such, I agree with the OP in that sense.

Now, even if we assume that it is true that we learn logic from abstracting it as it exists in the material world, it DOES NOT follow that there are no purely logical or spiritual entities. It might be the case, or it might not. Now some people have made the argument that it is impossible to know anything about those entities, we can only know about the ones we can observe in the material world. But that is a mistaken assumption - if we can actually understand the reason that we apprehend from the material world, and use it to make predictions about other physical objects that we don't know about (as physicists do with mathematics) then we could, theoretically, follow reason to other, purely immaterial entities.

Bluegoat, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that even under the assumption that logic is not an entity in and of itself (like Plato's forms?) but rather just extrapolated from the order in the material world, it can still be used to make predictions about the immaterial world. I think the fallacy with that argument is that it assumes the immaterial world works on the same rules as the material one, and so the rules apply the same in both realms. This certainly may be true, but it is not necessarily true. So any conclusions you draw about the immaterial world applying logic derived from the material world cannot be considered proven. At best, it could only be considered to be a logically consistent conclusion if one accepts the unprovable axiom that the same rules apply in both realms.

[Thao]

Sailor, thanks for that book recommendation. I've put it on hold at our local library. It looks fascinating!

[mamabadger]

Among my own co-religionists, I have not heard "faith" described as something that conflicts with knowledge or science, but which is irrelevant to it. Faith is seen as more similar to conscience: something that people possess innately, but which can be encouraged or suppressed by the individual. Everyone knows it is wrong to, for example, commit murder. There is no way to provide scientific evidence to support that fact that murder is immoral, but it is a fact. If it is inconvenient to believe murder is wrong, an individual can rationalize it away, ignore it, decide he does not care one way or the other, or otherwise repress what his conscience tells him. I hear faith described in the same way. God exists and we are, by nature, aware of Him. However, that knowledge can be thwarted, suppressed, denied, twisted, or simply avoided. In that understanding, faith is the normal condition of a human being; it is lack of faith that requires a "leap."