Christian and Skeptic??

[voidx]

It's mostly because of the claims made by them... and I'm also skeptical of many of the claims and beliefs of the Catholic Church (and others) as well. And - if I had no experiences of my own - and someone related to me my experiences as theirs, I would absolutely be skeptical.

In some sense this seems a touch like a double standard. And I think its one we all have. Our own experiences are immutable and undeniable to ourselves, yet others are viewed with skepticism. I'm really unsure how valid this is. Obviously our experiences seem more apparent to us, but if anything our own bias should make us challenge them more.

But they're not someone else's experiences... they're mine, and therefore not so easily dismissed. It's a very uncomfortable position to be in, especially here... but I can't let discomfort be the deciding factor in my beliefs. Not and live with myself afterward, anyway.

While I understand what your saying, I also think you'd understand why I see this as one of the fundamental problems with peoples opinion of their own experiences. You are more strongly tied to them simply because they are yours. Again the validity of this is probably arguable.

I'm not sure that it's possible to successfully apply skepticism to every aspect of life. For example, can you imagine being a skeptic toward your spouse every time s/he made a statement that you didn't know the accuracy of? I suspect that the relationship between the two of you would become strained, at the least.

We reign in our skepticism in order to be civil, and in order to get along with other people. This does not change the fact that we are consciously putting our skepticism on the back burner. Plus your spouse has observable behaviours and habits and other such things so you have something with which to make some judgements on. I don't have to counter every comment my spouse makes with a verbal retort for her to know my opinion on the topic. My gf is well aware of what my opinions are, and we respect each other's views and are polite towards each other about it.

Also, as a martial artist, I can state for the record that faith in yourself, your training and your art are necessary until you reach a level of self-confidence that eliminates the need for it. Those that don't have that faith usually don't reach the level of self-confidence, and drop out.

Having faith in your potential, of your physical and mental abilities is different. You have your behaviour and habits and past experiences with which to draw conclusions and judgements from. I do not think it is the same thing at all. I also do martial arts (European, rather than Asian) and yes a sense of learning something new and achieving proficiency in a skill gives a person a sense of accomplishment and confidence in their ability. But I think this is entirely different from holding faith in an unquantifiable and undefined concept.

Then there's SETI... if I apply skepticism to the concept of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then SETI makes no sense. Worse, skepticism would force me to take a worldview where the earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe, because there's no proof otherwise.

I'd disagree. We ourselves are proof of life in the universe. All that is required is the right conditions. So its a matter of probability just how likely it is there is other life out there, and how likely we are to come in contact with it. SETI's approach might seem like a toss in the dark, and it likely is, but there is a probable logic behind it.

Don't get me wrong - skepticism is a wonderful and enlightening process, and I prefer it over just about any other approach. However, I also believe that most people are not self-consistent in all the things they do or believe... and I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

Again I agree, but we have to be careful to not become too lax on the area's of life we scale back our skepticism upon. We can, and often do, in my opinion, let it run too freely sometimes.

 

[voidx]

Those with synesthesia experience the world differently from the rest of us, but it is just as real and consistent to them as our perceptions are to us. Synesthsia is consistent enough, at least within an individual, that it can be confirmed. It's not imaginary, people really do have those perceptions, it's just that their perceptions are different from the rest of us.

That's all fine and good. However the source of their perceptions is the same, or would appear to be. We can objectively compare their perceptions to ours because I'd argue they are simply perceptual variations of the same objective world. The fact is is that they are a complete structure of perceptual experience, and are consistent within that structure, although it differs in ways from ours. Its consistent enough that they can describe and define it well enough for us that we can begin to objectively show how their perceptual apparatus perhaps differs from our own.

Subjective experience is the primary way we all understand and interpret the world. Even when someone understands the science and the equations and what it all means, it's reasonable that people would consider their own subjective experiences valid despite conflict with what science deems possible, probable, or proveable.

Subjective experience is the primary way in which human consciousness experiences the world. I really think there is a difference between the human brain, and the consciousness it produces. All that the brain processes is not necessarily apparent to the consciousness it produces and I think this can be shown in several ways. Yes people do consider their subjective experiences as valid when faced with a lack of another explanation, however, is that wise? Is it particularily valid?

I agree that the subjective nature of things, information in particular is very important and overlooked. I read a book not too long ago discussing this very thing. Our understanding of what information is, and how one can possibly look objectively at the subjective "meaning" of information to different observers is perhaps one of the next really interesting area's of science. The more I learn about consciousness and human experience and physics and reality the more I find myself unsure of just what I can say about my subjective experiences. There are some basic frameworks to explaining consciousness. They are not complete but their a decent start. Dennett has a basic theory that seems quite plausible in many ways, its a start where many assume that there is none at all.

 

[Chimera]

by rppa: (on prayer)

That there is a meditative state which puts you in touch with guidance which is fundamentally different from either your normal brute-force problem solver, or your back-burner intuitive problem-solver. That listening to the hunches you get in this state always turn out well. That there is never, in retrospect, any magical explanation for the outcome but that nevertheless it's a direction you typically wouldn't have thought of going in.

Why, may I ask, do you think that the guidance you may glean during this meditative state is the result of divine tidings, rather than, for example, of personal focus being allowed to occur due to quieting of the mind?

Jen

 

[ilk]

First off, my humblest apologies to you, ilk. This was a rather cursory response on my part, and had I taken just a few minutes to really think about what I was going to say, perhaps my reply would have been a little more tactful and appropriate. So I stand corrected....

And GOOD FOR YOU! If you are indeed perfectly happy living your life in a completely non spiritual way instead of focusing on what you feel is positive for society, then this is all that anyone can ask of you, really...that you lead a happy and fulfilling life. No one can dictate specifically HOW you should live your life based on religious "rules" and tenents. YOU make your own rules based on your personal preferences and overall life experiences, centered around a foundation of timeless and changeless principles. Granted, you'll probably never win a Nobel Peace Prize or even be elected office for your community, but who cares? YOU live your life HAPPILY in YOUR own way. Period.

Again, when you get a chance, you might want to check out Steven Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" at www.stevencovey.com I promise you, you will NOT find any religiously spiritual based nonsense in this book. Just a suggestion, not an order....

Out of interest, why can I never win a Nobel peace prize or be "elected office" for my community? Because I am not "spritual"? What if by simply being a good person and doing good things I vastly improve the human condition, causing an end to war? Would I be eligible then? What makes me being a good person, just because I think it is right, somehow inferior to someone who is good because they think it's what a giant beard in the sky wants them to do?

Once again, hopefully without intending to, you come accross as incredibly condescending.

Regarding Mr. Covey, I am extremely wary of anyone who wants to sell me something. I would be much more receptive to you being proselytical about the actual methods, reducing the risk of promoting a cult of personality.

As for your God is Ice Cream parable, I fully understand that many religious discussions make as much sense as debating favourite flavors. However, this is not the case when some of the Ice Cream is poisonous, no matter how tasty.

 

[gecko]

to your post iilk:

By being a good person, and doing the things you mentioned, many would said that is "spiritual". By doing good for the sake of good, some would say you are following god(notice I DID NOT capitalize that). See, some people find "good" and "god" to be one in the same, as in the god of creation is the ultimate good. Therefore, good works shows faith in that which is good, and if you have real faith then you will want to do good works in turn. Does that make sense?

I guess its just one opinion stacked upon the hundreds of others, but...just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[ilk]

to your post iilk:

By being a good person, and doing the things you mentioned, many would said that is "spiritual". By doing good for the sake of good, some would say you are following god(notice I DID NOT capitalize that). See, some people find "good" and "god" to be one in the same, as in the god of creation is the ultimate good. Therefore, good works shows faith in that which is good, and if you have real faith then you will want to do good works in turn. Does that make sense?

I guess its just one opinion stacked upon the hundreds of others, but...just thought I'd throw it out there.

I am fully aware that "many" would label me inappropriately out of a combination of a misunderstanding of my personality and a bias towards their own value systems, yes. Natually, people who live by God can have an expectation that any good work is a directly linked to God.

I happen to question the value of good that is directed by an all-powerful entity who allows evil to exist.

 

[Kumar]

Excess of anything is said be bad--irrespective it is excess good or bad. "God" may just like balance alike nature's balance not just "goods". Both these can be two parts of HIM--required to balance each other. Excess of sugar can cause diabetes whereas excess of bitter may somewhat cause poisioning. Just have a look at;
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53199

 

[NotAForumMember]

What's it called when you jump onto the end of a topic that is pages long and post something even though you haven't read through all the pages?

There must be some slick slang word or phrase for it. Anyway, it's what I'm about to do, so if there is no official name already you can call it "pulling a NotAForumMember" or just "pulling a NotA" for short.

My 2 cents: Has anyone discussed what their reaction would be to someone who called themselves a "skeptical astrologer" or a "skeptical remote viewer" or a "skeptical Uri Geller believer" or a "skeptical" so on and so forth (you get the point).....?

 

[Ernesto]

Originally posted by jmercer

Just a point - I agree, it's convenient that #2 isn't subject to testing, but it's inherent in the concept. Frustrating, though, that's for sure.


But I don't agree. I suggested a test - that we all have a good look in the, er, universe and see what's there. Granted, it might take a long time. I had a good look round my bedroom last night, under the mattress and right at the back of the wardrobe and I can categorically say I found no God or gods.

Flippancy aside, either the universe contains 0 gods or it contains more than 0 gods. Can someone explain why it is in principle not possible to test to find out which one of these options is true?

 

[Kumar]

Flippancy aside, either the universe contains 0 gods or it contains more than 0 gods. Can someone explain why it is in principle not possible to test to find out which one of these options is true?

Because we may be shown & looking "IT" in differant form & language. 0 should be smallest (.) dot/point & more than 0 should be a concentration/composite/association of (.) dot/point, so a complex structure of IT but with HIS or some of HIS basic properties. Accordingly, both can exist.

 

[Darat]

...snipp...

Flippancy aside, either the universe contains 0 gods or it contains more than 0 gods. Can someone explain why it is in principle not possible to test to find out which one of these options is true?

It just depends on what you define "God" to mean.

Some definitions of "God" define it to be outside of even the possibility of being tested, others don't. If your definition of “god” is "Old man with a beard that sits on that mountain over there" it can be tested however if your definition includes something like"unknowable to humans" well then you can't test that in any meaningful manner. (You can of course still put forward arguments from whether that definition can be substantiated or maintained in light of other knowledge/reasoning/logic).


(Edited for words.)

 

[Donks]

Because we may be shown & looking "IT" in differant form & language. 0 should be smallest (.) dot/point & more than 0 should be a concentration/composite/association of (.) dot/point, so a complex structure of IT but with HIS or some of HIS basic properties. Accordingly, both can exist.

No. Zero is no points. One point is one. And it's not possible that both "there are no gods" and "there are gods" are true at the same time.

 

[Kumar]

No. Zero is no points. One point is one. And it's not possible that both "there are no gods" and "there are gods" are true at the same time.

I meant (.) dot/point shaped instead of 0. You can create any structure from (.) dot/point but you can't do it from 0.

Just compare these definitions;

"the First Person in the Trinity; the Creator, the Source of all being or life; the Father, Whose Fatherhood is established by the existence of His Son, Christ; the First Cause, Whose Son is His Effect; God's essence is spirit, which is shared with all creation, whose unity is the state of Heaven.

The male aspect of the creative, divine force that is present in every aspect of the universe. The God can take on many forms and have many names, but he is always in balance with, and complementary to, the Goddess.
"
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:god

 

[Ernesto]

So I guess there are two unassailable strategies that can be employed by theists to defend their belief in God.

1) Ring-fence it behind "personal experience" so that it is not amenable to testing by a third person.

2) Define god as having the property of 'unknowability', so that no test in principle could produce knowledge about said god.

If I found myself believing in god for either of these reasons, I'd be very disappointed with myself. It's amazing what grown adults will believe.

 

[Donks]

Just compare these definitions;

"the First Person in the Trinity; the Creator, the Source of all being or life; the Father, Whose Fatherhood is established by the existence of His Son, Christ; the First Cause, Whose Son is His Effect; God's essence is spirit, which is shared with all creation, whose unity is the state of Heaven.

The male aspect of the creative, divine force that is present in every aspect of the universe. The God can take on many forms and have many names, but he is always in balance with, and complementary to, the Goddess.
"
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=e...re&q=define:god

Compare this definitions:

A fabulous animal, with the head, neck and body of a horse, a beard like that of a goat, the legs of a buck, the tail of a lion, and a long tapering horn, spirally twisted, in the middle of the forehead. The royal arms of Scotland had unicorns for supporters until the union with England, in 1603. The sinister supporter of the present arms of Great Britain is, "A unicorn argent, armed, crined and unglued or, gorged with a coronet of crosses patee and fleur-de-lis, with a chain affixed passing between the fore legs and reflected over the back of the last."

biological manifestaion of Order. U. is apparently a shape-shifting female entity. It's supposed that she is the mother of King Oberon.

A symbol of enlightenment, connection with spirit

Google
I win this debate. Argument by better Google definitions of mythical creatures..

 

[The Mighty Thor]

I've been searching for god for all these years and never thought of searching via google. Nice one Kumar.

 

[Harlequin]

I agree with NotA (welcome!), I don't see a difference between someone who calls themselves a skeptical Christian and someone who calls themselves a skeptical Homeopath.

This is where TLN is suggesting that it is actually hypocritical to criticize someone for holding loopy beliefs about sugar pills only on the basis of their personal experience, when you have similar beliefs about god and the power of prayer.

I don't think you have to be skeptical in every tiny part of your life to be a Skeptic, but certainly there shouldn't be glaring exceptions to what you are willing to examine objectively.

 

[jmercer]

Perhaps based on the feedback from this thread I should really consider no longer participating in these forums... I'd really rather not be considered a hypocrite by people.

I recognize the apparent conflict, and unfortunately it's beyond my ability to resolve it at this time. Nor am I entirely in disagreement with the viewpoint itself; I do hold a belief that I cannot prove and there is no evidence for it that would be acceptable to support it for other people.

 

[Kumar]

Btw, Is it difficult to understand concept of "God/Goddess" by translating/relating some of "HIS/HER" 'so said' properties:-

"God creates, nurses and destroys the universe. God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and almighty, beyond description, beyond imagination, and beyond calculation".

There can be some prime/basic/micro AND secondary/gross/macro levels of any concept with common & specific purposes which can be said as "GOD/GODDESS", "SPECIFIC GOD/GODDESS" or "ALIKE GOD/GODDESS".

The Mighty Thor, Donks,

Donks, that is not definition of God.

Bit poor understanding to follow the real meaning. I meant to say that just compare any substance in science (as of today) with these properties. I have also posted above quoted indications & definitions in this respect. It is now upto your inteligence to understand the concept in science.

 

[Donks]

I have also posted above quoted indications & definitions in this respect. It is now upto your inteligence to understand the concept in science.

Like hell it is. If you want the concept in science behind your latest mental ejaculation, look for it yourself.