Christianity vs. the rest of them

[cynatnite]

I just got off the phone with my mother. Thankfully, her and I get along really well even with as sharp as our divisions are.

It started off with the 10 commandments being in court houses. She said there are many court houses with the 10 commandments in them, but removing them would mean destruction of the entire building. I don't know about that, but anyway...

Basically, she says the rest of the religions in the world are ALL wrong.

I gave her a few facts about Jefferson and explained not only is religion not to be squashed in this country, but no religion is to be set above another which this government has done.

She talked about what she believes and I said that is fine and I respect that. She said that if all the others would accept JC as their savior and all that, then they wouldn't go to hell and all would be right.

I told her that people in other religions believe as they do with as much conviction as she does. The difference was the majority is not out trying to convert the rest of the world and does respect other religions. She wouldn't hear of it.

Bottom line: In her opinion all religions are cults....well, except for Christianity :eyes:

[etherealtruth]

1. Unfortunately, I think that is how the faithful of most...

...world religions feel. Therefore, excusing "religious" war and persecution.

I refer to myself as Catholic (in the spirit of Pascal). I am actually mesmerized by religion. In truth I believe all religion is right and all religion is wrong.

[Bellamia]

3. Not all Christians

are Fundamentalists. nor Literalists. Your Mother's view brings to mind the saying, "Those who think you know it all, annoy those of us who do". Religion to me is an attempt to answer the unanswerable, and I've yet to meet anyone who has all the answers.

[Dookus]

2. This demonstrates

one of the great realizations that put me on the road to atheism.

All the things people use to back up their religious beliefs occur in all religions. People have "spiritual discoveries", they have visions, they claim miracles and healings. They use prayer and meditation and insight. They use prophecy and interpretation of ancient (or not-so-ancient) writings. So if I have to believe the visions and miracles of christianity, I have to believe the same ones for Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism, et. al.

Yet those religions are mutually exclusive. At most, only one can be right. So if I have to reject any one of them, I have to reject all of them, based on the similarity of their claims.

[Stunster]

7. I don't understand your inference

At one time, there were a variety of competing, mutually exclusive theories about the nature of light.

They all referred to similar types of phenomena, but they couldn't all be true.

It wouldn't follow that there was no such thing as light.

[Dookus]

10. We have evidence for the existence of light

we do not have such evidence for the existence of gods.

[trotsky]

12. Repeatable experiments also demonstrate the existence of light.

Comparing different theories of light to the different concepts of god seems absurd.

[Tux]

49. Theories?

I always seen them as cultural representations of god that allow for the human mind to "understand" god. Each is right and wrong but they are just a perception of god and not actually god.

[trotsky]

61. Or a mental construct of god. n/t

[Stunster]

71. Two questions, and some science

1. What repeatable experiments would prove that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong?

2. Is torturing babies for fun morally wrong?

Nothing demonstrates the existence of light. We interpret a variety of phenomena in such a way that we call the cause of those phenomena 'light', or more technically 'electromagnetic radiation'. Electromagnetic radiation is a disturbance of the electromagnetic field.

But the electromagnetic field is invisible and intangible. It's a theoretical construct, though we take it to refer to something in extra-mental reality.

I was recently having a quick re-read of the first chapter of THE MATTER MYTH, by Davies and Gribbin (entitled 'The Death of Materialism'). I was struck by this passage:

"After all, the electromagnetic field is also an abstract entity that we cannot directly observe. One can point again to the fact that the relativistic field theory is simpler than the alternative. But whereas the issue seems clear-cut in the case of the Earth going around the Sun, the question of whether the ether, or the electromagnetic field, or neither, is 'really there' seems altogether more subtle."

It occurred to me that scientists posit a completely invisible entity (the EM field) to explain what we observe. The positing of the EM field is the result of an abductive inference to an invisible intangible, unfalsifiable theoretical entity as that which best explains various phenomena we do observe. In a sense, it predicts those phenomena, though the phenomena were observed long before the theory of an EM field was posited. But the theory essentially tells us that given the EM field, these phenomena are to be expected.

It strikes me that theism is also an explanatory theory, positing an intrinsically invisible, intangible theoretical reality, and theistic theory predicts---i.e. 'tells us to expect', that is, renders unsurprising if it's true---certain phenomena, though of course the phenomena were observed long before theistic theory was proposed. What phenomena are those?

--That the physical world exhibits profound mathematical order and
intelligibility.

--That the world will contain conscious rational minds endowed with a
causally efficacious and significantly autonomous will

--That the world will exhibit the phenomenology of moral experience

--That the world will contain religious experience

--That the world will exhibit other (non-moral, non-religious) forms
of value (such as aesthetic value, pleasure, joy, fulfilment, etc).

Now one can try to assess other theories, competing with theism (as one can propose alternative theories to the EM field theory to explain EM phenomena), which claim to account for the aforementioned phenomena. But, as the New Mysterians and other have noted, the central phenomenon of consciousness (without which the rest of the phenomena either don't arise or cannot be known about) has proven intractable to materialist explanation. So it appears that theism is at least a decent candidate for a basic explanatory theory of actually a wide range of observable or intelligible phenomena.

That the physical world should be so finely ordered by intelligible mathematical laws and relations, (the efficacy of math for understanding the physical world famously struck one noted scientist as 'unreasonable', because we were able to work certain things out in our minds which were only later confirmed by empirical investigation to be true of the physical world--suggesting that a mind had already designed the physical world or that it was the product of a rational mind); and then that it should produce from this physical order life, consciousness, and all the phenomena associated with reason and value, invites the construction of a theory or the positing of a theoretical reality to account for it all, in a way analogous to how electric and magnetic phenomena invite the construction, on the basis of abductive inference, of an overarching theory which posits a theoretical entity ---the EM field---to account for EM phenomena.

Another intrinsically invisible, intangible, theoretical entity famously posited by science is curved space, to account for gravitational phenomena, as proposed by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Would it be a good answer to Einstein to say of curved space that it doesn't explain anything? That we can simply 'make do' with the observed fact that bodies fall to the center of massive objects, without having to postulate unobservable purely theoretical entities that cause the bodies to fall in that way, especially counter-intuitive ones like curved space?

So, I'm going to make a prediction based on my theistic hypothesis, which I don't think can be explained on a materialist hypothesis: that
if you were to be promised an abundance of material wealth, pleasure, plastic surgery to make you attractive, and brain surgery to make you hyper-intelligent, and an abundance of medicine to ensure that you'd have a long, healthy life, and so be capable of fathering a very large number of offspring---all provided for free on condition that you burnt alive a few dozen small children--- you will feel a strong sense of moral obligation not to burn those kids.

According to materialists like Dawkins, your genes are selfish, right, and selfish genes all there really is to you, right? So, if that's so, let's test it, and here's a test for what you will experience
under certain conditions.

Of course, what I expect to happen is that Dawkins & Co. will qualify and refine their selfish gene theory so that it will accord with your moral revulsion. Naturally, I find that supremely ironic. Their theory has to be so jiggered about with that it can never be falsified---the very thing that they accuse theists of doing.

But then, maybe science and theology aren't so different after all.

[trotsky]

73. What the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

I reject your pitiful attempt at a red herring.

I will only note that if a theist became utterly convinced that his god WANTED him to torture & kill babies, he would be obliged to do so. As history has documented over thousands of years.

By the way, no matter how you try to restate it, the argument from design is still fatally flawed.

[Stunster]

76. With knobs on

I reject your pitiful attempt at a red herring.

I reject your pitiful and repeatedly evident incapacity to come up with anything substantive, interesting, useful, or cogent to say by way of debating these issues.

[Imperialism Inc.]

85. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Just more useless gobbledygook from the supremely confused and always incoherent Stunster.

[Stunster]

13. We do, actually

"There's no evidence for God"

Atheists often say such things.

What do they mean? Do they mean, they personally don't have evidence for God? Or do they mean, nobody, anywhere, at any time ever has evidence for God?

If it's the latter, then this, it seems to me, is simply false. The two most powerful, memorable, transformative experiences I've ever had have been experiences of God. I have met and known a number of other people who would say the same thing. I don't claim that my experiences prove that there is a God. I just find it astonishing for anyone to say that they don't even constitute in the slightest evidence for God's existence.

I reckon Saint Paul, Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Saint Augustine et al might have said the same thing if they'd been asked. Certainly they all wrote about them. And there'd be many non-Catholic theists who would say similar things, and have written similar things.

Let's say you cut yourself shaving 5 years ago while staying in a shack in the wilds of Alaska. Nobody else was there. You nevertheless believe that you cut yourself shaving at that time and place. What would it mean to deny that you have any evidence for this belief?

Now, I'm not suggesting that this sort of personal experiential evidence 'proves' that theism is true. But I'm trying to get a handle on what it would mean to say that I, and all other theists who have had extraordinary experiences of God, don't have any evidence for the existence of God. And if we do have such evidence, doesn't that mean that it is simply false to say, as atheists are wont to say, that there is no evidence for God?

Suppose there was a rare species of polar bear, which only a few Inuit had ever encountered. Would it be true that there is no evidence that such a species existed? Seems to me there would be evidence, even though it was not directly available to everyone.

Now, the objection might be that there is no scientific evidence for God, but there could be scientific evidence for the rare polar bear species. But theism says that God is not a physical entity, so it would not be surprising in the least that there is no scientific evidence for God (if that's the case, which I'm only conceding here for the sake of the argument--but see below).

If there is a God, then God is not a physical object. So insisting on God being subject to the kinds of evidence that we have for physical things would be to miss the point, and to beg the question. The question at issue is whether there are realities other than physical ones, and kinds of evidence for the existence of such realities other than physically experimental evidence. So insisting systematically on providing scientific evidence for God would be a clear case of the logical fallacy of begging the question. But the absence of physical experimental evidence for God is consistent with there being tremendously good evidence for God.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Saint Paul had a profound encounter with the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, such that nothing else would be as convincing to him as that experience. Then, St Paul would have a way of knowing, or reasonably believing, that materialism (if he knew what that was) was false and that Christianity was true. But no scientific procedure would be able to establish this. Yet someone (St Paul) would know it. He would have great evidence, from his perspective, of the truth of Christianity. But that would entail that "there's no evidence for God" is a false proposition.

"Ah, but we must use the term 'evidence' in such a way that it is independent of anyone's perspective".

Well, there seems to me to be two problems with this. It seems to me that an attempt is being made yet again to insist that the concept of evidence be restrictively defined to mean evidence yielded by natural scientific method---in other words, to beg the question again. But let's just ignore that for a moment and ask instead: is St Paul's evidence (or mine) purely perspectival? It seems to me that if you placed anyone in St Paul's shoes (or mine), and if anyone had the experiences that St Paul (and me) had, then that would count as evidence for them too---just as much as it would count as evidence for St Paul, me, and anyone else that there is a rare species of polar bear if you placed us in the shoes of the Inuit who had experienced that species. Just because St Paul, me, and most other people would not, ex hypothesi, have actually been in the shoes of those Inuit, surely doesn't entail that there is no evidence for the existence of that rare species of polar bear.

In other words, two points: 1) the concept of evidence is a logically broader category than the concept of evidence deriving from natural scientific method; 2) the concept of evidence is a function of experience. Given the right sorts of experience, then anyone will have the right sorts of evidence.

Have there ever been experiences that count as the 'right sort' to qualify as evidence for the existence of God? Sure there have! I've had a couple, and it seems I'm not alone. Nobody would have heard of St Paul if he hadn't had the right sorts of experiences. It doesn't prove theism to everyone's satisfaction. But an 18th century Inuit couldn't have proved the existence of that rare species to everyone's satisfaction. He'd still have damn good evidence, though, that there was such a polar bear species. And maybe St Paul and I have had damn good evidence that theism is true. And I think this means that the proposition, "There's no evidence for God" is straightforwardly false, unless one insists on committing the logical fallacy of begging the question in favor of scientific naturalism's definition of evidence. Which is a logical fallacy and an error of reasoning...

The difficulty I'm having with an a priori commitment to a universal reliance on naturalistic scientific method is that we have no really solid a priori or experimentally verified reason for thinking that, as science progresses, it will be able, in principle, to uncover the truth about these matters---the truth or otherwise of theism, or Christianity specifically---as long as the above-described scenario regarding Saint Paul seems logically possible (which it strikes me we have every reason to suppose it will always appear to us to be). But what if, it won't be able, even in principle to uncover the truth about these matters by means of using the natural scientific method, and yet St Paul is right, and as justified as he could possibly be (given the nature of his experiences) in thinking that he had met the Risen Christ and that materialism is false and Christian theism is true. Wouldn't that mean that there is evidence that God exists, even though, as in the case with the rare species of polar bear, not everybody had access to the evidence, or was in a position to experience that species of bear? (Let's assume that the Inuit and bear species in question all died out 150 years ago).

It seems to me, in other words, that the rational thing to do is to be open to the possibility that science might not be the only way of knowing things, or even the best way, and that science itself may well be systematically incapable of discovering this, and that there may be other ways of discovering it, which a rational person may have access to, or even have had access to in the past. In fact, not only do I think that one should, rationally, be merely open to this possibility. I think it's actually rather plausible that it is the case.

Some will say that we can't even count religious experiences as evidence for theism, because lots of people have strange experiences which are later shown to be associated with certain kinds of cognitively non-veridical brain states. But how does this show that all religious experiences are merely the products of cognitively non-veridical brain states? Isn't that another blindingly obvious logical fallacy? "Some things of type A are the products of F. Therefore all things of type A are products of F." Yup, a fallacy alright.

'Ah, but it's more reasonable to think they are products of F, because being a product of F is more conformable to the worldview of scientific naturalism." Yet again, the objection is logically invalid, because it begs the question at issue---the question being, whether theism, as against scientific materialism, is the correct worldview.

And please name ANY human experience that does not involve some brain event/process or other. There are none? Fine!

Would you then infer that that every human experience was therefore illusory, or non-veridical?

Many years ago, hominid brains evolved in such a way as to enable humans to experience watching a bird fly in the sky, the taste of ice cream, the sound of music, the sound of words, the emotion of fear in the face of wild animals seeking to eat us, etc. That fact says PRECISELY NOTHING about the veridicality of those experiences. Why should a qualitatively similar fact concerning brain processes say any more than PRECISELY NOTHING about the veridicality of religious experiences?

Hence this type of argument---all religious experiences are caused by brain-states, therefore all religious experiences must be non-veridical---is, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly IDIOTIC.

It also has a name. It is called the Genetic Fallacy. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

But personal experience isn't the only evidence we have for God.
There's also the scientific evidence for God, which you can read about here:

http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_existenceofgod.html

And philosophical evidence, which you can read about here:
http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html

[trotsky]

15. The theist has a problem.

Namely, there is no evidence of any gods.

What to do? Wait, I know! Define god such that there cannot be evidence of it!

If there is a God, then God is not a physical object.

See? Simple!

Of course, if there cannot be physical evidence of a god, there is no way for a god to interact with its creation, because any such interaction would, necessarily, produce a physical result, and thus evidence. Shh, don't mention that!

[Stunster]

17. So,

you've solved the mind body problem and know why the laws of physics are quantum mechanical and why they keep operating day after day.

Well done.

[trotsky]

18. Um, Stunster,

why do you change the subject when you can't answer a question?

[Stunster]

20. I'm not changing the subject

The post indicates my answer.

Admittedly, one has to think about God, consciousness, quantum mechanics and so forth, and those things are not the easiest things to think about.

A fuller answer is in a post called "intercessory prayer" I contributed on another thread. If you don't want me to repeat myself, then stop asking questions I've answered before in other threads and posts.

[trotsky]

21. No, I don't want to get drawn into a pointless side discussion.

I want to know how your god can operate in the world without leaving any physical evidence.

I don't care about QM or anything else right now. Just explain your theory of "god".

[Stunster]

22. I've done so

a number of times.

On this forum, in fact.

[trotsky]

23. Okey dokey then.

"No answer." Got it.

[Stunster]

24. Rubbish

I've given answers, in detail, a number of times.

Go, for example, to the topic entitled "So what is God, anyway?" and see my answers there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=11834&mesg_id=11834

And the one entitled "What is intercessory prayer meant to accomplish?" and see my answers there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=8846&mesg_id=8846

[trotsky]

25. I see lots of words in those threads, but no answers to my question.

How can your god interact in the physical universe without leaving physical evidence?

[Stunster]

26. There is

but perhaps what you mean is that you don't understand it.

Well, there'd be very few answers to much of anything in this area if that was the criterion for being an answer.

But it isn't.

[trotsky]

27. Why does it always come back to personal insults with you?

You end up insulting your opponent's intelligence or comprehension skills rather than defending your point. That tells me a lot. And me tiny brane kin unnerstand wy yoo doo it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

86. Because that is the one and only tactic he has.

His circular reasoning and changing the subject.I have never seen a more clueless individual spout so many words in my life.

[Dookus]

16. these discussions would go better

if you could distill your thoughts down to a few paragraphs.

But if you're asking me to take people's personal experiences as evidence, then I'm afraid I can't comply. People have all sorts of experiences that aren't externally true.

[Stunster]

19. Ok, I'll try

There is evidence for the existence of God. It includes personal experiences, the order and intelligibility of the physical universe, and the fundamental phenomena associated with reason and value, which are essentially associated with personhood.

Now, even if one could give an adequate naturalistic explanation for all of this (which I personally don't think can be done), it wouldn't follow that there is no evidence for God. You might not find it in the end sufficiently compelling. But to say that there's none at all is, I think, just a misuse of language.

But, the more detailed answer is in my previous post, so I'd prefer that you read that carefully before replying to this one.

[Stunster]

28. Arguments from ignorance

are bad arguments.

Here's one example:

"I don't believe in naturalistic evolution, because I don't understand how life and speciation could arise by purely natural processes."

---"But that's a bad argument! Just because you don't understand how those things could have arisen by purely natural processes, doesn't mean they couldn't have."

Here's another example:

"I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for God's existence"

---"What do you mean by 'evidence'?"

"I mean the kind of evidence that we have for other things, like electromagnetism, or gravity, or mountains, or coffee."

---"But those are all physical things. Religious believers don't regard God as a physical thing, so one shouldn't expect evidence for God to be like evidence for physical things."

"But I don't understand the notion of a non-physical thing, or the notion of non-physical evidence. I don't see how there could be a non-physical thing, or non-physical evidence for something."

---"But that's a bad argument! Just because you don't understand how there could be a non-physical thing, or non-physical evidence for something, doesn't mean there couldn't be such a thing, or such evidence for it."

[Stunster]

29. Evidence of God and evidence of spousal love

Let's try another tack with regard to evidence of God. The notion of 'evidence' is really very tricky and has been subjected to an enormous amount of highly technical philosophical analysis, an example of which I refer to towards the end of this post. But for now, let's go with a pre-technical notion of 'evidence' in which evidence is simply a function of human experience. I'm afraid this too is going to be a bit lengthier than you might like...

Let's look at 'evidence of spousal love'.

A man meets a woman, falls in love with her, they get married and they live happily ever after. If asked, "Does your wife love you?" he replies, "Oh yes, very much." He's then asked "What evidence do you have for that?" and he starts listing the evidence.

What does the evidence consist of? It consists of all sorts of experiences he's had, bodily, emotional, and so forth. From the totality of these experiences, he concludes that a) there is another person, who b) loves him.

He sees a pattern of bodily movements. He hears a pattern of sounds. He has various tactile experiences which form intelligible patterns. He also has, ahem, taste and smell experiences which lead him to the same conclusion. In addition, he has inner emotional experiences, including some he regards as moral experiences, and the experience of rational thought and reflection that are stimulated by these other sensory and emotional experiences.

Going over it all in his mind again, he re-affirms his original conclusion. His inner emotional and moral and rational experience leads him to conclude that the body he sensorily perceives and calls his wife's is the body of another person who loves him. There is another person, who transcends the totality of his experiences of what he calls his wife, and this person loves him. He simply wouldn't be able to understand if someone said "There's no evidence that your wife exists, let alone loves you."

Now let's take all of our bodily, emotional, moral, and rational experiences. It seems reasonable to conclude that there are in fact a lot of other persons, inhabiting an intelligible physical world.

But does this totality of experience of a world inhabited by persons lead us to conclude that there is a person who transcends the totality of our experiences of that world and who loves us, in a way analogous to the man being led to conclude that there is a person who transcends the totality of his experiences of the object he calls his wife, and who loves him?

Maybe, maybe not. For some it does lead to that conclusion, for others it does not.

But if the man's totality of experiences of what he calls his wife constitutes evidence that there is a person transcending that totality (of his experiences of her), namely his wife (who exists as a real person independently of his experiences of her), and that this person loves him, then it seems unreasonable to suggest that the entirety of human experience of the world doesn't constitute any evidence whatsoever that there is a person transcending the totality of human experience, or that this transcendent person loves us.

Ah, well, maybe the former (that there's a world transcendent reality of some sort) but surely not the latter notion, that the transcendent person loves us! "What about the problem of evil?", goes up the cry!

Yes, there is sin, and there is non-sinfully caused suffering. But these are due to the existence of free will and the existence of the laws of physics. Without the former, genuine love would be impossible. Without the latter, human beings and human life would be impossible.

So if we regard the possibility of genuine love and the possibility of human life as worthwhile and the sorts of valuable things a loving person would choose to instantiate, then we must regard free will and the laws of physics as good things in themselves.

But does their admitted value and worth outweigh all the evil and suffering in the world which they give rise to?

Some say yes, some say no. Some of the latter commit suicide. But most people don't, nor wish to, and on the whole think that the existence of human life with its possibilities for loving and being loved are on the whole decidedly good things.

Furthermore, if sin and suffering are limited to the human life span, and an everlasting life of happiness is available for all thereafter, then this conclusion about the worthwhileness of life and love is reinforced.

Ah, but... "What about hell and the eternally damned"?

Well, maybe no-one is truly damned for all eternity. But even if some are, one can construe this as simply the world-transcendent person not wishing to compel them to love him or be with him, if they really don't want to. And so the world-transcendent person leaves them to the futility of their self-preferred spiritual and moral emptiness. If that's what they truly prefer forever, that's what they're given forever.

One can only hope that no-one prefers that forever, and that all come to everlasting happiness.

The point is, this is still at least arguably consistent with the notion that there is a world-transcendent person who loves us.

Now, none of the foregoing proves that there is. But I think if one looks at the totality of our experience, one must draw one of two conclusions:

A) Either it is really not the case that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a world-transcendent person who loves us.

or

B) There is no such thing as evidence of spousal love--none whatsoever!

A longer and much more sophisticated statement of this type of argument is given in Alvin Plantinga's classic book, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God.

I like the first customer reviewer's remarks about this book (at that link), which I'll quote in part here:

If this book has a real defect, it is simply the extraordinary level of logical rigor.....

....Therefore, even if belief in God is *completely unjustified and irrational*, for all this argument shows, it is exactly as rational as belief in other minds.

And further, Plantinga is not *offering* a justification of "faith" or of theism, in the sense of giving any reasons for believing in God. He is offering an argument that theism is rational, not in the sense that there are reasons for believing it, but in the sense that it is not contrary to reason to believe it without *having* reasons in support of it. These two are not equivalent, unless you beg the question by assuming that nothing is reasonable to believe except what can be proved by reason.

[trotsky]

30. Spousal love is not claimed to have created the universe.

Spousal love is not claimed to have impregnated a virgin 2000 years ago.

Spousal love is not claimed to have spoken with an old nomad via a burning bush.

Spousal love is not claimed to have "magically" made an image appear on a purported burial shroud.

Spousal love is not claimed to have held the sun still so a man could have more time to lead his troops in battle.

And finally, spousal love is not claimed to exist outside the mind of a spouse. If you are willing to accept that your god doesn't exist outside your mind, then you've got a perfect analogy.

[Stunster]

41. I didn't claim that spousal love did those things

And finally, spousal love is not claimed to exist outside the mind of a spouse. If you are willing to accept that your god doesn't exist outside your mind, then you've got a perfect analogy.

Yes, the love of the spouse for her husband exists in the spouse's mind.

The love of God for us exists in God's mind.

Good, you've understood.

The husband has a set of experiences which lead him to believe that in his wife's mind, there is love for him.

Analogously, many humans have a set of experiences which lead them to believe that there is love for humans existing in the mind of a world-transcendent person.

Notice that sometimes a human doesn't believe that there is anyone who loves him or her, even though there is. Babies may not understand that their mother is a person who loves them, for example, even though their mother is a person, and even though their mother does love them.

[qazplm]

43. thats just silly

love is expressed in ACTIONS by the spouse and in WORDS and EXPRESSIONS.

It is not simply in the spouses mind.

[trotsky]

46. The love itself is only in the mind.

The expression of love can be real, just as the expression of god beliefs has led to beautiful art, music, and construction that are obviously real.

But the emotion of love only exists in the brain of the person who feels it, and I argue that "god" is the same way.

[Stunster]

54. Of course!

But the husband doesn't think there are just actions, words, and expressions of love. He also thinks that there is a person responsible for them, and whose existence and loving will transcend his experiences of the relevant actions, words, and expressions.

Now the totality of our collective human experience includes:

-- the gift of life, which is due to the instantiation of the laws of physics.

-- the facts of conscious experience, including all the beautiful, lovely, enjoyable and fulfilling aspects

-- the words that bespeak the fundamental concepts of morality

etc. In other words, we note the instantiation and sustaining of the laws of physics (activity), and we grasp the value of many of our experiences (expression), and we understand moral concepts as these come to us through both religious and secular texts (words). We note and grasp and understand a totality of experience that is actually far greater in extent, scope and complexity than just the totality of one man's experience of his wife's love for him.

So, if he legitimately concludes that a) the particular object he perceives, and calls his wife, IS A PERSON existing independently of, and THUS TRANSCENDING the totality of his experiences with regard to the same object, and that b) this same object of his experiences has a mind and will that loves him, then it's hard to see how the totality of our experience of the world cannot or must not be construed as licensing an inference to the conclusion that there exists a person who transcends the totality of our experiences of the world, who possesses a mind and will that loves us.

Because all of the benefits and joys and pleasures and happiness and beauty etc that the husband experiences in relation to his wife are included along with a great many other benefits, joys, pleasures, happinesses, beauty etc in the totality of human experience of the world.

[trotsky]

44. That is an unwarranted and unsupported leap.

Yes, the love of the spouse for her husband exists in the spouse's mind.

The love of God for us exists in God's mind.

You're trying to establish proof of your god. This doesn't follow whatsoever.

[Stunster]

53. Reading skills

The point is, this is still at least arguably consistent with the notion that there is a world-transcendent person who loves us.

Now, none of the foregoing proves that there is.

Did you miss this bit?

[trotsky]

59. Sorry, I missed that part where you admit your story was pointless.

So never mind.

[Stunster]

63. The story is not pointless

It demonstrates that there is a gap between evidence and absolute proof even for our knowledge of other minds.

Much of the philosophy done since Descartes is about epistemological skepticism---about whether and how we can ever truly know anything, and the possibility of systemic doubt that we can. But this is not something specific to religion. It affects our claimed knowledge of other minds, our claimed knowledge of modal facts, our claimed inductive knowledge, and much else. There is a large philosophical literature on this which I don't wish to get into here.

But the relevant point is that even if epistemological skepticism is true, it doesn't entail that we have no evidence for our beliefs about, say, the existence of other minds.

That's only one approach to the problem, however, and there are other ways philosophers have tried to deal with it, such as saying that certain beliefs are epistemically basic. But then you don't need to have evidence for a belief for it to be rational.

http://www.faithquest.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=85

http://www.faithquest.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=63

[Stunster]

55. Try to understand the distinction between evidence and proof

Let's say there's a murder.

Let's say there's one witness to the murder.

Obviously a murder is a one-time event, and so is one person's witnessing of a murder.

Now that person calls the police. The person says,

"I just saw a man called John Smith shoot dead Fred Jones at such and such a location"

Does this testimony prove that Smith shot Jones? No.

Is it evidence that Smith shot Jones? Well, this testimony would count as legally admissible evidence in a court of law.

It may not be sufficient to prove the prosecution's case.

But it be included in the general category of evidence.

The question I'm addressing is whether there is any evidence for the existence of God. Atheists typically say there isn't any.

But, there are a very large number of people who report experiences of conscious contact with God. To say that this doesn't count as evidence at all requires justification. But if the justification is that there is no God, no supernatural reality, and that the world is a strictly naturalistic entity into which no supernatural reality can enter, then the justification is VERY OBVIOUSLY QUESTION-BEGGING AND CIRCULAR, and hence logically invalid.

[trotsky]

60. I'm not disputing your evidence.

I'm just saying that it is evidence of something else - namely, the mental construct known as "God" that certain people have in their minds.

No question-begging here, just a very simple explanation for your evidence.

[Stunster]

62. It's not a good explanation, however

any more than it would be a good explanation that what a man believed to be a person who loves him was really just a mental construct.

Sure, all he sees is patches and patterns of color in his visual field. All he hears are certain sounds. And so on for his other senses, inner emotions, and thoughts. He doesn't actually see another mind, or another will, or another consciousness, because minds, wills and consciousnesses are not visible or tangible physical objects.

But if you seriously tried to persuade a man that he was married to a mental construct of his own, rather than a real person, he'd look at you as if you were a raving lunatic, and quite rightly so.

At this point, you could try to show that his brain was in certain states, and it was these states that were causing him to think there was a real person who loved him. But he'd probably ask if you had ever had psychiatric treatment.

You cry, "No, all you can see is patches of color in your visual field, all you can hear are certain sounds, etc---but you cannot PROVE that there is another PERSON endowed with a rational will who loves you! That's a huge and unwarranted leap! It is a much simpler explanation of your belief that there is a person who loves you that your brain is simply in a certain state, which can be reproduced in the psychological laboratory with the right kind of chemical and electrical stimulation...."

At which point the men in white coats enter the room to take you away.

[trotsky]

64. Until the man introduces the men in the white coats to his spouse.

It's quite easy to demonstrate the existence of one's spouse, another thing entirely to try and demonstrate the existence of a god.

[Stunster]

65. Actually

science cannot demonstrate the existence of personhood.

God is just a specific instance of the general problem of proving the existing of other minds or persons.

That's the point of the analogy. No experience of a physical object demonstrates that there exists another person. Think about it. All sensory experience is of what we take to be material bodies physically interacting with other bodies, though all that we experience is actually occurring in our own minds, and none of it logically entails the existence of other minds or persons (since exactly the same experiences could be produced by the same material bodies acting in exactly the same way but which are entirely devoid of consciousness). Similarly all emotional experience and all rational thought takes place in our own minds, and doesn't logically entail the existence of any other conscious minds or personal subjects of emotion or thought. So the belief of the man that his wife is a person who loves him is not logically entailed by any of his experiences.

When the atheist says, "There's no evidence of God", what they're denying is that there is any evidence for the existence of the personal being designated by the term 'God'. But what the analogy shows is that there is no possible logically watertight demonstration of the existence of other persons in general. So if the charge is that theists don't provide evidence for the existence of the person called 'God', there are two ways of responding:

1) if anything does count as evidence for the existence of persons in general, then the same general kind of thing counts as evidence for the existence of God. The man sees the spouse's material movements. We see the universe's material movements. The man hears his wife's voice. We hear sounds arising from material objects in general. The man is emotionally moved by his wife's beauty. We are moved by the beauty all around us. The man understands and communicates with his wife using language. We understand and communicate with reality in general not merely using language, but with concepts, mathematics, logic, reason, and morality. Etc.

OR

2) if nothing counts as evidence for the existence of other persons in general, then the lack of such evidence for the existence of God is not sufficient to show that belief in God's existence is irrational, unless it is also irrational to believe in the existence of other persons in general (which no sane person thinks is the case).

[trotsky]

66. Once again, I am not saying "There's no evidence of God."

I'm saying that the evidence you have, is evidence for a god within your own mind but nowhere else. God does not exist except as a mental construct in the minds of believers. Period.

And this ridiculous analogy where first you compared your god to the love of a spouse, but now have shifted into "demonstrating personhood" does nothing to strengthen your case. You're just trying to muddy the waters enough to try and justify your belief in a real, external-to-your-mind god.

[Stunster]

67. Careful reading and careful thought are virtues

I'm saying that the evidence you have, is evidence for a god within your own mind but nowhere else.

Trouble is, it's exactly the same type of evidence that people have for believing that the patch of moving, changing, sound-making, sense-stimulating emotion- and thought-producing color they sometimes have in their visual field is evidence that there is a another person who loves them. Except that it's far greater, more global, more complex, and altogether grander in scale and extent. So if you're saying the latter inference is a mental construct in one's own mind, then so is the former, only it's more flimsy.

But in fact, nobody thinks that the former inference is merely a mental construct. But if it involves the same type of evidence (only on a much smaller scale), then we have no good grounds for saying that the latter inference is merely a mental construct.

where first you compared your god to the love of a spouse, but now have shifted into "demonstrating personhood" does nothing to strengthen your case.

Ummmmm..... Go back and read the first post you're referring to. Here's some excerpts to which I have added helpful emphases and underlinings to show that evidence of personhood was a key theme in that post already, independently of the love aspect, contrary to your present assertion :

What does the evidence consist of? It consists of all sorts of experiences he's had, bodily, emotional, and so forth. From the totality of these experiences, he concludes that a) there is another person, who b) loves him.

He sees a pattern of bodily movements. He hears a pattern of sounds. He has various tactile experiences which form intelligible patterns. He also has, ahem, taste and smell experiences which lead him to the same conclusion. In addition, he has inner emotional experiences, including some he regards as moral experiences, and the experience of rational thought and reflection that are stimulated by these other sensory and emotional experiences.

Going over it all in his mind again, he re-affirms his original conclusion. His inner emotional and moral and rational experience leads him to conclude that the body he sensorily perceives and calls his wife's is the body of another person who loves him. There is another person, who transcends the totality of his experiences of what he calls his wife, and this person loves him....

....But if the man's totality of experiences of what he calls his wife constitutes evidence that there is a person transcending that totality (of his experiences of her), namely his wife (who exists as a real person independently of his experiences of her), and that this person loves him, then it seems unreasonable to suggest that the entirety of human experience of the world doesn't constitute any evidence whatsoever that there is a person transcending the totality of human experience, or that this transcendent person loves us.

It's really not helpful if careless reading of my posts causes me to have to repeat myself like this.

[trotsky]

68. There's still a difference.

The type of evidence you cite as evidence for your god is identical to the type of evidence for things like emotions and ideas. Certainly real enough concepts, but real only within the confines of a mind.

What it's different from is the type of evidence we have for people who may love us, or sights & sounds that we can experience. I.e., things recognized as being external to our bodies and existing apart from it.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between these types of evidence. No amount of handwaving on your part is going to be able to equate the two, though.

[Stunster]

70. Nope, you're not following the argument

Evidence for the existence of other persons (or other conscious minds): what is it?

Visual, emotional, and other stimuli, etc lead you to conclude that there exist persons other than yourself. But you can't see their minds, their intellects, their wills, their consciousness, their interior mental life.

"But you can see their bodies". Yeah, the notion of their bodies presupposes that those are the bodies of persons, and not just material objects devoid of rational consciousness. So in fact, what you see are some bodies, and you infer that they are the bodies of persons (unlike the bodies of other animals, or the bodies of trees, or statues, etc.)

(And, as an aside, what do you mean by 'body'? What's the evidence that there are bodies existing outside of your own consciousness, and that 'bodies' are not merely mental constructs? This is Descartes 101, incidentally.)

But the visual, emotional and other stimuli that we experience are not just confined to those we associate with spouses. Such stimuli pervade the entire universe of human experience!

So when you say, What it's different from is the type of evidence we have for people, it is, but only in the sense that it's far greater in scope, complexity, and extent!

Other persons do not merely exist inside our minds as purely subjective mental constructs. They exist independently of our minds and of all the conscious experiences we take to constitute evidence for their existence.

God does not merely exist inside our minds as a purely subjective mental construct. God exists independently of our minds and of all the conscious experiences we take to constitute evidence for God's existence.

You say God is purely a subjective mental construct. But what grounds do you have for saying that God is such a construct, but other persons aren't? If you think about it carefully enough, or read and understand Plantinga's classic book GOD AND OTHER MINDS, you'll see that you don't have any!

Anyway, I'm glad you're now conceding that there is evidence for God's existence.

[trotsky]

72. That's because you have no argument to follow.

I never disputed that there was evidence, only that it is evidence for the existence of an actual god. So it's pointless to try and put words in my mouth to make it look like you've managed to extract something. The "evidence" is evidence of belief, not of existence.

You are welcome to descend into the "brain in a vat" type of philosophical tarpit where you try and justify belief in your god on the same plane as belief that other people exist, however you'll find it won't help a bit. Your god exists solely in your mind, and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Stunster]

74. LOL

I never disputed that there was evidence, only that it is evidence for the existence of an actual god. So it's pointless to try and put words in my mouth to make it look like you've managed to extract something. The "evidence" is evidence of belief, not of existence.

The reason this won't do is that the existence of belief in God has never been in dispute at any stage in this discussion. Indeed, the discussion presupposes such belief.

So when you say that you were only conceding that there is evidence of belief, I really have to laugh out loud.

:D

You can hurl jibes at the argument, if you wish. But you have neither engaged with it nor refuted it, and apparently seem incapable of doing either.

[trotsky]

75. It refutes itself.

There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel!

Show me something that distinguishes your god from all other concepts that exist only within a person's mind. E.g.: emotions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Should be easy to do. Well, maybe hard for you since argumentum ad populum, the argument from design, the appeal to authority, and all your other logical fallacies don't count.

[Stunster]

77. How do you manage to tie yourself in knots

and wave your hands at the same time?

You've got nothing except dogmatic assertion and puerile jibe-hurling.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

I've provided substantive rational argument. You've provided nothing except confusion.

You know it, I know it. It's fruitless to continue.

[trotsky]

78. I'm glad you finally realized that your arguments have no merit.

I've been trying to tell you this for quite some time - you could have saved yourself a lot of effort if you had recognized this earlier!

[Stunster]

79. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Whateeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever!

You're now reduced to 'arguing' by inventing 'I won'-type subject-lines.

Farcical! Truly farcical!:eyes: :boring:

[trotsky]

80. If you're so bored,

why do you keep responding to me? You've already insulted me on several occasions, you don't think I have any sort of intellectual capacity to follow your "arguments," so why even bother with me?

[Rabrrrrrr]

82. Your example within the murder example is not evidence

You say the testimony would count as legally admissable evidence - I believe it counts only as legally admissable testimony. Evidence would be a gun with the fingerprints on it, or a blood soaked jacket, or a piece of hair, or footprints, or a piece of wood taken out of the suspect's hair that matches the wood missing from the leg of a broken chair, etc.

Evidence is physical.

Testimony is verbal. Because testimony, in a court, has the possibility of being wrong/false/in error/an intentional lie, and so is never considered evidence. Which is why we take into account the character of the witness, the expertise of the witness, the circumstances, etc. for testimony.

Physical evidence, however, is what it is. If the gun has the guy's fingerprint's on it, it has the guy's fingerprints on it. How they got there, we might not know, but the truth is, his fingerprints are on it.

If someone says "I SAW his fingerprints on it", but we don't have the gun such that others can check the veractiy of his statement, that statement is not evidence. It is only testimony.

So the whole "I feel God so that counts as evidence" canard you are offering is moot. It can only be "My testimony of experiencing God is testimony".

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Wow, Stunster, you talk a lot

But the fact remains - personal experience is not evidence. It is evidence TO YOU. But it is not objective, usable evidence. I, too, have had profound experiences that I attribute to God, but I would never offer to anyone that my experience proves that God exists.

Maybe I'm too well-trained in science, I don't know, but I don't offer my own personal experience as a matter of proof.

I think we at least need to be intellectually honest.

No matter how strongly I might be experiencing God in any given moment, a person sitting next to me will see nothing, feel nothing, hear nothing, sense nothing...and there is no way that I can make them see my experience, or see God in what I am experiencing.

Your experiences are surely very real to you. Mine are very real to me. But are they "real" in a way that I can offer them to an external observer? No.


If you can't externalize, then there's no proof.

[Stunster]

35. You wrote

I would never offer to anyone that my experience proves that God exists.

In the post you're replying to, I wrote:

The point is, this is still at least arguably consistent with the notion that there is a world-transcendent person who loves us.

Now, none of the foregoing proves that there is.

You complain that I write a lot.

Maybe you should read the content before complaining about the quantity.

[kwassa]

37. I disagree

Rabrrr:

"But the fact remains - personal experience is not evidence. It is evidence TO YOU. But it is not objective, usable evidence."

The hundreds of millions of religious believers in the world might disagree with you. Who says the evidence needs to be objective? Is there value in evidence that is non-objective?

"No matter how strongly I might be experiencing God in any given moment, a person sitting next to me will see nothing, feel nothing, hear nothing, sense nothing."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've been in communal religious settings, including church, where I and everyone around me, or at least others around me will be going through a simultaneous experience of the Divine. That experience might be subjectively different, but it is concurrent with what is going on around me.

[trotsky]

39. Logical fallacy.

The hundreds of millions of religious believers in the world might disagree with you.

Argumentum ad populum.

I've been in communal religious settings, including church, where I and everyone around me, or at least others around me will be going through a simultaneous experience of the Divine.

I've witnessed a group of people simultaneously hypnotized on stage, and then given suggestions on what they perceive. Does that make what those people were "seeing" real, simply because there was a group of them?

[qazplm]

45. I suspect many of them wouldnt actually

very few people actually claim to have "felt God".

MOST believers believe because their family does and their community does and everyone else around them does and they have been conditioned to do so.

Now there are some who do claim to have directly experienced God or the mystical, but the vast majority have not and do not. Now at the end of the day, does not mean that God does or doesnt exist, but your response, besides being unresponsive to the question of external proof, is just not right.

[kwassa]

69. How do you know?

I see three big assumptions in your response, none quantified:

1) Few people claim to have felt God
2) Most believe because their families do
3) Some claim to have mystical experiences, but most do not.

What is the source of your numbers?

[Rabrrrrrr]

81. Two things: no, there is no value in non-objective evidence

because non-objective evidence is not evidence. It's "feelings" or "a hunch" or "intuition".

Second, doesn't matter if a group of like-minded people have communal experiences. That's not what I'm talking about, and you are muddling the point my making it seem that it is.

I'm talking - obviously - about the objective "person outside the box" who is looking at you to see if they can detect any of the religious stuff you are talking about.

I've been in church all my life, and I've never seen anything that I could ever, objectively, show or hand off to someone else and say "See! It is real!"

NEVER.

Imagine this scenario - you are sitting next to a Hindu person, and you both have religious experiences. You say it's from God. He says it's from Vishnu. Who's right?

If there was a third person, who was there just to observe, could that person give the answer? No, that person could not.

That's what we mean by evidence - not subjective "I feel it to be true" but objective "anyone can run the test and get the same results".

p.s. - belief based on the sheer number of people who believe something doesn't make it any more true than if one person believed it. I don't care if 6 billion people disagree with me, if they're wrong, they're wrong. 57 million think Shithead McCokeSpoon was the best candidate. Doesn't mean they're right just cuz they outnumbered the people who voted for Kerry. 30 million people thought Hitler was right.

[kwassa]

84. Why does this dictionary keep helping me? Must be a conspiracy

Rabrrrrrr:
"because non-objective evidence is not evidence. It's "feelings" or "a hunch" or "intuition"."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
1) A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.
2) Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3) Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Now, my use of the word "evidence" certainly would work under the first definition, and it is how I am using the word.

"Imagine this scenario - you are sitting next to a Hindu person, and you both have religious experiences. You say it's from God. He says it's from Vishnu. Who's right?"

We both are.

[aneerkoinos]

89. Black and white?

"Objectivity" is relative measure, not absolute. Ask quantum physics, check uncertainty principle, ask Gödel who proved that every chain of deduction is based on axiom that is by necessity unprovable, but intuitively true.

Of course subjective/introspective anecdotal evidence is evidence and has value. In scientific discourse such evidence is just given relatively less truth-value than the relatively more objective kinds of evidence. How much value is given in each context to each evidence, is naturally a subjective value-judgement... ;)

[kwassa]

36. You miss an important point

Dookus:
"But if you're asking me to take people's personal experiences as evidence, then I'm afraid I can't comply. People have all sorts of experiences that aren't externally true.'

The point is this. I don't particularly care whether you see my personal experience is true or not. The experience is important to me, I know it to be true, I doubt that I could convince you of it, and in the end, it really doesn't matter to me whether you consider it valid or not.

My experience of God will be just as true to me regardless of the opinion of you or anyone else. I know what I experienced.

[trotsky]

40. No one is discounting that God is real to you.

My experience of God will be just as true to me regardless of the opinion of you or anyone else. I know what I experienced.

Sure you do. And we don't deny what you *experienced*, only that there is a real "god" that is causing the experience. That's all.

[Dookus]

42. And nonetheless

it is not to be taken as evidence of the existence of gods.

The human mind is very easily tricked, and people often believe things based on desire to believe, not on external reality.

Humans are quite adept at pattern-recognition. So adept, in fact, that we naturally fill in blanks in order to MAKE a pattern where there really is none. We can look at two dots and a line and "see" a face that isn't there. I think a lot of people do the same thing with gods. They fill in the blanks and call it a religious experience.

[trotsky]

47. Self-delete n/t

[madeline_con]

87. Does a wild bear...

>>> Suppose there was a rare species of polar bear, which only a few Inuit had ever encountered. Would it be true that there is no evidence that such a species existed? Seems to me there would be evidence, even though it was not directly available to everyone.<<<

Isn't his just another way of saying 'have faith'? If this bear remains elusive, only those who believe in the bear's existence will 'know' the bear exists. 08)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. religions mutually exclusive?

Not all sects of them. As a Sufi, I pray this as a part of the daily noon prayer:

"Allow us to recognize Thee in all Thy Holy Names and Forms;
As Rama, as Krishna, as Shiva, as Buddha.
Let us know Thee as Abraaham, as Solomon, as Zarathustra,
As Moses, as Jesus, as Mohammed
And in many other forms, known and unknown to the world...."
from Saum

http://www.churchofall.us/prayers.html

If you follow the link, this particular prayer is in the middle of the list.

The point of most mystical sects of any faith is that ALL paths lead to God, and that tolerance is to be practiced.

[Dookus]

9. the claims of the major religions are mutually

exclusive.

If Islam is true, then Christianity is not. If Judaism is true, then Islam is not, etc. etc.

Yes, there are some sects that try to synthesize them, but that doesn't change the fact that the basic tenets of the major religions are at odds with each other.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. basic tenet of Islam

is that the Book came through the prophets of beni Israel through Jesus and to Mohammed. There is no exclusion of people of those faiths.

[Dookus]

14. well we can play this game however long you like

Jesus is either the messiah or he is not. He is either the singular son of God or he is not.

Christianity claims he is. Judaism and Islam claim he is not.

Christians claim the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism do not.

[trotsky]

31. The analogy that comes to my mind is blood types.

ayeshahaqqiqa seems to have a religion that allows for all of them to be "correct" in a way. Her religion is like AB negative. Very few people have it, but they can accept any blood.

Fundamentalists all have type O positive. There's a lot of them, any other blood will cause a horrible reaction.

Of course to be completely accurate, you'd have to have multiple versions of O positive, since fundamentalists of different sects are all opposed to each other, too.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. I don't play games

All I'm trying to do is inform people. Many folks don't know that much about Islam, and many have never read the Qu'ran and don't really know what Muslims believe. All I'm trying to do is explain this. I'm not trying to change minds or belief systems, but merely to inform people.

[Tux]

52. Know any good English tranlations of Koran?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

57. I would recommend

The Meaning of the Glorious Qu'ran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, published by Amana Corporation, 4411 41st ST. Brentwood MD 20722. This translation is the one that most of my American Sufi brothers and sisters use.

[Dookus]

56. and I appreciate it

but you're defining Islam, Christianity and Judaism to be something other than they are typically defined to be.

Even the most liberal definitions of "christianity" would probably include the notion that salvation is achieved through Christ alone. That is just inconsistent with Judaism and Islam.

Yes, if you remove ALL dogma from ALL religions, it is possible to reconcile them. But by doing so, I think you make definitions of religions meaningless.

[kwassa]

38. You are only correct if you believe each religion to be literally true

and none of us here are literalists, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Joseph Campbell has a great saying about how all religions are metaphorically true and literally false, which is an idea I subscribe to.

I look for univeral concepts, and also how each faith individually manifests.

[Tux]

51. Instead of exclusivity

Let's make this assumption. Each religion was a theory of spirituality. All the terms, images, etc helped connect people to god or what not but they were aware that those things weren't god as god is more than that. OVer time, people forget and assume the theory is static, images are true, and it "dies" and appears as a final form that is resistant to change.

Each aren't fully mutually exclusive but they are theories or appraoches to spirituality. None is right nor wrong. It's like grand unified theory and string theory. Neither is right nor wrong and appear mutually exclusive but they try to explain the same thing.

[Tux]

50. WTF?!

Buddha is in a Sufi prayer? How did that happen? Did Buddha get lost and need a map or what?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

58. If this shocks you,

then you'll be even more shocked to learn that Pir Zia, the head of my Sufi Order, was given spiritual instruction by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. You might be interested in checking out The Universal, an online free course in meditation that has three lessons on Buddhism and Sufism.

[madeline_con]

88. finally, tolerance

Thanx. That was enlightening. :)

[aneerkoinos]

33. Mutually exclusive

Only intolerant (literalist monotheist pistic) religions like Catholicism, Wahhabism etc. that claim to possess the One and Only Truth, and claim that "visions and miracles" outside their dogmatic circle are from Satan etc., are mutually exclusive with strong tendency to carry out the exclusion of others extremely violently.

Others that say that there are just different ways and traditions for spiritual search, like Gnosticism, Bahai, Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca etc. have no trouble coexisting and respecting others, and are not in any way mutually exclusive, but complementary.

[Tux]

48. Those spiritual

Discoveries are valid. All of them. They're expressed in different terms with different perspectives but they are in a way true. I think religion is a dead spirituality. The more we try to connect with god or Tao or community or whatever gets you off, the better we'd be and be able to discover more. That is why I like Unitarian Universalism. It's R&D while other churchs sell a "finished" product.

[EVDebs]

4. Freedom of religion, even a personal religion, is enshrined in the bill of

rights. Majorities always want to suppress minorities; how well the majority treats minorities speaks volumes.

This is why the Freemasonic Founding Fathers are always simplistically labelled 'deists' to get around investigation of what exactly Freemasons believe and in what framework of theology. Besides, Freemasons kept things secret anyway and seemed to want it that way.

Try getting TGAOTU into the public's thinking ! They always used the Open Secret to get the message across, steganography at its best.

[arwalden]

5. When I Came Out As An Atheist To My Mother... She Was Shocked...

... and asked something along the lines of "what do you people *do*? where do you meet?" --- Obviously she was thinking that there must be some underground Church of Atheism... perhaps she was imagining that we ceremoniously sacrificed furry animals and small children.

It took her a few minutes to understand that my atheism is just what it is. Nothing. NO religion. NO belief. Even then she felt that I was "spurning God" and turning my back on God because I was mad at him... that being an atheist was just being rebellious. She couldn't grasp that someone just didn't believe at all, period.

"You have to believe in SOMETHING" she tried to argue (or words to that effect.) It was just too foreign a concept for her to even imagine that someone honestly had NO belief in any deity or afterlife. Up until then, atheists were mere "rejectionists" or worse... DEVIL WORSHIPERS.

[cynatnite]

6. I've only recently started discussing

I got tired of hearing that I need to go to church. I never spoke of my differing views on organized religion and God up until recently.

Agnostic is probably the best label to put on me, but I don't care to have my beliefs labeled as it is. I think God might exist and I do believe Jesus was a guy who had it together. It's the before him and after him that I have huge issues with organized religions. I'll never set foot in a church unless I absolutely have to which is funerals and weddings.

I grew up Southern Baptist so it took a while for me to deprogram and when I realized I wasn't going to get struck down by lightening(looks up to make sure) I started talking about it.

I don't know if hell or heaven exists. I don't know if JC rose from the dead and all that. I won't say he didn't...I just say I don't know. Is it so important that I do believe it?

What seemed important was his teachings because I thought there was some great stuff that came out of it. Caring for the poor, loving all, peace and all that. That attracts me more than anything else, but I haven't been able to swallow the rest of it that was shoved down my throat since I was a kid.

Needless to say, my mother and sister equate this with turning my back on God and being pissed at him. Go figure.

On edit: I want to add that it really is great to hear from others who haven't bought into the whole bit hook, line and sinker. I don't feel quite the oddball.

[Kain Warner]

83. Religion, beliefs, faith, whatever is yours

"Life will end but there is no end to time". - Call Upon Your Gods

Your faith is whatever it may be to get you through to the other side. To Shangri-La, whatever your version of Shangri-La may be. None of us really know what is after death. None of us really know if it is life.... if it is Heaven(Shangri-La.. whatever), or Hell's Pit. Or if we roam the earth in limbo for eternity. I know I won't be ready to go when my time is up here... but I'm grateful for my time given. I've had some awesome memories and some shitty ones. Look... what I'm trying to say is it all comes back to "Treat others how you would like to be treated." Because what if to cross over, just bear with me on this one. What if, to cross over, you had to endure all the horrible things you've done to others. Would you be able to handle it? I'm not trying to preach to anyone, believe me... That's the last thing I would want to sit and read if I were you. Whatever you believe that makes you not shit scared to meet the Wraith. Then believe it... but really believe in it. In the end that's what gets us all up out of bed... through work... through those hard days... is faith. Faith that things will get better. The light at the end of the tunnel isn't always a train.

Oh, and I hate hate hate TV evangelists, if that's spelled right. You know... those people on TV saying "I will give you tranquility, just send your welfare checks to me." Trust me when I say the will burn in hell's pit and when thy wagons do come I will enjoy watching them burn. Bottom Line- Take care of each other, but take care of yourself. And anyone who read this and said "He's right" I'll see you on the other side... say what's up to me. Anyone who read this and said "What a load of shit" I won't see you nor will I give a shit. ha ha. Love me or hate me, thanks for reading.

-Remember the KW

"It's funny how the toughest criminals and thugs or whatever. When they're on their death bed, you know, like the day before they fry all of a sudden they want to get religious. I heard that 9 out of 10 inmates on death row are all ultra-religious. That's cause they know they're about to die and they're about to meet whatever's after death. It's funny nobody wants to turn to god until it's too late... until it's time for you to f**kin die."
-Call Upon Your Gods by Dark Lotus

[GOPBasher]

90. Nice post!

Interesting perspective. :thumbsup:

And welcome to DU! :hi: