You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. — Gregory

I've noticed that for some folk the desire to know the truth burns so hot that, perhaps in order to quench the burning, they grasp firmly to falsehood.

If reason is controlled by will, even yet truth controls both.

If reason is controlled by will, even yet truth controls both — Banno

Whether truth is subjective, or instead, objective has been answered differetly throughout history. If it lives only in minds then truth is subjective. But material objects follow the "law of Nature" as essentially logic. Logic can't be taken out of any practice performed by a human. (But in mystcism, logic will have to be tamprred with in order to express insights of the mystical) And when thoughts agree with the law inside each one, then truth becomes objective

Truth is neither subjective nor objective, but just how things are. As such it doesn't give a fuck about what you or I believe, faithfully or otherwise.

Truth is neither subjective nor objective, but just how things are. — Banno

That's what objective means. I don't think you have a proper appreciation of what philosophy is about

As such it doesn't give a fuck about what you or I believe, faithfully or otherwise — Banno

Faith can work miracles. A good mind believes in miracles

A good mind believes in miracles — Gregory

A better mind explains them.


(How long are we playing this game for?)

Can they explain the origin of the universe? Science has a real problem with origin when the practical side of a scientist turns speculative.

'A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realize the unimportence of time is the gate to wisdom.. Whoever wishes to see the world truly, to rise in thought above the tyranny of practical desires, must learn to overcome the difference of attitude towards past and future and to survey the whole stream of time in one comprehensive vision."

Why save people by science from death if they can't go out and philosophy afterwards?

Thanks for the conversation

Can they explain the origin of the universe? — Gregory

Who is "they"? Is there someone you think can explain the origin of the universe? You?

It seems odd for you to quote Russell, of all people, while apparently maintaining the inadequacies of science.

Thanks for the conversation — Gregory

I hope you found it helpful.

The consequence of my belief is meaning and purpose, I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust.

The issue for me isn't whether you choose faith or science, so long as you know it's a choice. — Hanover

Thank you. The notion of choice is interesting here. I tend to think that mostly we can't help the beliefs we are drawn to, much like sexual attraction.

In this case the consequence of their belief was the death of a child and 14 folk being convicted of manslaughter. — Banno

Yes, I’ve watched a few people die because they refused treatment, believing that their faith in God would heal them. One of these people, Malcolm, was a homeless man who had gangrene in his knee. He refused treatment even after his bones snapped and he was admitted to the hospital unable to walk. 'I pray and have faith,' he would tell me. He died.

You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. Or maybe you do. — Gregory

I know this isn’t directed at me, but what exactly is a burning desire to know the truth? About what, specifically? The meaning of life? The nature of reality? All of the above? Truth has never been a primary preoccupation of mine. I tend to think of it as consisting of provisional facts - statements that work within our current practices and inquiries but remain open to revision as our understanding and circumstances change. I don’t believe we can access some "special" reality beyond the one we experience, no matter what the anecdotes, religions, or some philosophers conclude.

A desire for facts and a desire for truth are not necessarily the same thing. There is something spiritual, which nothing other than that reality is mystical.

Spiritual, philosophical, mystical.. these are the same thing seen from different angles. Doesn't "phenomena" imply that it is mystical, and doesn't mystical imply miracles (miracles from the spiritual)?

There is something spiritual — Gregory

Certainly some people believe this. As long as they play nice with others, it doesn't matter to me.

Doesn't "phenomena" imply that it is mystical, and doesn't mystical imply miracles (miracles from the spiritual)? — Gregory

I doubt it. Is this important?

Spiritual, philosophical, mystical... — Gregory

i.e. self-availing, self-unfolding, self-emptying :zip:

Members of her small and tightly-knit religious group were present when the diabetic eight-year-old died, singing and praying to God to heal her" while withholding her insulin. In this case the consequence of their belief was the death of a child and 14 folk being convicted of manslaughter. — Banno

All of which could have been avoided had their belief been evaluated for its consequences.

I'm not sure how the above occurs under my description of faith.

But yes, looking for the cure for diabetes through prayer won't work, nor will looking for the meaning of life in the laboratory work.

I'm arguing a pragmatism. You're not going to find where it's not pragmatic.

Honestly, a planed existence awaiting an eternal reward sounds rather meaningless to me. The story of the existence would be meaningful I’m sure. — praxis

Then don't choose to belive in eternal rewards. I've not dictated a theology.

good mind believes in miracles
— Gregory

A better mind explains them. — Banno

It's not as if reason evades the faithful more then it does the faithless. I can provide the same scientific explanations you do. It's not like I suffer a brain fog clear minded scientists don't.

If you experience a fantastical event and use it to provide meaning to your life or to inspire you to be a better person, how is your mind lesser than the one who explains the event away as a statistical anomaly? Is the fidelity to science the measure of the better mind?

Yes, I’ve watched a few people die because they refused treatment, believing that their faith in God would heal them. One of these people, Malcolm, was a homeless man who had gangrene in his knee. He refused treatment even after his bones snapped and he was admitted to the hospital unable to walk. 'I pray and have faith,' he would tell me. He died. — Tom Storm

So have I, including some people quite close to me. I was a believer at first. Then I started asking questions that were deemed to be "unhelpful". It took a few years, but that was that, in the end. Now look at me!
Two (possibly unhelpful) comments. First, I still have to respect the choice they made. The people close to me who made that choice caused me pain and anger at the time, but still, they have the right to choose. Does a child of 8 have the same right, I wonder? But the people who watched and sang were not merely bystanders in the grip of apathy.
Second, it seems to me that the soldier or fireman who chooses to risk death to save someone must have some faith on a similar level. A faith that the risk is worth it, perhaps. At some level, if there is something that we live for and that we will face death for, it may not be the same as religious faith, but it occupies the same place in our lives. Even to have no faith in anything (if that's possible) is to have a faith of a kind. Is this what the existentialists meant by commitment.
Rational? Pre-rational? Certainly faith is not a choice like choosing the right car or which item on the menu one fancies this evening. Perhaps it's not a choice at all, but the ground of all choices - the values within which reason can sift the options.

If you experience a fantastical event and use it to provide meaning to your life or to inspire you to be a better person, how is your mind lesser than the one who explains the event away as a statistical anomaly? Is the fidelity to science the measure of the better mind? — Hanover

"Explaining away" is not necessarily what science does, but what science is sometimes used to do. The wonder of a rainbow is not lessened, but increased by knowing the scientific accound of it.

Explaining away" is not necessarily what science does, but what science is sometimes used to do. The wonder of a rainbow is not lessened, but increased by knowing the scientific accound of it. — Ludwig V

I get that awe is an emotion, God or no God. I also don't proselytize. If you've found meaning in science, then you don't need to be told you're missing out.

The rainbow has special theological significance, so maybe it's why it was chosen. Genesis 9:12-15.

"Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."

That us, the nectar of life will never cause death.

What I mean is that the things that truly nurture, sustain, and bring joy or meaning to life (the "nectar of life") are inherently life-affirming and will not lead to harm or destruction. It's a belief that true sources of vitality, whether they be love, wisdom, or purpose, cannot lead to negativity or death in a spiritual or metaphorical sense. Instead, they nourish the soul, promote growth, and enrich our existence.

And you see light from the sun scattered by water droplets through a process called refraction. So did I, but I also try to see burning bushes unconsumed everywhere I look.

And no, there was no flood, and God did not speak. I'm just trying to stop the responders who will insist upon pointing out the obvious literal absurdities before they begin.

Along these lines, this popped up in my news feed. It's directly on point actually. Not coincidentally, as there is no such thing:

https://www.psychofuturia.com/best-philosophy-for-life/

Then don't choose to belive in eternal rewards. I've not dictated a theology. — Hanover

I didn’t suggest that you were dictating a theology. I simply expressed my view. To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. Meaning is in the stories, whether religious or secular.

To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. — praxis

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust).

And no, there was no flood, and God did not speak. I'm just trying to stop the responders who will insist upon pointing out the obvious literal absurdities before they begin. — Hanover

The land of Palestine doesn't really flood, but Mesopotamia does flood which is why I believe the account is originally Mesopotamian. It's also mentioned in Epic of Gilgamesh which was written many centuries before the Bible (~2100 BC) where the flood plays a major role and Gilgamesh actually goes to visit the flood's only survivor who was granted immortality by the Gods (a Mesopotamian Noah). I believe that there is strong evidence for a vast regional flood around 27 or 2800 BC.

Obviously when an ancient writer describes the entire world being flooded he can't possibly know or mean the entire globe.

Regarding God speaking, I don't know what that would mean. How could anyone ever confirm what exactly God's voice is?

EDIT: And Abraham is originally from Ur in Mesopotamia according to the Bible.

Like I said, it could be entirely fiction, which doesn't make it lack truth. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is nonsense because none of that stuff happened.

And Abraham is originally from Ur in Mesopotamia according to the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, lech lecha, another parable.

I highly recommend Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis if you're interested in exploring a little further. It left me convinced that many of these Genesis stories are Mesopotamian in origin brought down to Israel and repurposed.

highly recommend Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis if you're interested in exploring a little further. It left me convinced that many of these Genesis stories are Mesopotamian in origin brought down to Israel and repurposed. — BitconnectCarlos

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

The historical analysis, the authorship, the evolution is all super interesting, as is how it became to be looked upon as a for source dictating norms.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter.

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust). — Hanover

I'm suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter. — Hanover

I suppose, but I don't know whether it needs to be. I always like to know how old the prayers or psalms I'm reading are and it'll bug me if I don't know. The historical context gives it more meaning to me.

It's not as if reason evades the faithful more then it does the faithless. — Hanover

Well, is that so? I think it worth considering the logic of faithful propositions. Can we think of the adults in Elizabeth Rose Struhs' life as putting their faith to the test? Are they checking to see if their faith is justified? Well, no. It is open to them to conclude, not that god was not willing to save Elizabeth Rose Struhs, but that one or more amongst them did not have sufficient faith to satisfy god's needs; that their faith was insufficient; or that god is further testing their faith in him by court trial and prison sentence, as he did for Job.

There are no circumstances where their faith must be "rationally" rejected.

It's this incapacity to reconsider that marks an act of faith.

So faith might be seen as subjecting a belief to its consequences, except that nothing can be learned here, in that the belief cannot be shown to be in error.

And this is the culpability of faith, when it encourages folk to cruelty.


it’s how we think and approach knowledge that truly shapes our journey.

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, — Hanover

You are treating purpose as something you find. It isn't. Rather, it is what you do.

Second, it seems to me that the soldier or fireman who chooses to risk death to save someone must have some faith on a similar level. A faith that the risk is worth it, perhaps. At some level, if there is something that we live for and that we will face death for, it may not be the same as religious faith, but it occupies the same place in our lives. Even to have no faith in anything (if that's possible) is to have a faith of a kind. Is this what the existentialists meant by commitment. — Ludwig V

People, are forever trying to fit faith into secular choices so I am bound to disagree. It's an equivocation. But I certainly understand your point. To me taking an informed risk is not faith. Mostly it's taking a punt, that the skills, training, equipment, knowledge and physical strength you have as a fireman or solider will make the activity a success, knowing full well that you could die. I don't see this functioning as faith, but I can see how poetically it can be made to fit. For me using the word "faith" outside of a Christian or Islamic religious contexts is problematic.

First, I still have to respect the choice they made. The people close to me who made that choice caused me pain and anger at the time, but still, they have the right to choose. — Ludwig V

My own personal stance is that I don't respect people's choices if I consider the choice to be poorly founded and certain to fail.

And this is the culpability of faith, when it encourages folk to cruelty. — Banno

Which is pretty much my problem with faith. There is no act so barbaric that it can't be justified by an appeal to faith. As a way of deciding action, it is very poor and entirely unaccountable.