Logical thinkers and religion

[Venom]

Does this help clarify things?

Yes it does. Thanks. Would I be right in saying this relates back to kant's "critique of pure reason" in contrast to say someone like Hume? It's been a while since I read in this area, but it's jogging my memory about the Hume-Kant debate... I do remember siding with Kant, although neitzche sort of rains on the parade.

 

[Mole]

Carl Jung said the following in the 1930's at a college seminar:
"The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I KNOW God exists!"

We don't know what 95% of the universe consists of yet Carl Jung KNOWS (in capitals) that God exists.

Carl Jung was nothing more than an immoral astrologer who followed the Fuhrer and never apologised.

And those who follow Carl Jung are in the tradition of Romanticism, Patriarchy and Fascism.

 

[A window to the soul]

Honestly, if you don't mean what I've said, I have no idea what you mean by saying that you are both certain and open-minded. I don't mind if you believe in whatever deities make you happy so long as you don't hurt anyone with that belief. I really just want to know how you can be 100% certain AND allow the possibility that new information can change your mind. There is no denotation, connotation, or context that will make that little piece of what you said make any sense. Please say words that are not "because I do".

Also, I'm pretty sure Evan wasn't talking about the Feeling function, but the general term.

Gah, you clingy rambly thing. What do you want to hear? I already answered the question.

 

[Xyk]

Gah, you clingy rambly thing. What do you want to hear? I already answered the question.

NO YOU DIDN'T! My question was "How can you be both absolutely certain of something AND accept that new information could change your mind?". You have stated that you do that but have not said how, which is really all I want. I'll leave you alone after you answer that simple question.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

NO YOU DIDN'T! My question was "How can you be both absolutely certain of something AND accept that new information could change your mind?". You have stated that you do that but have not said how, which is really all I want. I'll leave you alone after you answer that simple question.

Perhaps she's going on the assumption that new information won't come to light, so she may be tentatively "absolutely" certain of whatever you guys are talking about.

 

[Ginkgo]

We don't know what 95% of the universe consists of yet Carl Jung KNOWS (in capitals) that God exists.

Carl Jung was nothing more than an immoral astrologer who followed the Fuhrer and never apologised.

And those who follow Carl Jung are in the tradition of Romanticism, Patriarchy and Fascism.

Carl Jung's "God" is no more than a metaphor for the totality of oneself; it doesn't take a Cartesian to figure out, then, how he reached his conclusion that he "knows" God exists. By the time he got into that theory, he was already disillusioned with his religious background, but not so much that residual elements didn't stick with him and influence his ideas/writing. There may be people out there who disagree with my interpretation, but regardless, his God shouldn't be used interchangeably with Judeo-Christian ideas. Surely, it's happened, though. Psychoanalysis in general has had an impact on Christian thought.

EDIT: The reason why he said what he did out of context (and I'm speculating) is because by that point he was already used to affiliating with religious/ spiritual individuals and he had no problem encouraging the thought of God, regardless of who heard it. His attitude toward a creator was different, I think, then anyone who might have been listening. So yes, clarity was forfeit in that interview for a moment of... what I would call... something half-assed and poor.

Jung's ideas don't correspond with what Christians consider holiness - they focus on wholeness (individuality). Another key difference is that while Jung encourages and embraces ones darkness, Christianity is repulsed by it because by Christianity holiness>wholeness. Jung's god also sets this darkness in motion; so on one hand, it's similar to many Christian thoughts in that oneself must take ownership of ones undesirables, but on the other hand, God isn't portrayed as integrating evil within himself in many Christian thoughts. I guess if your thoughts on God are more flexible then there wouldn't be much of a conflict. [MENTION=8543]Nerd Girl[/MENTION]

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Carl Jung said the following in the 1930's at a college seminar:
"The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I KNOW God exists!"

Logical Fallacy: argumentum ad verecundium

 

[Xyk]

Perhaps she's going on the assumption that new information won't come to light, so she may be tentatively "absolutely" certain of whatever you guys are talking about.

But...but...tentatively absolute is an oxymoron...

And whether or not new information actually comes is totally irrelevant to actual open-mindedness.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

But...but...tentatively absolute is an oxymoron...

And whether or not new information actually comes is totally irrelevant to actual open-mindedness.

Sure, it's an oxymoron...unless she was using "absolute" as hyperbole. As in: "I absolutely(not really, but as far as I can tell with the available data) *more words here*".

 

[Xyk]

Sure, it's an oxymoron...unless she was using "absolute" as hyperbole. As in: "I absolutely(not really, but as far as I can tell with the available data) *more words here*".

No, this is a thread about religion. In religion, things like the existence of god are absolute. I always hope religious faith is hyperbolic, but it never has been in my experience. Plus, she said it enough times in several different ways.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

No, this is a thread about religion. In religion, things like the existence of god are absolute. I always hope religious faith is hyperbolic, but it never has been in my experience. Plus, she said it enough times in several different ways.

lol. logical fallacies on the prowl 2nite.

 

[Xyk]

lol. logical fallacies on the prowl 2nite.

What did I say? That because things have always been one way in the past, they must continue to be the same way? I could see that being a fallacy. My bad. But Christianity, and Nerd Girl herself both assert that absolute belief is, in fact, absolute.

 

[Beorn]

What did I say? That because things have always been one way in the past, they must continue to be the same way? I could see that being a fallacy. My bad. But Christianity, and Nerd Girl herself both assert that absolute belief is, in fact, absolute.

We have faith in the absoluteness of the Christian God so we treat it as absolute, but only God knows anything absolutely.

This is no different from anyone else who uses the term "absolute" in regards to their own knowledge. It just means they treat it as absolute on faith... Unless that person happens to be God.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

What did I say? That because things have always been one way in the past, they must continue to be the same way? I could see that being a fallacy. My bad. But Christianity, and Nerd Girl herself both assert that absolute belief is, in fact, absolute.

Christianity cannot assert anything because it is not human, it's not even a cyborg-commune-singularity.

Is it possible that one could be convinced that a belief in something, whether god or green grass, is absolute? Even to the point that no new information can change that belief? What about new theories in the past 150 years that claim that all living things have common ancestors? How do absolutist theists deal with these theories?

 

[Beorn]

Additionally, to not treat something we believe to be absolute as if it were absolute would not be logical.


Edit: too many "nots" and I double negated myself.

 

[Xyk]

We have faith in the absoluteness of the Christian God so we treat it as absolute, but only God knows anything absolutely.

This is no different from anyone else who uses the term "absolute" in regards to their own knowledge. It just means they treat it as absolute on faith... Unless that person happens to be God.

Yeah. If I read your post correctly, my primary and only point still stands. She treats (and states) her faith as absolute and then states open-mindedness on the same topic. Those are two mutually exclusive statements. I'm not trying to get rid of anyone's faith right now. That's a different time. This is just a contradiction, and I CANNOT STAND contradictions so blatant in a reasonable discussion.

Christianity cannot assert anything because it is not human, it's not even a cyborg-commune-singularity.

Is it possible that one could be convinced that a belief in something, whether god or green grass, is absolute? Even to the point that no new information can change that belief? What about new theories in the past 150 years that claim that all living things have common ancestors? How do absolutist theists deal with these theories?

I used "Christianity" to mean "the authors of the Bible". I'm sorry.

I think that it's probably possible to believe something absolutely. I don't think I could do it, but I think it's possible for some people. When people claim to do this with legitimate fervor, I tend to take them at their word.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Additionally, to not treat something we believe to be absolute as if it were absolute would not be logical.


Edit: too many "nots" and I double negated myself.

I don't think theists are particularly concerned with being logical, at least when it comes to god.

 

[Beorn]

Yeah. If I read your post correctly, my primary and only point still stands. She treats (and states) her faith as absolute and then states open-mindedness on the same topic. Those are two mutually exclusive statements. I'm not trying to get rid of anyone's faith right now. That's a different time. This is just a contradiction, and I CANNOT STAND contradictions so blatant in a reasonable discussion.

My understanding is similar to Leger's. I believe she is simply assenting to the fact that she is a limited being with limited knowledge. She simply cannot foresee any new info that would change her position.

I don't see the big deal since most people would make the same sort of seemingly contradictory statement if you pushed them hard on any fundamental belief. This just goes to show that all knowledge is ultimately rooted in faith.

 

[Beorn]

I don't think theists are particularly concerned with being logical, at least when it comes to god.

Yeah, I believe that may be true in your neck of the woods, but it's important to most of the Christians I know.

 

[Ginkgo]

How do absolutist theists deal with these theories?

By either adopting them into the fold of what is predominantly a theist worldview or rejecting them altogether. A personal God doesn't exclude the possibility of macroevolution, but a ~6,000 year old Universe does. Commonly, evolutionary theory and even cosmology is subservient to theology for those who accept it.

I guess there are also those theists who could be confused and conflicted.