Faith of a Rationalist

[SolitaryWalker]

People make a plethora of assumptions unknowingly. Intuition helps us uncover these assumptions. Once the assumptions are clearly stated it allows us to reason more astutely.

1) Nothing wrong with turning water into wine if it could be explained completely naturalistically.

3)Contradictions exist and need to be resolved. Logical thinking (T) is more important than pure abstract perception (N) in coming up with ideas because it gives structure to our intuitions. It is logical thinking that unconvers those unconscious assumptions, not imagination because the former is what shows to us the objective ways of looking at the world rather than what our fancies command.

People make a plethora of assumptions unknowingly. Intuition helps us uncover these assumptions. Once the assumptions are clearly stated it allows us to reason more astutely.

All in all, you seem to have it backwards here. Assumptions are clearly stated because of logical thinking, as this faculty is what brings clarity and structure to our thoughts. Intuition or imaginaiton is a mere hunch that we do not have a clear view of.

For this reason, the INTPs, not ENTPs were the most prominent discoverers of complex ideas. Aristotle, Boole, and Galileo. There could be no doubt however, that a dominant Intuitive type has preceeded all 3 of these men who has had hunches about their ideas. They carefully analyzed those hunches and provided structure for them. Such a clear view of the situation allowed them to explore the ideas initially propounded by N doms in greater depth and more extensively.

In summary, there can be no doubt that Intuition is necessary to start an exploration of new ideas, but to give them structure and thus shape them into the form of 'ideas' , Thinking is necessary.

In philosophy, mathematics and the sciences. INTPs will outnumber the ENTPs in discovery of new ideas. In less complicated matters where less structure is required, ENTPs will have the upper hand. This is why the ENTP is known as the innovator. Why not the INTJ, the INFJ, or the ENFP? Simply because even in those matters, though less complicated, formidabble logical thinking capabilities are necessary.

 

[Totenkindly]

1) Miracle I would define as a phenomena that cannot be repeated by anyone under similar circumstances. When I said before that miracles were illogical I meant that many people would see them this way according to this definition. In reality they would not negate our ability to reason.

I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.

It reminds me of the comment often used about the bumblebee, how it "breaks the laws of nature" in being able to fly.

No, it doesn't: It's flying. If it broke the rules of nature, it wouldn't fly. Thus we know that we simply don't understand the rules yet.

... or, it's a miracle. Which?

Human beings of imperfect intellect cannot discern adequately between miracles and natural law. They just notice when something breaks a known and accepted pattern.

Reason alone is not able to bridge the gap.

I have found it more useful, if I was going to make a faith commitment, to base it on character and ethics rather than the apparently miraculous.

Rather than trying to validate it by some miracle I could not properly evaluate (since I cannot ever do so without ambiguity being involved), was the belief I was embracing worth my making that level of commitment?

 

[Totenkindly]

The worrying thing that occurs to me is that it could well have been explained but the writers of the bible didn't understand and so to stop others questioning edited it a little and came up with "he said do this and don't ask questions.. it's rude".

Again... no way to "prove" anything. It's just a working theory, though not unreasonable.

It'd be interesting to disassemble the bible with reference to personality typing and other psychology fields to see where there maybe discrepancies due to it being a book written by mortals. I think that too much faith is placed in that book. It is, after all, a story book whether based on fact or not.

That's sort of what I've done privately and it has colored how I interpret things.

Did you ever notice that the gospels each could be assigned to a particular Kiersey archetype?

SJ = Matthew (tax collector by nature; Jesus is king/authoritative, follow him)

SP = Mark (young, active; focus is on the daily events and miracles, what Jesus DID)

NT = Luke (physician; tries to really root Jesus in context; thorough, tries to mesh everything together like a big picture)

NF = John (disciple/mystic; metaphorical; entire book describes the symbols representing Jesus; very metaphysical/abstract in nature, focuses on NF-style-depth concepts of love)

But I think personalities are so obvious in any of the people described in the Bible, and it colored how they should be read. (Thus, you read an ESFP like Samson one way, and an INFJ like David a different way. And the things they say and do must be taken in that context, as their "facet" of the big picture of JHVH.)

 

[Xander]

Again... no way to "prove" anything. It's just a working theory, though not unreasonable.

Proof? Don't get me started on that again... you know I don't believe in that religion.

That's sort of what I've done privately and it has colored how I interpret things.

Did you ever notice that the gospels each could be assigned to a particular Kiersey archetype?

SJ = Matthew (tax collector by nature; Jesus is king/authoritative, follow him)

SP = Mark (young, active; focus is on the daily events and miracles, what Jesus DID)

NT = Luke (physician; tries to really root Jesus in context; thorough, tries to mesh everything together like a big picture)

NF = John (disciple/mystic; metaphorical; entire book describes the symbols representing Jesus; very metaphysical/abstract in nature, focuses on NF-style-depth concepts of love)

But I think personalities are so obvious in any of the people described in the Bible, and it colored how they should be read. (Thus, you read an ESFP like Samson one way, and an INFJ like David a different way. And the things they say and do must be taken in that context, as their "facet" of the big picture of JHVH.)

I was thinking more in terms of how you can psychologically note the avoidance of details, the repetition of messages, how most things within it's pages fall into a pattern which reinforces messages where as we see day after day that you have to hold to ideals despite contradictions to it.

I always wondered if it could be gotten rid of as an unreliable and outdated text which only serves to disuade others from joining in and inhibits the "flock" from being all they can be or if there is no religion without it....

 

[Totenkindly]

I was thinking more in terms of how you can psychologically note the avoidance of details, the repetition of messages, how most things within it's pages fall into a pattern which reinforces messages where as we see day after day that you have to hold to ideals despite contradictions to it.

Well, I meant that as well.

I can discern how their personality seems to be suggested not by just what they said but how they chose not to say it... and that colors my interpretation as I "work backwards" to what the original data source(s) and event(s) in question might have been.

I always wondered if it could be gotten rid of as an unreliable and outdated text which only serves to disuade others from joining in and inhibits the "flock" from being all they can be or if there is no religion without it....

I see written word as stagnant. It's useful, as Victor describes elsewhere, but it kills and strangles life by removing people from the direct object of the text. So the text is a ladder for you to climb to a higher plane of spirituality, but you cannot cling to it as the actual object of your devotion; it's only a fascimile of the living vibrant life / interaction with others.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.

It reminds me of the comment often used about the bumblebee, how it "breaks the laws of nature" in being able to fly.

No, it doesn't: It's flying. If it broke the rules of nature, it wouldn't fly. Thus we know that we simply don't understand the rules yet.

... or, it's a miracle. Which? .?

All laws of nature are completely objective. Accessible to all. Those who know how the miracles work could explain the process. Does not mean that all will understand them, not because some people are incapable of understanding. But simply because they currently lack the skills to comprehend such complexities, yet they certainly would be able to acquire them under certain conditions.

Much like a mathematician could explain a complex theory in completely objective terms, all could understand it if they learned to do math on that high of a level. All have the potential to do so, some will simply require more work than others.

Bottom line is, there is no such thing as a law of nature accessible to only a few as a law of nature is by definition objective.

Human beings of imperfect intellect cannot discern adequately between miracles and natural law. They just notice when something breaks a known and accepted pattern.?

Logic is the study of objective patterns of reasoning. There simply will never be a time when we know for something to be true, yet cannot make a good argument for it. Such an attitude is incompatible with the sciences or philosophy.

Bridging the gap with 'faith' means simply believing in something because we want to believe in it, not because there is any good reason to do so.

This is the essence of the very essence of Fideism. Mere self-deception.

There have been philosophers who have achieved similar results as the fideists, namely attunement with ideas that gave a 'spiritual' meaning to their lives with no tomfoolery. Spinoza is the case in point.

Human intellect is not imperfect. As Einstein said 'God does not play dice'. All things of this world could be known, as the very existence of laws of reasoning shows, even the most superfical inquiry into modern logic evinces that they could be used to analyze an infinite amount of arguments. We do not know some things because we have not had the experiences to establish the premises for the foundation of the necessary arguments. Yet they are possible to establish.

This is an interesting note: Kant pointed out that the world as we experience it is not the real world, but the unconscious perception of the infinite, real (noumenal) world. One may ask, is this epistemic relativism? It is not, because all humans have a similar structure of cognitive faculties. Therefore we all see the same world. Dogs and cats will see a slightly different world. Therefore, with respect to the world as we know it, we all see the same thing, and therefore all things are bound by the same laws of nature.

Hence, if a prophet is talking about this world, he has no way out of explaining his views in terms of objective reasoning.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.

It doesn't matter. The idea is to prove He's the Son of God. Say he instantly turns water into wine. Either he does this with supernatural power or he does it because he knows the laws of nature far beyond any other human. Either way the proof is sufficient. No one could work something seemingly miraculous like this without some type of superhuman intervention. The miracle would prove that he is more than man.

I have found it more useful, if I was going to make a faith commitment, to base it on character and ethics rather than the apparently miraculous.

Rather than trying to validate it by some miracle I could not properly evaluate (since I cannot ever do so without ambiguity being involved), was the belief I was embracing worth my making that level of commitment?

If you are basing the decision on character then how do you know that he's not really just a nice guy. How could you say that Mr. Rogers isn't the Son of God, or Morther Theresa, or...? (name the most virtuous person you can think of.)

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

All in all, you seem to have it backwards here. Assumptions are clearly stated because of logical thinking, as this faculty is what brings clarity and structure to our thoughts. Intuition or imaginaiton is a mere hunch that we do not have a clear view of.

Meh, we are basically saying the same thing. Intuition is the source of raw insight. Reason allows us to develop these insights clearly and carefully.

 

[Totenkindly]

It doesn't matter. The idea is to prove He's the Son of God. Say he instantly turns water into wine. Either he does this with supernatural power or he does it because he knows the laws of nature far beyond any other human. Either way the proof is sufficient. No one could work something seemingly miraculous like this without some type of superhuman intervention. The miracle would prove that he is more than man.

?

No, it doesn't. Not at all

Think through that again.

• You haven't verified that other people have not been capable of this.
• You haven't verified whether or not he's doing something that others might be able to discern how to accomplish.
• You haven't verified that, even if he's more than human, he's actually still "the son of God."

You took a VERY large leap there -- from "perceived miracle" to "Son of God."

if you are basing the decision on character then how do you know that he's not really just a nice guy. How could you say that Mr. Rogers isn't the Son of God, or Morther Theresa, or...? (name the most virtuous person you can think of.)

I would think that moral character, not miracles, is a better indication of someone attuned with "God" , if one believes God exists.

Put another way, give me a virtuous person over Benny Hinn and that ilk any day of the week.



...I'll respond to your stuff later, BW, because I need more time to think through it.

 

[Venom]

I've tried to synthesize certain arguments on discovering truth, from a number of people, and build upon it (or at the very least apply it). It relates very much to this thread, but i ultimately posted in another thread:

Post Here

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

?

No, it doesn't. Not at all

Think through that again.

• You haven't verified that other people have not been capable of this.
• You haven't verified whether or not he's doing something that others might be able to discern how to accomplish.
• You haven't verified that, even if he's more than human, he's actually still "the son of God."

You took a VERY large leap there -- from "perceived miracle" to "Son of God."

Ah I should have clarified. Your first two points are meant to be part of the premise. I'm thinking more from the perspective of being a fly on the wall in the Gospel story, rather than being in a crowd at a Benny Hinn service. In the former the water to wine miracle for example was done spontaneously at someone else's house and a lot of people there are acquainted with him and his family. In the latter case the whole service is specially prepared ahead of time before a crowd of strangers. The potential for trickery is much greater in the second case (not to mention the huge disparity in technology between the two eras).

Your third point is valid. Just because someone is powerful, it doesn't mean they are benevolent. (I was actually trying to goad you into developing this point more, but you didn't take the bait.)


Still I think a miracle would be the most obvious proof most people would accept if someone else claimed they were the Son of God. (Rather than say reason or character.) A character test requires that you know the person fairly well, and I can't fathom how reason by itself would be acceptable at all.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Liquid Laser,

Correct me if this is not an accurate interpretation of your view.

1)In order for it to be shown that Jesus is the Son of God, we must know he is more than man. 2)In order for it to be shown he is more than man, he must pull off a task that is not possible for man to pull off, as for instance, turning water into whine.

If for example it is shown that Jesus did turn water into whine and he is much more gifted than a man, therefore Son of God.


How does the virtue of this one man present an argument in favor of the truth of Christian theology?

 

[entropie]

Liquid Laser,

Correct me if this is not an accurate interpretation of your view.

1)In order for it to be shown that Jesus is the Son of God, we must know he is more than man. 2)In order for it to be shown he is more than man, he must pull off a task that is not possible for man to pull off, as for instance, turning water into whine.

If for example it is shown that Jesus did turn water into whine and he is much more gifted than a man. Though what exactly does it mean to be the Son of God? How gifted does he need to be to merit this accolade.

Moreover, how does the virtue of this one man present an argument in favor of the truth of Christian theology?

You still have to answer my friend's request ! I have read two of your function analysis threads !

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Liquid Laser,

Correct me if this is not an accurate interpretation of your view.

1)In order for it to be shown that Jesus is the Son of God, we must know he is more than man. 2)In order for it to be shown he is more than man, he must pull off a task that is not possible for man to pull off, as for instance, turning water into whine.

If for example it is shown that Jesus did turn water into whine and he is much more gifted than a man, therefore Son of God.


How does the virtue of this one man present an argument in favor of the truth of Christian theology?

My original point was really a criticism of the idea that reason alone could prove someone is the Son of God. How does one prove such a thing simply by making an argument? I was asserting that most people would simply accept a convincing miracle as proof.

Overall my view does include Jennifer's point though. To be sure he is the Son of God he must
a) have power beyond human capability
b) have divine character in a moral/ethical sense

 

[SolitaryWalker]

a) have power beyond human capability
b) have divine character in a moral/ethical sense

Is the quoted above the definition of Son of God? If not, what is such a definition.

 

[Totenkindly]

Your third point is valid. Just because someone is powerful, it doesn't mean they are benevolent.

That was not actually my point.
My point was what I actually expressed.
Benevolence had nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure how you are processing my ideas; you seem to change them into something else and then address those ideas.

Your first two points are meant to be part of the premise. I'm thinking more from the perspective of being a fly on the wall in the Gospel story, rather than being in a crowd at a Benny Hinn service. In the former the water to wine miracle for example was done spontaneously at someone else's house and a lot of people there are acquainted with him and his family. In the latter case the whole service is specially prepared ahead of time before a crowd of strangers. The potential for trickery is much greater in the second case (not to mention the huge disparity in technology between the two eras).

I hope I didn't confuse things by mentioning Benny Hinn.

I am approaching your comments as a logical argument.
I am pointing out the flaws in the logic you expressed.
You draw conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the premises.
That's my point.

If you're not trying to logically make an argument, then maybe that's why we're not communicating? I don't know.... But in any case, that's what I'm doing: Condensing your comments to the logical structure, then testing and flagging the weak spots.

(I was actually trying to goad you into developing this point more, but you didn't take the bait.)

ha. And so I am either too crafty or too dense to fall into your trap!

Still I think a miracle would be the most obvious proof most people would accept if someone else claimed they were the Son of God. (Rather than say reason or character.) A character test requires that you know the person fairly well, and I can't fathom how reason by itself would be acceptable at all.

But do you realize that the people who loved Jesus might not have even met him before... but they loved him because of his character? Some also did come to him for miracles, but what attracted them was his character... and they didn't even really "know" him. How many times did people comment on Jesus' character in the scriptures?

Meanwhile, the priests hated him because of the miracles and because of their theology, which Jesus was violating. (Reason and miracle.) They were also too blind to see his character. They couldn't experience goodness in relationship, they just had a doctrinal checklist and Jesus didn't fit.

Sorry, I am tired and am losing my point here. I think it's character, not theology (directly), that attracts people to a spiritual path long-term and has the power to make changes in people's lives. A claim to be the son of God by an immoral person would hold no power. And even a crook or evil man can do miracles or pretend to (theoretically).

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Is the quoted above the definition of Son of God? If not, what is such a definition.

To be rigorous a complete definition must explicitly include these three points.
He must
a) have power beyond human capability
b) have divine character in a moral/ethical sense
c) claim to be the Son of God

This is in a practical sense. Theoretically if you could be absolutely certain of b), then you wouldn't need a). I.e. if you know the person will never attempt to deceive you and is in their right mind, then c) must make him the Son of God. In reality establishing absolute certainty in b) is difficult, so we rely on a) as well.

If you're not trying to logically make an argument, then maybe that's why we're not communicating? I don't know.... But in any case, that's what I'm doing: Condensing your comments to the logical structure, then testing and flagging the weak spots.

I think we've been talking past each other, so let me clarify. I wasn't initially trying to build a logical argument, only offering a criticism. I still don't see how logic alone can prove someone is the Son of God. My first attempt at a logical construct is posted above.

But do you realize that the people who loved Jesus might not have even met him before... but they loved him because of his character? Some also did come to him for miracles, but what attracted them was his character... and they didn't even really "know" him. How many times did people comment on Jesus' character in the scriptures?

Meanwhile, the priests hated him because of the miracles and because of their theology, which Jesus was violating. (Reason and miracle.) They were also too blind to see his character. They couldn't experience goodness in relationship, they just had a doctrinal checklist and Jesus didn't fit.

My read of the scriptures is that most people weren't attracted to him initially because of his character. The initial attraction was that he was a miracle worker and potentially their Messiah. After people met him, the ones who stayed with him stayed because of his character. "Come for the miracles. Stay for the character."

If someone today came up claiming to be the Son of God, most people would not give them the time of day regardless of how virtuous the person was. You would need something like a miracle to get their attention to investigate further.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

To be rigorous a complete definition must
b) have divine character in a moral/ethical sense
.

What is 'divine'?

 

[Totenkindly]

My read of the scriptures is that most people weren't attracted to him initially because of his character. The initial attraction was that he was a miracle worker and potentially their Messiah. After people met him, the ones who stayed with him stayed because of his character. "Come for the miracles. Stay for the character."

That's one interesting thing, isn't it?
The pharisees hated him because of the miracles, initially.
(Then they hated him because the people loved him and he wasn't following the rules.)

If someone today came up claiming to be the Son of God, most people would not give them the time of day regardless of how virtuous the person was. You would need something like a miracle to get their attention to investigate further.

I think the problem with miracles is that people are jaded. I don't see people being inclined to believe and follow someone honestly, just because they can do miracles.

This is why Jesus basically wouldn't do miracles sometimes, wasn't it?

 

[IlyaK1986]

Faith? As in religion? My review of them:

Judaism: I was born a Jew, but I do not believe in the notion of a divine all encompassing god. Sorry. I still will wear the title of Jew proudly, because I was born one, and I support the Jewish people. And I believe according to Jewish law, if your mother was a Jew, then so are you.

Christianity: To me, Jesus was a loudmouth that got whacked by the Romans. A nice guy, sure, but remember, 2000 years ago, in addition to believing in divine shenanigans, people also thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Islam: Read up some history on Mohammed. It's not pretty. And of course, you have a LOT of people that simply kill others for not believing in their invisible man. I happen to think they're symptoms of the religion itself like coughing and fever are symptoms of the flu, not extremists.

Shinto: I find the beliefs of this religion interesting. From what I do know, there are spirits everywhere, and from what I've heard, there are shrines in Japan set up in extremely out of the way places that one can ask for a blessing in from the local spirits. Sure, it's improbable, but it's never hurt anyone, and it seems those that practice it achieve some lucidity and other decent states of living.

Buddhism: Ehhh...completely flies in the face of human nature.

Scientology/Zoroastrianism: don't know enough about them.

Belief in the force: believe it or not, some people allegedly started a religion based on Star Wars. Use the force, doods!

Frankly, though, I think George Carlin said it best.

"But in the bullshit department--in the bullshit department, a businessman--can't hold a candle...to a clergyman.

Because when it comes to bullshit...big time, major-league BULLSHIT, you have to stand in awe...in awe of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion. No contest. No contest. Religion.

Religion easily has the biggest bullshit story ever told. Think about it! Religion has actually convinced people...that there's an invisible man...living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.

And this invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and burn and suffer and choke and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of time!

But he loves you.

He loves you. He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing, and all wise, somehow...just can't handle money!

Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story...

HOLY SHIT

You can see the rest of it here...

YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is Bullshit - HQ