Rational Faith
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
There's no problem with evil Sinister, without it there's no good.
A theoretical philosophy of being and knowing, philosophy of mind= metaphysics. Meta=of a higher or second-order kind,
Speculating on the metaphysical is the way ideas become realized. Isn't it true that all discovery proceeds from the metaphysical?
Most strangely, the control of the lower physical, natural or brute forces by the mind or reason was the one central situation primarily and fundamentally dealt with in the sage tomes of antiquity. To effect that control in a perfect balance and harmony, and to train the reasoning intellect in the divine art of it, was the aim and end of the Arcane Philosophy. Ideology in the Western world has endlessly vacillated back and forth between the cult of the inner spirit and engrossment in objective materialism. Ancient philosophy taught that the true path of evolutionary growth was to be trodden by an effort that united the forces of the spirit with those of the world, the lower disciplined by the higher. The whole gist of the Esoteric Doctrine was the study and mastery of the powers engaged in working out the evolutionary advance, so that the aspirant might be able to align his cultural effort in consonance with the requirements of the problem and the end to be achieved. Without this guiding data and this evolutionary perspective modern man is totally at a loss how to focus his endeavor and is unable to point
his direction in line with anything more fixed and basic than his next immediate objective of apparent desirability. He has neither a knowledge of his origin, a chart of his path, an inventory of his capacities or a vision of his goal. Hence he travels the long road still a benighted wanderer without compass. He can but recoil from one mistaken plunge after another, learning sporadic lessons from pain and misfortune. The ancient torch that was lighted for his guidance he has let burn out. This lamp was the body of Ancient Philosophy.
http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm
A theoretical philosophy of being and knowing, philosophy of mind= metaphysics. Meta=of a higher or second-order kind,
Speculating on the metaphysical is the way ideas become realized. Isn't it true that all discovery proceeds from the metaphysical?
Most strangely, the control of the lower physical, natural or brute forces by the mind or reason was the one central situation primarily and fundamentally dealt with in the sage tomes of antiquity. To effect that control in a perfect balance and harmony, and to train the reasoning intellect in the divine art of it, was the aim and end of the Arcane Philosophy. Ideology in the Western world has endlessly vacillated back and forth between the cult of the inner spirit and engrossment in objective materialism. Ancient philosophy taught that the true path of evolutionary growth was to be trodden by an effort that united the forces of the spirit with those of the world, the lower disciplined by the higher. The whole gist of the Esoteric Doctrine was the study and mastery of the powers engaged in working out the evolutionary advance, so that the aspirant might be able to align his cultural effort in consonance with the requirements of the problem and the end to be achieved. Without this guiding data and this evolutionary perspective modern man is totally at a loss how to focus his endeavor and is unable to point
3
http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm
and when one is a wee fert and going to sunday school, it's damn scary. especially when you really consider there is no end to eternity. sheesh.
No. Read Aristotle and note all the things he got wrong by taking a metaphysical approach rather than actually testing anything. He even made pronouncements about how many teeth people have without bothering to count his own, and got it wrong. You can't discover how things are simply by thinking about them.
Any true claim must in principle be falsifiable, that is, it must be possible to at least imagine evidence that could show it to be wrong. If no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then any evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence and contains no propositional content at all.
I see. So far there's a total lack of mention of Aristotle in the material I'm reading. I'll get there eventually I guess.
Missed that one a few days ago, been having a busy time in real life for reasons I needn't go into here.
I would conclude from that argument that there can't have been more than a handful of real Christians in the last 2000 years and most people who claimed to be Christian were not. Arguing that bad things done in the name of the faith were done by people who weren't real Christians, as cj44 stated explicitly and you're stating implicitly here, doesn't wash. Separating Christianity as a religion from the beliefs and behaviour of its followers defines it out of existence. Without those followers it's nothing, it ceases to exist except as an idea. You're both in effect trying to argue that things like the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the anti-Semitic pogroms, the centuries of religious wars in Europe, had nothing to do with real Christians or real Christianity, when it was the duly authorized and recognized Christian leaders who organized and sanctified much of that. There's no way off that hook.
The error of my way? And what error is that?
How would I know unless the one who wants a relationship with me lets me know in an unmistakable manner? Why should it be up to me when it isn't me that wants to initiate a connection?
You may be onto something, Dex:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14 NIV)
Duly authorized and recognized by whom?
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:21-23 NIV)
It amazes me how often objections to Christian faith raised here in this forum are answered in the gospel of Matthew. This gospel was written for the religious (Jews). We keep coming back to the distinction between religiosity and faith. You seem like a thoughtful and discerning person, Dex. Hmmm?
An interview with Francis Collins:
"You describe yourself as a rather obnoxious atheist in your youth. Tell me more about what you mean by that."
"Well, growing up, I was vaguely aware of things that went on in church, because I was in the boys' choir at the local Episcopal church. But I got the clear message that I was supposed to learn music there, and not pay too much attention to the rest of it, and I followed those instructions very carefully. When I got to college and was challenged about what my beliefs were, I realized I had no idea what they were. I listened to others make an argument that religion and beliefs were basically a superstition, and I began to think — Yeah, that's probably what I believe, too. God gave us an opportunity through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a scientific proof of God's existence. Then I went off to be a graduate student in quantum mechanics at Yale, where I was very compelled with the notion that everything in the universe can be described in a second-order differential equation. I read a little bit about what Einstein had said about God, and I concluded that, well, if there was a God, it was probably somebody who was off somewhere else in the universe; certainly not a God that would care about me. And I frankly couldn't see why I needed to have any God at all. I was in a very reductionist frame of mind. That's often what science imposes upon your thought process, and it's a good thing when you apply it to the natural world. But I sought to apply it to everything else. Obviously the spiritual world is another entity.
So I concluded that all of this stuff about religion and faith was a carryover from an earlier, irrational time, and now that science had begun to figure out how things really work, we didn't need it any more. I think you wouldn't have enjoyed having lunch with me when I was in that phase. My mission then was to ferret out this squishy thinking on the part of people around me and try to point out to them that they really ought to get over all of that emotional stuff and face up to the fact that there really wasn't anything except what you could measure." The Question of God . Other Voices . Francis Collins | PBS
Well, that's just it, it's hard to identify true Christians because the ones who are don't talk about it. You just have to pay close attention to their deeds.
Gilbert, What are you looking for an invitation in the mail? Whenever someone shares the gospel with you, that is God intitiating the converstaion. Perhaps we would prefer an angel to fly down with bugle in hand to make an announcement. Maybe we want a voice to wake us in the night accompanied with lofty visions. But, that is NOT the way God said it will work.
As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
It is likely you have heard the gospel throughout various times in your life. You have heard it here even on these forums. Also, it is likely that you will hear the gospel again before you die. It is not luck. It is not chance. Everytime you or anybody hears the gospel it was pre-ordered by God himself. That's His "unmistakable manner". No it doesn't appear to be flashy or convincing, but that is the way HE operates. Belief is born from HEARING the Word of God.
Dex - I am a few chapters in to Dewitt's Hope after Faith. My initial thought is Holy Cow! Dewitt "came to faith" through Swaggerts "church". Yikes - "you will know a tree by its fruit comes to mind". I shall continue reading, but I am not entirely shocked than Dewitt could not continue in life long madness and fanaticism. Eventually, one would burn out.
Check out Walter's Lent 2014 thread. I just posted the following there:
Instead of giving something up, How about we commit to doing something? How about we forum posters committ to 40 days of bible reading and study. Take it easy, Cliffy - don't go and have a heart attack. Maybe we can get Motar to initiate the study. Then we read a little each day & come back to post about what we read.
Anyone willing? Then you can forget about ditching the french fries - eat, drink & be merry!
Oh - Motar, I sort of volunteered you.
Another item of most vivid significance is brought out by Massey (B. O. B. II, 188). He discloses the fact that at a date in the reign of
125
Tahtmes III, some two and a half centuries earlier than the "historical Exodus"--on the scholastic insistence that there was such an event--there were inscribed on a pylon at Thebes in a list of 1200 names of places conquered or garrisoned by the Egyptians, the original names of the towns and districts of Canaan to the number of 115, which, says Massey, is "nothing less than the synoptical table of the Promised Land made 250 years before the Exodus." This comes close to writing the geography and history of a nation before that history has taken place on the actual scene. As we shall find that the "life" of Jesus was in effect written before he "lived," so here we see the geography of a nation charted before the places became the locale of the events which gave their names fame in history. All this points to the whole catalogue of such charts and lists and maps as being allegorical depictions and systematic typographs covering a structure of meaning of the most esoteric and cryptic sort. The Canaanitish names mentioned in the list are Astaroth-Karnaim, Avilah, Berytus, Bashan, Beth-Sappuah or Tebekim, Ephron (Hebron), Hishbon, Hamath, Judah, Kadesh, Kison, Megiddo, Sameshu (Damascus) and others.
Among hundreds of passages to be culled out of early Patristic writing which throw doubt on the veracity of the historical side of Christianity we have a strange statement in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho: "In the dialogue we find Trypho saying, ‘Ye follow an empty rumor and make a Christ for yourselves. . . . If he was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown.’" A more straightforward report on the true situation in the second century, marked by the claims and denials of historians, is hardly to be had. It sounds as if the early Church Father, taking part in the original debate as to the historicity, argues on the side taken by the present work. It was as if he said: "The Christ of the Gospels is the mythical and ritualistic figure; if a historical Christ did live, you have no record of his existence." The entire present debate might be summarized in the same words. His sentences might well be made the concluding ones of our last page. He, too, might have said: "Ye have reduced the cosmic majesty of the Logos to the mean stature of a Galilean peasant."
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII, 7, 106) records the astounding fact that the doctrine of the Evangel was delivered to Basilides, the consecrated student of sacred things, by the Apostle Matthew and Glaucus, a disciple of Peter! And there is evidence that the Gospel
126
then delivered must have differed widely from the present New Testament. Tertullian’s distorted accounts of this deposit left to posterity are no faithful guide to a true evaluation of it. Yet even the little this partisan fanatic gives shows the chief Gnostic doctrines to be identical with the broader and deeper esoteric wisdom of the East.
And another proof of the claim that the Gospel of Matthew in the usual Greek texts is not the original Gospel written in Hebrew is found with no less an authority than St. Jerome (Hieronymus) for support. The suspicion of a conscious and gradual euhemerization of the Christ principle from the beginning grows into decided conviction as one reads a certain confession contained in Book II of the Comment of Matthew by Hieronymus. For we find in it the proof of a deliberate substitution of the whole Gospel, the one now in the canon having been evidently rewritten by the zealous Jerome. This is well authenticated as genuine history. How far the rewriting and editorial tampering with the primitive gnostic fragments which have now become the New Testament went, may be inferred from reading Supernatural Religion, which ran through some twenty-three editions. The authorities and documentary support cited by its author are overwhelming in quantity and impressiveness. Jerome says that he was sent toward the close of the fourth century by "their Felicities," the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, to Caesarea with the mission to compare the Greek text (the only one they ever had) with the Hebrew original version preserved by the Nazarenes in their library and to translate it. He translated it, but under protest; for, as he says, the Evangel "exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction." The destruction of what?--must be asked. Doubtless of the doctrine that Jesus the Nazarene and the Christos are one. Hence, for the "destruction" of the newly planned religion which separated the two. In this same letter the Saint--the same that advised his converts to kill their fathers and trample on the bosoms of their mothers if their parents stood between their sons and Christ--admits that Matthew did not wish his Gospel to be openly written, hence that the manuscript was a secret one. Yet while admitting also that this Gospel was "written in Hebrew characters and by the hand of himself [Matthew], in another place he contradicts this and assures posterity that as it was tampered with and rewritten by a disciple of Manichaeus named Seleucus . . . the ears of
127
the Church properly refused to listen to it." (Hieronymus: Commentary to Matthew, Bk. II, Chap. XII, 13).Who is this
125
Tahtmes III, some two and a half centuries earlier than the "historical Exodus"--on the scholastic insistence that there was such an event--there were inscribed on a pylon at Thebes in a list of 1200 names of places conquered or garrisoned by the Egyptians, the original names of the towns and districts of Canaan to the number of 115, which, says Massey, is "nothing less than the synoptical table of the Promised Land made 250 years before the Exodus." This comes close to writing the geography and history of a nation before that history has taken place on the actual scene. As we shall find that the "life" of Jesus was in effect written before he "lived," so here we see the geography of a nation charted before the places became the locale of the events which gave their names fame in history. All this points to the whole catalogue of such charts and lists and maps as being allegorical depictions and systematic typographs covering a structure of meaning of the most esoteric and cryptic sort. The Canaanitish names mentioned in the list are Astaroth-Karnaim, Avilah, Berytus, Bashan, Beth-Sappuah or Tebekim, Ephron (Hebron), Hishbon, Hamath, Judah, Kadesh, Kison, Megiddo, Sameshu (Damascus) and others.
Among hundreds of passages to be culled out of early Patristic writing which throw doubt on the veracity of the historical side of Christianity we have a strange statement in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho: "In the dialogue we find Trypho saying, ‘Ye follow an empty rumor and make a Christ for yourselves. . . . If he was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown.’" A more straightforward report on the true situation in the second century, marked by the claims and denials of historians, is hardly to be had. It sounds as if the early Church Father, taking part in the original debate as to the historicity, argues on the side taken by the present work. It was as if he said: "The Christ of the Gospels is the mythical and ritualistic figure; if a historical Christ did live, you have no record of his existence." The entire present debate might be summarized in the same words. His sentences might well be made the concluding ones of our last page. He, too, might have said: "Ye have reduced the cosmic majesty of the Logos to the mean stature of a Galilean peasant."
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII, 7, 106) records the astounding fact that the doctrine of the Evangel was delivered to Basilides, the consecrated student of sacred things, by the Apostle Matthew and Glaucus, a disciple of Peter! And there is evidence that the Gospel
126
then delivered must have differed widely from the present New Testament. Tertullian’s distorted accounts of this deposit left to posterity are no faithful guide to a true evaluation of it. Yet even the little this partisan fanatic gives shows the chief Gnostic doctrines to be identical with the broader and deeper esoteric wisdom of the East.
And another proof of the claim that the Gospel of Matthew in the usual Greek texts is not the original Gospel written in Hebrew is found with no less an authority than St. Jerome (Hieronymus) for support. The suspicion of a conscious and gradual euhemerization of the Christ principle from the beginning grows into decided conviction as one reads a certain confession contained in Book II of the Comment of Matthew by Hieronymus. For we find in it the proof of a deliberate substitution of the whole Gospel, the one now in the canon having been evidently rewritten by the zealous Jerome. This is well authenticated as genuine history. How far the rewriting and editorial tampering with the primitive gnostic fragments which have now become the New Testament went, may be inferred from reading Supernatural Religion, which ran through some twenty-three editions. The authorities and documentary support cited by its author are overwhelming in quantity and impressiveness. Jerome says that he was sent toward the close of the fourth century by "their Felicities," the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, to Caesarea with the mission to compare the Greek text (the only one they ever had) with the Hebrew original version preserved by the Nazarenes in their library and to translate it. He translated it, but under protest; for, as he says, the Evangel "exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction." The destruction of what?--must be asked. Doubtless of the doctrine that Jesus the Nazarene and the Christos are one. Hence, for the "destruction" of the newly planned religion which separated the two. In this same letter the Saint--the same that advised his converts to kill their fathers and trample on the bosoms of their mothers if their parents stood between their sons and Christ--admits that Matthew did not wish his Gospel to be openly written, hence that the manuscript was a secret one. Yet while admitting also that this Gospel was "written in Hebrew characters and by the hand of himself [Matthew], in another place he contradicts this and assures posterity that as it was tampered with and rewritten by a disciple of Manichaeus named Seleucus . . . the ears of
127
the Church properly refused to listen to it." (Hieronymus: Commentary to Matthew, Bk. II, Chap. XII, 13).Who is this
Well, that would be clear and unmistakable wouldn't it? When I make friends, it's usually pretty clear that both would value the relationship.
Ah, so if someone comes along and quotes me Genesis 7:4, I'm to interpret that as, "Hi, I am Yahweh and I would like to be friends with you"? How very odd.
Why would I want that? It isn't the way I would make friends with anyone.
I can see why. I like my way better. As I've said, I've been living a happy life and have a wonderful wife and kids and I can't wish for more. When I meet people it is usually under normal, everyday circumstances so I can't see why conditions like these should change.
Well, I can't think of anything I need and nothing is endangering me that I can tell so I don't need saving so perhaps Mr. Lord can save his energy.
If someone wishes to preach at me, I will listen if I have time and am not busy. Otherwise, they can come back later.
Yeah, read it, heard it, read it, heard it, read it, heard it, etc. ad infinitum. Aside of all the violence and maliciousness in the OT, I can appreciate that the basic messages in the NT are much the same as the principles I arrived at to guide my own life.
Thar's what I've been saying. If what is said in the Bible is true, then this god has planned exactly everything that happens and that includes all the bad stuff. [/quote]That's His "unmistakable manner". No it doesn't appear to be flashy or convincing, but that is the way HE operates. [/quotes]That males sense because as of yet, I am still unconvinced and the flashier someone gets, the more convincing I'll need.
Not to me. I believe after I've found irrefutable evidence. People can talk at me all they want but that won't necessarily mean I've believe what they say.
If there's a god with a plan, it's going to unfold whatever way he wants regardless of anything we can do, and by most understandings of god you'd have to argue he already knows what we're going to do anyway. Which makes prayer a little problematic: if it's already in the plan then whatever we pray for is going to happen anyway, and if it's not, it won't. Nothing we can do will make the slightest difference. Think he's going to change his plan for little old us? Doesn't seem likely.
So far in my religious study I get the impression of the Gods need of legions of refined spirits/minds. Always it seems reasoned knowledge is indicated as the necessary attainment of all our labours on his behalf. I get the idea that were going to build something somewhere else upon graduation from the meat. The plan seems to be connected with light and numbers, almost exclusively. Can't God change his plans to fit the circumstances? The old texts seem full to the brim with tests and examinations. It's made abundantly clear that we don't leave the meaty existence after just one shot, unless were naturally adept. It's also made clear that we haven't a hope figuring him out in this existence or the next being as we're so far below his station. There seems to be a flow in some general direction that we are obliged to join. Upward and onward it seems.
An interview with Francis Collins:
Lewis was not concerned with scientific endeavor like you were, but he shared some of those views. How did you come to discover his work, and why did that have an influence on you?
"I finished up my graduate degree in quantum mechanics, but underwent a bit of a personal crisis, recognizing that I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life. It was too abstract, too far removed from human concerns. And so in considerable disarray as far as my own intentions of what I would want to do with the rest of my life, I decided to go to medical school as a way of trying to explore this more human side of science, namely biology. So it was really as a medical student, and later as a resident, encountering the realities of what disease and the specter of death does to human beings, that I began to wonder about this. Some of my patients were clearly relying very heavily on their faith as a source of strength in circumstances that were pretty awful. They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God, they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance. They weren't, somehow, perceiving it as the really awful thing that it seemed to me to be. And that was interesting and puzzling and unsettling. As I began to ask a few questions of those people, I realized something very fundamental: I had made a decision to reject any faith view of the world without ever really knowing what it was that I had rejected. And that worried me. As a scientist, you're not supposed to make decisions without the data. It was pretty clear I hadn't done any data collecting here about what these faiths stood for. Now, I was still pretty sure that faith traditions were all superstition and something that would not apply to me, and something that I wouldn't be interested in. But I did feel compelled to find out a bit more about what it was that I had rejected. So with an intention of shooting this all down, I went to speak to a Methodist minister in Chapel Hill, which is where I was at the time. I sat in his office and made all sorts of accusations, and probably said blasphemous things about the faith that he stood for, but sincerely asked him to help me find out what it was all about. And he was very tolerant and patient and listened and suggested that, for starters, it might be good if I read a little bit more about what these faiths stood for. And perhaps the Bible would be a good place to start. I wasn't so interested in that at that point. But he also said, 'You know, your story reminds me a little bit of somebody else who has written about his experience — that Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis.' I had no idea, really, who Lewis was. The idea that he was a scholar, though, that appealed to my intellectual pride. Maybe somebody with that kind of a title would be able to write something that I could understand and appreciate. So this wonderful minister gave me his own copy of Mere Christianity, Lewis's slim tome that outlines the arguments leading to his conclusion that God is not only a possibility, but a plausibility. That the rational man would be more likely, upon studying the facts, to conclude that choosing to believe is the appropriate choice, as opposed to choosing not to believe. That was a concept I was really unprepared to hear. Until then, I don't think anyone had ever suggested to me that faith was a conclusion that one could arrive at on the basis of rational thought. I, and I suspect, many other scientists who've never really looked at the evidence, had kind of assumed that faith was something that you arrived at, either because it was drummed into your head when you were a little kid or by some emotional experience, or some sort of cultural pressure. The idea that you would arrive at faith because it made sense, because it was rational, because it was the most appropriate choice when presented with the data, that was a new concept. And yet, reading through the pages of Lewis's book, I came to that conclusion over the course of several very painful weeks. I didn't want this conclusion. I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away. I had to keep turning those pages. I had to keep trying to understand this. I had to see where it led. But I still didn't want to make that decision to believe. The decision was an important step that I hadn't been aware of. You can argue yourself, on the basis of pure intellect, right up to the precipice of belief, but then you have to decide. I don't believe intellectual argument alone will push someone across that gap, because we are not talking about something which can be measured in the same way that science measures the natural world, and then you decide what is natural truth. This is supernatural truth. And in that regard, the spirit enters into this, not just the mind. I struggled with that for many months, really resisting this decision, going forward, going backward. Finally, after about a year, I was on a trip to the northwest, and on a beautiful afternoon hiking in the Cascade Mountains, where the remarkable beauty of the creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment. This is something I have really longed for all my life without realizing it, and now I've got the chance to say yes.' So I said yes. I was 27. I've never turned back. That was the most significant moment in my life." The Question of God . Other Voices . Francis Collins | PBS
"But I still didn't want to make that decision to believe." (Francis Collins) There it is, cj. The difference between a believer and a non-believer is not a matter of understanding, but of will. "I didn't want to" is at the heart of it.
Actually, no. Not that I expect any god to rap on my door at all, but I thought if one wanted to, they'd have the power to do just that without my trying to find one.
And I am still trying to see why people become addicted to such things as gods in the first place. It's a bit curious. Even trekkies know their addiction is based upon a fiction.