romansh

I wonder how this I believe, without doubt that God IS. is different from I know that God IS?

This statement I think poisons the well a little bit. I personally cannot think of something that I need to be true. It is almost the reverse … the patterns point to something we might take as valid. This may well be an accurate depiction of the brain's capacity. Personally I have never seen a demonesque shape in a bonfire. Believing the faces and demons as real requires some specialized conditioning, I suspect. Quite possibly. That is why I am an agnostic. Or at least that is the confabulation I come up with. I am not sure who McRaney's quote was aimed at or to what point?

This is a bit of a straw man (I think) Joseph. I don't think anyone is arguing for "the" cause. Higher temperatures cause chemical reactions to speed up. Of course we have underlying causes for the temperature increasing, whether it be human or a star going supernova. We have proximate causes which we can use to predict (sometimes accurately) future events. I am not arguing against that existence is a mesh of causality. I don't think that follows Joseph. It boils down to luck. I am happy to retract the joy part … I may well be warranted to feel joy in my luck, put being proud of my luck will require some convincing from a rational point of view. Though to be fair a person who is oblivious to her luck may well feel pride (or guilt).

If my brain abhors disorder it would do something about the its workshop.

While I suspect it is an overstatement, things like the Dunning-Kruger effect seem to point some truth to the Russell quote. And it was not just the last century. "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Charles Darwin "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shalespeare "the wisest people know that they know nothing." Socrates (attributed by Plato).

Were these scribes accurate … did they add stuff to the scripture or did they omit? Likely both? Did they have an agenda? We have enough difficulty accurately interpreting/remembering what other members of this forum said (wrote) yesterday nevermind what was said ten years ago. My point is, we are trying to interpret words of Jesus that have been massaged over the decade(s) after his death … translation, agendas, misunderstanding, mis-recollection, subtle biases. Chinese whispers. Our memories are far from perfect.

Or perhaps it was later scribes putting words into his mouth. In that case what did they mean by it? Ten, twenty years after the fact were they being metaphorical or literal?

I can't help but having a Bertie moment here.

Is that allegedly starving and allegedly in the desert?

OK not having given any major objections so far other than perhaps too much reason and not enough of the other stuff. Assumptions I have to make 1 to 3 and 4 is a consequence. I exist and by extension, we exist as well. A universe exists beyond me (and us). That my (our) experience is a reflection of that universe, though our "reflections" might not be totally accurate or possibly complete Consequently we need to take our conclusions with possibly a pinch of salt. There seem to be three possibilities. The universe ticks to the beat of causality, it does not tick to causality or perhaps it is some combination. My interpretation of Joseph's two cents is the universe is more of a megalithic tock rather than ticks. For the moment I'll treat this as point 2 below. I really don't know how to tease the two apart or if it in deed matters at this stage. If causality is false we don't cause anything so consequently we are not in any sense responsible for any consequences of actions we take. If causality is true our actions are a result prior cause then we are responsible in the sense of proximate cause. Being morally responsible is a non sequitur because we could not have done otherwise.  If it some combination of the one and two does not seem to let us of the hook.  Lets look at 1 in slightly more detail. On a day to day basis we certainly are unaware of our underlying causality at least for the bulk of our actions. We might be aware of somethings that have caused our emotions … eg a child does well at school, we might feel pride, happiness etc. We don't choose to be happy in any normal sense of the word. We are completely oblivious to the underlying mechanisms (the ticks or the tock). But if the lack of cause is true, then our pride and joy are totally unwarranted in that our child did not cause their success nor did we influence their success. So in summary if cause is false, we don't cause our actions, we don't help, hurt or insult other people, other people are not helped, hurt by us or in deed insulted by other people's actions. The latter position does seem counter intuitive. The default position seems to be as we are largely unaware of our of our underlying causality (should it exist) then we appear to ourselves as automatons in the original sense of the word … having the ability to act independently of the environment. Any comments so far? I apologize for trying to make this as logical as possible and based on evidence.

👍 Well it's a bit more complicated than that, but not much. Whether we see existence as some megalithic causality or we can have the ability to parse it a bit … does not matter. We will get on with life one way or another.

Hi Joseph … thank you for your clarification on the spiritual While the word to me is a bit abstract perhaps one could say to be Spiritual is to awaken to the discovery of our spirit, our connection to all things, the Oneness that is the substrate of all there is and to strive to stay attentive to what it is speaking. that we may operate in harmony with it. Not the same thing as the common understanding of being religious. While I get this "interconnectivity" and philosophically I am pretty close to monism. I might quibble about "harmony" as this must be illusion bordering on delusion. Also if we take "religion" to be re-connect (re-ligare), this too fits. The question is reconnect to what? For me in non-fancy-language it would be to regain our understanding that all is connected. No need for gods, One, Being, Love, IS.

That is what we will do … or at least try to do. How much choice is very debatable. We don't really choose our wants, at least in my experience. Whether I act on them or not might be considered a choice by some definitions. We are shaped by the universe unfolding as we unfold as part of that universe. And this is based on pure reason, from first principles and observation. Guaranteed meditation free 🙂

I am having difficulty seeing the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying. Stepping in front of the bus can be seen as a proximate cause but in reality the proximate cause is a result of a myriad of causes that stretch out into the universe, the past and perhaps the future.

Well possibly … but that is not a lack of cause. I can "mentate" and suppose all I want about the reality of stepping into the path of the oncoming bus. The results are evident to the object, subject and observers. I am not planning on being some hypothetical here. The consequences are real even if they are illusory. You did not address my immediate question … did you mean delusional when you described causality as illusion?

Funnily enough I am not sure what spiritual means to other people. Is it something we should strive for, is it something that happens to us or maybe we should get on with our lives? What does spiritual mean to you? Answers on a back of a post card here.

The fact that you don't believe one can know whether there is a god is irrelevant (although a part of me agrees with you). What is the point, is, there are people who claim they do. I believe, without doubt that God IS. Is that 100% probability/certainty?

No one is claiming they are not different, radically or otherwise. But one of the meanings of theism is that it is a collective term for a belief in a god regardless of flavour. Even the term panentheism gives us a clue … all in god. I understand you wanting to distance yourself from orthodox theism, but the scale Dawkins is using, theism refers to is the collective term.

Firstly if by "illusion" you mean not as it seems then quite possibly. But that does not mean causality does not exist. If by "illusion" you mean delusion, then that opens up a can of worms. In the first case we can move ahead cautiously, but in the latter case … everything becomes delusion. We can kiss any sense of responsibility goodbye. Actually we can see it as monistically as well as patterns in the substrate. And the way you break it down here begins to imply some sort of causality. If we believe this causes that and the evidence points that way, it is not unreasonable to use logic and evidence. The interesting thing for me if the universe, "is", is it a coincidence that it appears patterned after causality? Statements like these seem to be an axiom. Yet this supposition is based on evidence (observation). Newtonian mechanics are fit making predictions about simple meso systems. If by "why?" you mean how then I disagree. If you what you mean is the purpose, then I have some sympathy. I don't think there is any grand purpose, but it is not unreasonable to ask say "what is the purpose of this PC forum?" Well this could be just a turn of phrase. And I suppose it does depend on whether time is quantized or not whether there is a tick 🙂. Looking at the universe the second law of thermodynamics seems to hold. The universe is unfolding to a higher entropy state or at least it certainly appears that way. The underlying mechanics are a very good description of what is going on. Either way … if your view of the universe is accurate then "logic" dictates there is no "thou shalt". My take on your two cents.

Well the meme is not relevant (of little value) on many levels. My disappointment with the position Burl presented was certainly not in the spirit of this thread … If he presented a reasoned argument against reason then he might have a point. I was hoping we can move away from this derail … I should have ignored Burl's post in hindsight.

I know all this … but you don't seem to appreciate the different uses around the term theist. I agree the terminology as it has developed is not ideal for clarity, therefore we should recognize that panentheism is a particular flavour of theism. This phrase alone makes you a theist … closer to deism or more specifically to a panentheist. This drives the nail home. You may very well be a 1.1 but you are not a 1 … in the same way Dawkins is a 6.9 and not a 7. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This how I generally use the terms … probably needs updating a bit as I can see some exceptions here. Need some revision but not unreasonable, I think

agnostic noun, a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence of or nature of God, or of anything beyond material phenomena. atheism noun, the theory or belief that god does not exist. deism noun, the belief in the existence of supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation. theism noun, belief in the existence of gods or a god , especially a God supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship to his creatures. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition, 1990.

You don't believe in God?

You think applying informal fallacies as reason have value?