thormas

Okay, when time permits either enlighten us or present your un-binary take. Would be appreciated.

Yep, thanks.

And............?

Given multiple threads and contributors, you'll have to give details around the quote.

Paul said: Whilst it is inconvenient to be discussing similiar content across two different threads, there were issues in the past with some members being upset that what they perceived as non-PC posts were being made in the PC section of the forum. _________________________ Fair enough, I suspected as much but wouldn't have hurt to hear it directly from the source. Regardless, thanks Paul. And one assumes all are respectful everywhere on the site.

Apologies Paul as your writing is more clear than some. I wasn't looking at is as a contradiction but a further statement, particularly the statement, "other data and evidence and slowly began to believe something different." I simply see the choice to read new information as part of the process leading to a new belief. There is an actor, the individual human being and he/she - perhaps feeling restless with the old, perhaps in a spirit of discovery - decides to look at new information, new data, gather and get new insights and something 'speaks to you.' This choice leads, especially in the case of God/no God, meaning/no meaning, to a new belief. Simply one now believes something other or different than he previously did. I think the individual actor set this in place; if not for his/her choice, if not for his/her openness, there would be nothing to speak to him and no new belief. I am under no illusion: 'I' made the decision, 'I' did the work, 'I' therefore have a new belief. Chest moi! No illusion, I simply disagree with the other position - as you do with me. As for ignoring what you believe and saying you believe something you don't believe: it is not realistic, not practical, and quite impossible in real life with meaningful beliefs. Belief prompts one to, or conditions one for, action: for those who, in the normal course of life, accept and believe a red light means STOP, to go with something one doesn't believe but they say they do, i.e. the red light means Go (if it is true belief and not a game), is not realistic, certainly not practical, and in real life, absurd. It would not be believed because all the data, all the evidence does not resonate and no one would choose this belief. I think we have now beat all the horses in the stable to death! The depression, if such a view was taken to heart, if one chooses to believe this position, is not about an 'afterlife' - it is about the meaninglessness of life. As previously discussed, in such a belief, in spite of efforts to make it meaningful or have meaningful relationships - it is still sound and fury and means nothing. It just happened, it might have even been an accident and all effort ultimately means nothing - it had no meaning to begin (or end) with. The Rock after all eternity, remains where it began - all effort, all plans, all determination to make something of 'this' - is all for naught. If it happened, if it never happened - it is the same. Without meaning, it is absurd, it is less than absurd: it is Nothing! As one author put it: "the secret to a happy life then is either not to notice or not to let it bother one overly much." I simply don't buy that life is happenstance, rather I think it is purposeful. Thus there is meaning and we (can) make a difference. It means Everything! Again, this is my opinion or my belief after the choice to read, research, think and consider and I continue to choose to believe it :+}

I'll respond on this thread as a courtesy. Paul looked at new/different date and decided on (chose) another belief: "my beliefs couldn't help but be changed when I read and perceived information as the new truth." The choice ("I read") to seek out new information led to a new belief about God. Looking at another set of data is not necessarily or automatically choosing to believe (anything or a new belief) but looking at another set of data, new information, new insights - can and has led to deciding on a new or different belief: a conscious decision led to a change in belief. Not sure what the issue is anymore.

We have two Forum Administrators posting on that site, everybody is being respectful and nobody has made it an issue. We are being 'supportive' and in general agreement with th 8 PC points.

From Rom: Paul's position makes perfect sense to me. Again when choosing beliefs to say we choose beliefs you are using the phrase in a non standard way. For example as a child I might have believed the sun goes around the Earth. it certainly seems that way and language certainly reinforced that point of view. I certainly did not choose to believe the sun went around the Earth ... I just did. As I went to school. my parents explained, saw the plethora of evidence that the Earth spins and goes around the Sun ... I ended up believing in a different model of our solar system. There was no "conscious" choosing. So are you not buying in because you don't want it to be an illusion? ....... Response to Rom: Can't state it much clearer. But with your sun example, like Paul's childhood faith: there is a 'given and accepted' belief, the data and evidence coming from family or church community (or society). Then, as Paul said, he decided, he chose, to look at other data and evidence, it spoke to him and a change in belief followed. His ("I read") was a conscious decision that caused a change in belief. I'm not buying it, not because I don't want it to be - but because I don't think it is - an illusion.

Not sure why it can't be continued on that thread, has been ongoing with no problems or concerns from anyone and people can refer back along that thread. So, let's continue there. Plus, think we have a few going already, let's not add to it unnecessarily.

I am no longer following your point. First you said, "I think it is an illusion to think one 'chooses' which evidence they will believe and which they won't. We .............review(ing) all available data and evidence but that doesn't mean we choose which evidence or data to believe, or not." Then you said, "I read other data and evidence and slowly began to believe something different." The second statement seemingly contradicts the first: you review other info and began to believe something different. Where is the illusion? You had the 'evidence/data' from your former life/belief - you put that to the side (so to speak), read other, different info - it resonated and your belief followed/changed. 'You" chose what to consider and/or to just be open to various new information and 'you' decided which set of evidence and data (old or new) to accept and believe, going forward. Again, if I bought this, it really, really could get depressing: first we come in and out of existence (an accident or happenstance I guess), it means nothing, except what we give it (but even this doesn't actually matter in the end, because the rock is still at the bottom) and now choice is an illusion. So any meaning I might impose (or give or intent for) on my little corner of existence is really not mine - all is illusion and without meaning?? I have to have a hearty mug of tea now to deal with these implications :+}

Not really the same data. For me, there may be similarities but it is not the 'same' data as many/any(?) traditional theists, evangelicals and even a good number of progressive Christians. Different data, different beliefs. I think this debate go on and on and on..........

Seemingly, in the past, some/many(?) Christians have been focused on the afterlife, that has/is changing for many and certainly not the main (or really any) consideration for me.

Has this been addressed in this thread or on this site? Care to restate or summarize?

Tea makes the universe go round.

Unless it is some kind of 'weird tasting' stuff, then I choose to refuse to believe or accept it is TEA (the nectar of the gods). Thus one or some can choose to believe that tea is not in fact tea. Actually the same can be said of some beers :+} Yet when there is coffee, it is definitely a clear (and correct) choice to make tea.

You know this could get depressing if I buy it :+{ first no 'more' so for me that means, this (i.e. life is) rather pointless and now, even though it all has no (ultimate) point, we don't have a choice anyway. I guess we simply have to choose to disagree on this one: for me, the act of weighing the data, and considering the evidence (between/among options) means the choice is still before you. You do bring up a good way to resolve the issue - but what if we are presented with (a choice of) different wines?

I totally agree about doing our best with the time we have, and neither of us see futility in doing that - the difference is in the reason why. Which, if fine. Again, agree there is no agreement on the 'more' and there are some (less I suspect) that see nothing (was it Sartre who said hell is in hello? What we used to call a 'fun -gi' in philosophy class). But it is intriguing, (for me) that so many, across cultures and time, see and seek 'more.' Many/most of us have left tribal superstitions and the accompanying ignorance in the dust and maybe the higher intelligence/consciousness is on to something: Maslow talks about self-actualization and Whitehead talks about the 'thrust' to be, to be better, to be best (this last not in comparison to others but in self) - both suggest, again from my perspective, that there is more to us. The only real question is the meaning of life, and all answers are particular to the individual, as we have shown here. The friend I mentioned describes life as being in a bus careening through the universe, with no idea where we're going or what it means but, while on the bus, we might as well be nice to each other and enjoy the ride. Words to live by! What I'm saying about belief is that believing one thing over another is a choice and it would make no sense to say I think something is true and then believe the opposite. The gathering of the 'evidence,' the thought, the weighing of things is all part of the decision process and without proof, we are left with belief and are able to function because we consider true (and trustworthy) what we believe (for now). We differ: I think there is choice. But again, that is fine. Although I do like the idea that, "we didn't choose it........... it chose us" - but this immediately makes me think about the 'more' once again. Oh, well :+} And however we differ on the above, I totally agree with you that it is "much more fruitful and pleasurable ...... without barbs, insults, self righteousness and sarcasm".

Good discussion. Again, your belief and that of my friend is respected yet still, for me, Sisyphus lingers. And I get the idea of "I have lived, been involved....." yet, again for me, in this perspective, all living, all contribution, all involvement is meaningless: the rock is still where it was in the beginning; the top is reached and then down the other side. For me, it is without meaning (and thus sad) but not for you, not for my friend. And, that is a good thing. Again, this is not my view, neither is my view traditional supernatural theism. Philosophies, religions, poetry, art, friendship and love: each suspects/experiences a transcendence; there is 'More." The rock may and has rolled back along the way but the challenge, the possibility the call is always there; the 'top' is always before us, there is never the ultimate futility of the other side; the rock is never at the bottom. Not my best image but what I have on a Friday morning. On belief: I believed the girl I met the year after college and I had real possibilities, things changed and I came to believe something different about us (decades later we are still friends). I believed one thing, with new evidence/consideration, I came to believe something else and I chose to believe and accept this new reality or I would still be at the local bar. So too, I had the traditional view of God but just as I grew and needed new clothes, so too I grew in understanding and my 'view' of 'God' changed over time. It all seemed and still seems a rather natural process. So, I had (and confirmed earlier) beliefs, then learned, grew, explored and now believe something that is radically different. Who did it? I did it. Of course I believe it because my mind believes it - my mind is me and that which I fed with information, discoveries, the consideration of new thoughts, etc. - and here I am with a new and different belief. There were a series of "ah ha" moments and gradually there was a change: I don't believe now what I previously did. As to your last sentence: I weighed evidence, new data, new information, the 'ah ha' moments and the choice to do that led to a new belief (thus ultimately chosen because all leading to it was chosen). I can't not believe because I believe it; the decision has been made. If I chose not to believe it (like my old views/beliefs) then I would not believe it. However, it is possible with continued new information, insights and 'ah ha' moments - I might believe something else in the future. Again, enjoyable and helpful. Thanks

That's fair: although I agree I don't see them as pointing outside or beyond nature (i.e. classical understanding of transcendent) I do see that, for some, there is a belief that there is 'more' than the human in existence. I further agree we don't 'have' to hold such notions yet 'some do.' And I do understand about explaining it well - not an easy task. I have a best friend that believes the same (as you do), I respect it, just doesn't speak to me. Even though I am not one to forsake this world because I have an eye on another world, I can't help but think of my introduction to surrealism when I think about the belief you and my friend share. When the professor walked into the room he just kept repeating nada, nada, nada, nothing, nothing, nothing. I know people say there is value in living 'this' the only life but can't help thinking, in the end, it might as well have not happened. if you are born, live and die - it seems to make no difference if you lived 2 months, 8 years or 91 years - it was going no place and it, in the end, meant nothing. I guess I feel this even more not that he is sick and has a very limited future. Obviously, he (and you) believe it means something - yet I always think of Sisyphus: all meaning, purpose and fulfillment meant nothing - the rock just rolls down the other side of the mountain and all his effort, his life was for naught. I am reminded that some , even in the face of ultimate meaninglessness, say they will make meaning - yet in the end, it still was meaningless. This is not meant as a judgement (nor am I trying to win you or him over), merely a sadness if it is the actually reality. My thought is that in the moment of death, faced with this reality, I would shout to/at the God that doesn't exist and say, "you should have been." Absurd of course, and I know that. For me, one, who believes this, seeks a meaning in life that is not real and does not exist: all such meaning is illusion. Even Sisyphus might find meaning in his work or he might defiantly push the rock up one side and down the other - but either way, the rock is at the bottom where it always was: it was without meaning. And I agree - that is where I am today. p.s. I have to muse a bit more on your idea that nobody chooses whether to believe or not, it just happens.

Paul, I think I have followed your argument and I see it differently. Millions of years later we also don't have one language (one agreed way to express ourselves) and I take no great significance from that except that it points to the diversity that comes with a common humanity and its desire to express itself. So too, the diversity of our many names, gods, philosophies, etc. does not lead me to believe there is no Source (for lack of a better descriptor right now), again, I see it more as different expressions of - a common, human effort to seek - Meaning (and although each religion or philosophy, might reflect the insights of a particular group, tribe or people, it is typically understood to have significance for all humanity, i.e. to be the Meaning for all). Then I agree once again: "what we do with that is completely subjective ..........." I don't think there are is anything 'supernatural' to tap into (this reminds me of theism) but I do 'allow' that there is 'more' to us than, to borrow a phrase, 'meets the eye.'

Agreed, Jesus' time was very different but, although I doubt many thought they were writing a Bible that would last into the 21st C, I do think it can 'speak' to people across different cultures, societies and throughout time. Much like the wisdom of many ancients. I do think, as previously mentioned, it is incumbent on men and women, in their own time to understand, to decide, to figure out (if still considered valuable) the meaning of such words (as we have been doing) for their lives. So I agree, such words might not be intended for all people at all times, but such words are or can be(come) meaningful and speak to people throughout time. I have a friend who loves poetry and, at his request, I read Whitman's Crossing Brooklyn Ferry written slightly over 160 years ago: These two lines speak volumes: It avails not, time nor place—distance avails not, I am with you, you men and women of a generation, or ever so many generations hence

Agreed, those actions were evil and "I wouldn't lump every RC in those boxes and perhaps many of them have/would have tried to stand up against these evils." Indeed they did on that and many issues. And many never knew there were predator priests - I not only never encountered one from kindergarten through grad school and 12 years of teaching in Catholic schools but never even heard any hint of such activity. I did confront priests who had a heavy hand used to discipline high school kids (interesting and oddly the priests were from Ireland) but sharing that heritage, never hit by my parents, I informed, the priests, in public,, including the principal, that I would call the cops and......... it stopped. And when I brought my bride- to-be to the rectory to meet the priest as required (it still had some minor meaning to me) and he proceeded to ignore my Protestant wife and say she had to hand the kids over to Catholic baptism - I started debating him on his theology and finally walked out. Actually, it was great fun and very liberating. I was a practicing Catholic but am not now and was always bored by the wedding and the Sunday services. Only in grad school, in a smaller, more intimate setting with real bread, did the service ever feel like it should have. Many Catholics loved John Paul II, I liked the first one who died within days/weeks (?) of his election; I think JPII was far too conservative and tried to put a stop to liberalizing forces that were impossible to stop.