(August 11, 2014 at 5:10 am)Michael Wrote: Pocaracas. You won't give me the satisfaction of backing up your accusation of dishonesty? Well, I have no interest in, and no respect for, ad hom argumentation and those that pursue it. I shall leave it there.

EVERY THEIST EVER: you guys only read the first sentence.

Whateverist,

In responding to your reply let me first say that I fully realise anything that I say following this could be wrong. I lay no claims to certainty; I am a much more faithful and hopeful Christian than a certain one.

Let me just add a few words of background as I realise that the child is frequently father to the adult, and so I think I would be missing something important by not acknowledging something of my childhood. I was brought up by non-believing parents who nevertheless sent me to Sunday school (whether that was because they thought it would do me good or because it gave them a couple of hours quiet time on a Sunday morning, I'm not entirely sure). So I learned the usual bible stories. I don't mind admitting that in my young teenage years I was very moved by the BBC series "Jesus of Nazareth" when it was first shown, and that inspired a child's faith in me that lasted until university days (I equally remember being inspired by Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' series when that was shown; I hope I'm always a person with catholic tastes). At university I became interested in other ways of seeing the world, and atheism seemed an attractive approach for a scientist to explore and embrace. This was in the days before the 'new atheism' and I struggled my way through Russell's 'Why I am not a Christian' which seemed to be the atheist bible of the day (a brilliant thinker but with none of the literary panache of Christopher Hitchens). So I settled into being what I and others called a 'freethinker' (this seemed to be to be cooler than simply being an atheist; it had more of a revolutionary feel to it, casting off the bondage of something or other, as if I were carrying on the spirit of 18th century France). Anyway, then followed a settled period of about 15 years of content atheism despite marrying a devout Catholic.

There is little much that can be said about the 'conversion experience' itself other than something led me to sit quietly in a church most days, and over the course of several weeks an increasing sense of the numinous developed that could not easily be ignored.

So you ask whether what I call 'God', or the numinous, could be within us; that we create God rather than vice versa. The short answer is 'yes' that could be the case. The Quakers sometimes talk of God as the 'Light within', which I think allows them more flexibility in allowing for God as either entirely internal or external. I have some sympathy with that view. But I don't go there myself.

What raised your question was my 'conversion experience' (albeit a rather undramatic one, simply sitting quietly with a growing sense of the numinous over several weeks). When thinking about that I am aware that since it happened I have had much time to reflect on it, and so I have a more formed view of things now than I had at the time. Your question certainly occurred to me at the time - could it all be being generated by my mind? And that led perhaps to the only clear decision I really made in the whole process. I remember thinking 'I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and I'll see where that takes me'. In many ways that is still my approach, but 10 years on it has taken me on a journey that has been rewarding and life changing. I don't mean life changing in dramatic ways, but they have been significant to me. Perhaps the three things my youthful friends would notice is that I gave up the habit of drinking prodigious quantities of beer for a life of abstinence, I adopted vegetarianism (and am now mostly vegan) as part of trying to 'live more gently in a violent world' (as Jean Vanier describes Christian living), and I follow a monastic pattern of prayer as a lay member of a monastic community. So, for me, giving faith 'the benefit of the doubt' has led to a life that makes sense to me, and has been fulfilling. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that if I had taken the alternative path and given doubt the benefit, that it would have led anywhere particularly, other than an ever deepening solipsism. I suspect it would have not 'scratched the itch' that I had. And this is what I think Kierkegaard describes, but more dramatically in his own life, that when we reach a point where we find nothing is sure we either stay there with an ever-deepening sense of the futility of everything (as was the case for Nietzsche) or we take a leap and embrace something we cannot be certain of at the time (and, I suspect, can never be truly certain of).

That's a bit long-winded, but I suspect it still raises many more questions than it raises (I haven't talked much of the step from the sense of the numinous to Christian belief, for example). In essence, when confronted with the question of whether the sense of the numinous reflected the presence of a real numinous external to myself, I took a risk, said "let's assume this is real and see where it leads", and 10 years on it makes more sense now than it did at the time, feels less risky (though still uncertain), has challenged me and has led to what I look on as positive changes in my life, and has been immensely satisfying.

(August 11, 2014 at 5:27 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 5:10 am)Michael Wrote: Pocaracas. You won't give me the satisfaction of backing up your accusation of dishonesty? Well, I have no interest in, and no respect for, ad hom argumentation and those that pursue it. I shall leave it there.

EVERY THEIST EVER: you guys only read the first sentence.

ok, that was an over-generalization... my bad.

Statler Waldorf addresses every single point in a post, often leading to half an hour, or more, of me addressing his posts back.
Who else?.... hmmmm... can't think of any...


Anyway, Michael, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence, you would have seen I never did any ad hom argumentation.
An Ad hom is when I dismiss your argument, based on my perception of your persona. What I did was ask how can you live with the intellectual dishonesty which should arise from bridging your scientific self from your believer self.

But you're not going to read this... it's too far down the post... nvm

The issue of a god's existence is a not a purely philosophical question or abstract concept when that assertion naturally follows with the assertion is that everything is that being's creation. It's a question with real, physical implications.

"God did it" is not a valid answer to the scientific question "how did the universe come to exist". It can't be falsified, and as such, it is an answer with no explanatory value.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)ManMachine Wrote: God is designed to elude such investigation, but that does not make it incompatible with science, just means it is beyond the enquiry of science, which - if I were a god - actually sounds like a godly quality to me.

MM

Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

(August 11, 2014 at 11:18 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)ManMachine Wrote: God is designed to elude such investigation, but that does not make it incompatible with science, just means it is beyond the enquiry of science, which - if I were a god - actually sounds like a godly quality to me.

MM

Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

I would suggest that it is an anachronistic view to see the belief in the existence of God, or the 'design of God', as one which is trying to avoid investigation by science (or by other means). I would see the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, as much more of a 'sense-making' exercise of the history of the people who would become known as Jews.

(August 11, 2014 at 11:06 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The issue of a god's existence is a not a purely philosophical question or abstract concept when that assertion naturally follows with the assertion is that everything is that being's creation. It's a question with real, physical implications.

"God did it" is not a valid answer to the scientific question "how did the universe come to exist". It can't be falsified, and as such, it is an answer with no explanatory value.

As far as scientific enquiry is concerned, I agree. But I'm not aware any religious person ever stating god was the answer to any scientific enquiry. God has been presented often as an alternative, but that's a different debate.

MM

---

(August 11, 2014 at 11:29 am)Michael Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 11:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

I would suggest that it is an anachronistic view to see the belief in the existence of God, or the 'design of God', as one which is trying to avoid investigation by science (or by other means). I would see the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, as much more of a 'sense-making' exercise of the history of the people who would become known as Jews.

Historically I think that is very true, but we are a long way (historically and theologically speaking) from that particular god.

MM

I'm not so sure we are so far from that God, MM. I think it is that God (the god of the patriarchs) many people relate to and discover across the ages. Take, for example, the enslaved negroes. On the one hand it's amazing that they embraced so enthusiastically the religious texts of their enslavers, but on the other hand you can see how they found such great resonance and hope in the enslavement and the emancipation of the Hebrews, and that is without even the hope of ultimate freedom promised in the New Testament scriptures. I take your point (I think it was your point) that the God of the apologist often comes across as different (somewhat slippery perhaps?), but I don't think that is the God most people find. But I must admit to a rather jaded view of apologists (with the exception of C.S.Lewis) even though they are supposed to be on 'my side'.

(August 11, 2014 at 8:00 am)Michael Wrote: So you ask whether what I call 'God', or the numinous, could be within us; that we create God rather than vice versa. The short answer is 'yes' that could be the case. The Quakers sometimes talk of God as the 'Light within', which I think allows them more flexibility in allowing for God as either entirely internal or external. I have some sympathy with that view. But I don't go there myself.

Just to be clear, I don't mean that we consciously invent God or that God is the result of a choice we make. My idea is that God is prior to our sense of self and is responsible for the possibility of who we take ourselves to be. What I have in mind would be true whether or not one 'believes in' God or not; it isn't up to us any more than we decide during our time in the womb whether to go through transformations which cause us to resemble other creatures before finally emerging human.

I believe there is a totality of the 'self', for the lack of a better word, which includes our rational mind or ego but is not limited to that. One can live his entire life without regard to anything beneath the surface and either find satisfaction or not. But I also value the power of silence and an interest in what comes if I leave space for it. I have a high regard for the mystery that makes possible what we are and try to remain open to it. I just don't call it God and I don't anthropomorphize it.