What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[vulcanlogician]

verifiable realities

In your opinion.

"Verifiable" means something though. It isn't just Alan's opinion. God is pretty much unverified. Even theists admit that. After all, what is faith for if God is verified? God isn't verified. But other things are. I place more credence in the belief of those "verified" things. Don't you?

In your opinion.

But again, if it does turn out that mind is always and only dependent on the existence of a physical brain, I am skeptical that this would bring any significant change to Christianity.

I agree with you here. If anything, the dependance of mind upon material reality makes Christianity more poignant.

[Belacqua]

"Verifiable" means something though. It isn't just Alan's opinion. God is pretty much unverified. Even theists admit that. After all, what is faith for if God is verified? God isn't verified. But other things are. I place more credence in the belief of those "verified" things. Don't you?

Don't forget that the standards we use to verify things (in our opinions) are contingent, historical things. And as you know, the metaphysical assumptions on which science rests are not themselves things which can be verified by science. 

So how you think of verification is in play here. 

But the old joke is still best: treating religion as failed science is like treating ballet as a failed attempt to run for the bus. It is a category error, and deeply neglectful of things which are vital to human life and culture.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In the words of David Foster Wallace, however smart you think you are, you are probably way less smart than that. Also if your experiece of people with differing view comes from a debate forum then that also would skew one's perceptions. For the purpose of vigorous debate, I often present a degree of certainty I do not have. IMO Too many qualifiers distract from the main discussion points even if it comes off as smugness.

I do tire of hearing atheism being presented as the only rational position when in fact it is only as rational as the epistemic assumptions of the belief holder. I also do not accept the idea that atheism is the default, no burden of proof, position, since IMHO it is the couterintuitive one.

I think theism is a rational position. I am swayed by John Hick, who in an essay lays out a rational basis for theism. That basis? Direct experience. If I have direct experience that William Johnson exists (I see him every day at work, for example), then I don't need to pay any heed to skeptics about William Johnson.

The thing about that is, it only applies to mystics. If someone hasn't had direct experience of God, they have no rational basis.

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Are Unitarians considered liberal believers?

I think they are an American group. Have never come across them here in Oz. (of course that doesn't necessarily mean there are none here)

What about Theosophists? Their motto is "There is no religion greater than truth" . Think that probably needs to be taken with a pinch of salad. Their founder, Helena Blavatsky*** seems to have been an interesting mix of froot loop and fraud. In the 1970's, I came to view Theosophists as pretty much small groups of little old ladies of both sexes.


*** in about 1977, I tried to read her book "The Secret Doctrine". I found it impenetrable.

[Belacqua]

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

This guy, Jeffrey Kripal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_J._Kripal

has done seriously good work on mystical and other experiences that seem impossible by current scientific standards. I read Secret Body recently, and I'd say it's a good introduction.

He says that descriptions of these experiences vary according to local vocabulary and habits of thought -- e.g., a Christian will describe what he sees as an angel, while someone else might call it a djinn or a UFO. But when these local contingencies are kept in mind, there is clearly something consistent and real going on. 

He is an atheist and an academic, not at all a woo peddler. I was particularly interested in his account of how whenever he gives a speech at a university, people approach him afterward to say that they've had these experiences but refuse to go public with them because they know they will be scoffed at in academia. 

None of this, of course, proves the Christian God. But I think Kripal makes a good case that the scientific explanations we have now are overdue for a serious paradigm shift.

[emjay]

...
But again, if it does turn out that mind is always and only dependent on the existence of a physical brain, I am skeptical that this would bring any significant change to Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to that conclusion? If you just mean that Christianity would be resistant to the implications, then I have no doubt, as it resists everything, but if you mean it would somehow be convincing evidence for theism, I personally can't see how (hence the question)... it certainly wouldn't convince me, and indeed would be the final nail in the coffin of any potential Christian belief in me.

Basically that is and always has been my own biggest question in all of this... if the mind is 100% dependent on the brain, or more specifically for me, if all conscious states are neurally represented in the brain... then all mental processes are therefore shown to be deterministic and/or quantum (however that applies if it does) but either way not compatible with the idea of a disembodied soul or free will. Being a hard determinist (hence my avatar) and a materialist it should be obvious that I strongly suspect that to be the case, but I don't know it to be the case... it remains an open question for me; ie if it turns out there's anything in consciousness that can't be explained by the brain, even theoretically... ie suggesting that consciousness is somehow above and beyond brain function rather than being a representation/mirror of it, as I believe it to be... then all bets would off at that point, and I'd have to rethink everything.

But to be clear, I don't expect to get the answer to those sorts of questions here... and it certainly wouldn't come from any claimed experience of people (ie NDEs, visions etc)... that's not what I'm talking about... that's content and reasonably explainable by appeal to brain states... what I'm talking about is mechanisms and theory, which can only be answered, for me, by psychology/neuroscience, and that's a long term question.

So yeah, that's where I stand on this, but just curious what you meant.

[Ferrocyanide]

I’m not sure what “liberal” means any more. I used to think I was a political liberal, but now people say the Clintons and Obama are liberals, and they are obviously evil, so I don’t know what word to use. But if we use “liberal” as the opposite of the “fundie” I described above, then this is a liberal:

What does big mean? What does small mean?

Let’s check the dictionary. I will use the Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com

Big = large or great in dimensions, bulk, or extent
(I just picked the definition about size)

So now that we have learned the definition of the word “big”, is the room I am in big?

Words like big, small, tall, short, old, young, intelligent, dumb are relative terms and there are more.
People can use them any way they wish.
I think it is called “playing it fast and loose” in united statian lingo.

You think that Clintons and Obama are evil? Fine, how did you measure that?

He knows that good people may disagree.

There is one of those words: good.
What is god, what is bad? How is it measured?

He interacts with people in non-judgmental ways, and tries to see the good in them.

How do you know that a person is non-judgmental? How are you going to figure out what is going on in his mind?
Do we have a machine that can plug into a person’s brain and read his thoughts?

There is that word again: good.

He feels that being kind to people is a good thing; how we behave toward others says something about ourselves, and is not something that changes depending on whether we judge others deserving or not.

Kind is one of those words. How kind is he. is he kind enough to be called a kind person?

Can we have some way to measure this, to quantify this?

He is interested in and curious about people unlike himself.

But what if I am curious at one point and on another day I lose interest or I am not curious about a guy I meet on Wednesday?

Can we have some way to measure this, to quantify this?

As an example of a fundie atheist, there was a guy on this forum who recently said that rational people should still be learning, and if they are still learning they should eventually agree with him and become atheists. Anyone who could make a statement like this must live in a very narrow intellectual world. He must be completely unaware of all the rational, brilliant people — way smarter than he is — who are still religious, or who became religious. The idea that a person can just beg the question like that, and assume that “rational” equals “will agree with me” seems unjustifiable to me.

Rational people. Ugly people. Beautiful people.
It’s in the eye of the beholder.
I think we should not just categorize people like this. We should compare, we should measure.


Man, it was very hot that day.
How hot was it?
It was so hot, that the butter in my kitchen melted.

---

I do tire of hearing atheism being presented as the only rational position when in fact it is only as rational as the epistemic assumptions of the belief holder. I also do not accept the idea that atheism is the default, no burden of proof, position, since IMHO it is the couterintuitive one.

You think that the position of having evidence before believing in the existence of something is not rational?

How is theism more intuitive for you?

Note: I don’t know if I will be able to demonstrate that having evidence is the rational position.
I don’t know if theism is the rational position.
But, I would be happy to explore both of them.

[Paleophyte]

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

I have never spoken to god and neither has anybody else.

---

But I think Kripal makes a good case that the scientific explanations we have now are overdue for a serious paradigm shift.

Unlikely. Science has done a good job of taking the piss out of mysticism. There isn't enough of substance there to shift a bent parapfennig.

Now, if you could make faith self-correcting that would be a paradigm shift.

[Ferrocyanide]

I think theism is a rational position. I am swayed by John Hick, who in an essay lays out a rational basis for theism. That basis? Direct experience. If I have direct experience that William Johnson exists (I see him every day at work, for example), then I don't need to pay any heed to skeptics about William Johnson.

The thing about that is, it only applies to mystics. If someone hasn't had direct experience of God, they have no rational basis.

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

Russia is a country. There is a certain group of humans who live there. They speak russian. They write in russian. They write in the cyrillic character set.
You can interact with the people there via the internet. You can find webpages about it.
It is a land mass and land masses are made of atoms/molecules.
Atoms/molecules are not shy. They don’t play hide and seek.
And of course, it is easy to buy a plane ticket and go to Russia.

There are many countries with various cultures. We all have experience with this.
Are you having difficulty in accepting that Russia is real?

I have not encountered a large group of people who think that we have all been lied to and that Russia does not exist.

Claiming that Russia exists is not an extraordinary claim.
Gods are extraordinary claim.
Where are they? Can anyone buy a plane ticket and just go visit them? Any photos?
Why do different cultures have different gods?
Why is it that some people claim (jews) that the gods of other cultures do not exist?
Why are there so many religions and so many gods?
Why isn’t there a consensus as to which sect is the true religion?

How did you determine that the god you believe in is real? What is your religion?

Are you perhaps the equivalent of a flat earther? You think that there is obvious info that your religion is true and that everyone else is hiding it?

[Belacqua]

Science has done a good job of taking the piss out of mysticism.

Of the cases Kripal describes, which have been described through known scientific explanations?

How would a scientist go about demonstrating that mystical experiences described by, say, Plotinus, are of known natural origin?

---

...
But again, if it does turn out that mind is always and only dependent on the existence of a physical brain, I am skeptical that this would bring any significant change to Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, how do you come to that conclusion? If you just mean that Christianity would be resistant to the implications, then I have no doubt, as it resists everything, but if you mean it would somehow be convincing evidence for theism, I personally can't see how (hence the question)... it certainly wouldn't convince me, and indeed would be the final nail in the coffin of any potential Christian belief in me.

Basically that is and always has been my own biggest question in all of this... if the mind is 100% dependent on the brain, or more specifically for me, if all conscious states are neurally represented in the brain... then all mental processes are therefore shown to be deterministic and/or quantum (however that applies if it does) but either way not compatible with the idea of a disembodied soul or free will. Being a hard determinist (hence my avatar) and a materialist it should be obvious that I strongly suspect that to be the case, but I don't know it to be the case... it remains an open question for me; ie if it turns out there's anything in consciousness that can't be explained by the brain, even theoretically... ie suggesting that consciousness is somehow above and beyond brain function rather than being a representation/mirror of it, as I believe it to be... then all bets would off at that point, and I'd have to rethink everything.

But to be clear, I don't expect to get the answer to those sorts of questions here... and it certainly wouldn't come from any claimed experience of people (ie NDEs, visions etc)... that's not what I'm talking about... that's content and reasonably explainable by appeal to brain states... what I'm talking about is mechanisms and theory, which can only be answered, for me, by psychology/neuroscience, and that's a long term question.

So yeah, that's where I stand on this, but just curious what you meant.

Is it your experience that most Christians base their religion on issues such as the mind/body problem? 

Or is it more of a sociological phenomenon, involving behavior, ethics, and goals?