Faith and Knowledge

[Mystery Meat]

18 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How do you know religious experiences come from a personal God? Do all religious experiences come from God? 

All spiritual experiences come from god, by very definition. If an experience does not come from God it cannot be a spiritual experience. Similarly, if science can explain an experience the experience was not spiritual but something else entirely.

It seems like you are interested in worshipping science and finding scientific justifications for everything. It is an impossible task. Best of luck.

[Ahab]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Are you sure?

If you are sure about something..you don't need faith..you just follow that surety. Faith to me is more like hope.

 

The apostle Paul in Hebrews 11 said faith is the substance and evidence of things that are hoped for which are true, and Joseph clarified that by substance Paul was speaking of as an assurance,  which as I said is the state of being sure about something.  

Paul and Joseph were talking about faith that God gives us to help assure us of things that are true, and any assurance from God will always be true, but faith in general is just an assurance of something and the assurance/faith won't necessarily be true when someone else other than God assures us of something. 

But yes I am sure that I know what faith is, based on common dictionary definitions and what apostles and prophets of God have said about it, too.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How do you know religious experiences come from a personal God? Do all religious experiences come from God? 

All experiences of a spiritual nature come from God, man, or the adversary.  The trick is to learn to distinguish between the three.  Joseph Smith makes that clear.

[TheSkepticChristian]

14 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have seen healings first hand. Actual miracles that science cannot explain

Modern science doesn't know everything about the human body yet, it is messy. Just because science can't explain something doesn't prove that God did it. It's called God of the gaps. 

Many have seen a Hindu God statue drinking milk, does it mean there is no natural explanation? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hindu-world-divided-by-a-24-hour-wonder-1602382.html

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Modern science doesn't know everything about the human body yet, it is messy. Just because science can't explain something doesn't prove that God did it. It's called God of the gaps.

Many have seen a Hindu God statue drinking milk, does it mean there is no natural explanation?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hindu-world-divided-by-a-24-hour-wonder-1602382.html

Your faith in science is impressive.  Especially considering all the mistakes they make.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Modern science doesn't know everything about the human body yet, it is messy. Just because science can't explain something doesn't prove that God did it. It's called God of the gaps. 

Many have seen a Hindu God statue drinking milk, does it mean there is no natural explanation? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hindu-world-divided-by-a-24-hour-wonder-1602382.html

Why are you not listening? I have never said that just because science cannot explain it now, that that means God did it. As if there are only two categories: things science can currently explain and spiritual experiences. Listen carefully: I am saying that science cannot now, nor will it ever be able to, explain actual spiritual experiences without acknowledging divine presence and or interaction.

I have not once argued that because science cannot prove it, that that means God is the default explanation. Discussing with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I swear it is like you are having these arguments with yourself and somehow I am expected to keep up.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/26/2016 at 2:29 PM, Mystery Meat said:

No, it cannot. It may attempt to study what goes on in the brain etc., but that is even assuming you can force a spiritual experience when you are all wired up and connected. In my experience religious experiences are unpredictable. And even if it does, measure some manifestation that takes place in the brain, it doesn't measure what is happening to the soul, where such experiences actually take place.

Every experience is a brain chemistry event, we decide which are "real" . Is falling in love real? Of course 

[TheSkepticChristian]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Your faith in science is impressive.  Especially considering all the mistakes they make.

You think religion doesn't make any mistakes? Sciences makes predictions, what predictions does religion make? 

14 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Why are you not listening?

I think you are the one not listening, I said, " How do you know religious experiences come from a personal God? Do all religious experiences come from God?" I said "RELIGIOUS" 

14 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

 I am saying that science cannot now, nor will it ever be able to, explain actual spiritual experiences without acknowledging divine presence and or interaction.

Okay, I will try again. How do you know spiritual experiences are real? You are begging the question. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You think religion doesn't make any mistakes? Sciences makes predictions, what predictions does religion make? 

I think you are the one not listening, I said, " How do you know religious experiences come from a personal God? Do all religious experiences come from God?" I said "RELIGIOUS" 

Okay, I will try again. How do you know spiritual experiences are real? You are begging the question. 

Because I have experience with them

[James Tunney]

Isn't faith merely the presumption of a desired conclusion? Then one finds reasons to justify said conclusion using circular logic and confirmation bias?This seems to be a horrible way to reach any solid conclusion about reality because the desired conclusion is never falsifiable. There are always reasons to justify the predetermined conclusion through cognitive dissonance.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Because I have experience with them

 

On 5/27/2016 at 4:54 PM, Mystery Meat said:

I have seen healings first hand. Actual miracles that science cannot explain

So what miracles did you experience that science cannot explain? and please define "spiritual" experiences, what do you mean by that? 

and should we believe in Hindu statues that drink milk? There are thousands of witnesses around the world, should we believe that? Should we also believe that Marina Chapman was raised by monkeys in the jungle of Columbia? 

 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/13/marina-chapman-monkeys

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So what miracles did you experience that science cannot explain away?

Fixed it for you.
You can explain away anything.

Just because science can explain something doesn't make that explanation the correct one.  Scientists just assume their explanations are right and other explanations are wrong because they can't prove their existence.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Isn't faith merely the presumption of a desired conclusion? Then one finds reasons to justify said conclusion using circular logic and confirmation bias?This seems to be a horrible way to reach any solid conclusion about reality because the desired conclusion is never falsifiable. There are always reasons to justify the predetermined conclusion through cognitive dissonance.

The conclusions reached are not about reality but about what gives an individual purpose in life, or what action to take or what decision to make after studying out the situation in one's mind first.

Atheists may see it as "following one's "gut".  It is a deep inward mental consultation with the "self" or God- to see find purpose and meaning in life.

There are religions without god now which people have invented to substitute for religion but they still serve the same purpose 

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/the-global-ecovillage-network-process-philosophy-and-ecological-theology-applied.html

Quote

According to Litfin, the ecovillage movement replaces the symbolic logic of “atomism and the machine” with the “organism and living systems.” Like process philosophy, ecovillages uphold science and religion as inseparable partners in dialogue, and they eschew the cosmological division between the divine and the world. “Their spirituality is embodied and relational, aiming not for liberation from this world, but rather for the transformation of it.” As Litfin illustrates, “eco-villages are consciously seeking to birth new ways of living that transcend the modern dichotomies of urban vs. rural settlements, private vs. public spheres, culture vs. nature, local vs. global, expert vs. layperson, affluence vs. poverty, and mind vs. body.” Ecovillages therefore reflect a shift in philosophical orientation away from modernism’s various bifurcations and toward a more holistic postmodern organicism.

Although ecovillagers each have different approaches to spirituality, the common thread uniting them is a core belief that intrinsic subjectivity is the principle link connecting all living beings— a principle also shared by process-relational thinkers. 

On this view, religion can be seen as answering subjective questions we all have, not objective questions.  Such subjective questions might be "how should I best spend my life?" and "what is the most important thing I can do with my life?"  "How do I feel about abortion and why?"  "Should I personally do something about global warming and what?" etc.

These questions go to the core of each individual as religious questions and cannot be answered scientifically because their answers are subjective.  This is the "intrinsic subjectivity" discussed here.  It is ultimately self-awareness and looks toward the answer to how can I best realize and become my best Self.

This is where faith comes it.  The answers to those questions which guide future action are completely faith- based.  What should YOU personally do about global warming is one of those questions you yourself might ponder.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Fixed it for you.
You can explain away anything.

Just because science can explain something doesn't make that explanation the correct one.  Scientists just assume their explanations are right and other explanations are wrong because they can't prove their existence.

Everyone knows that God cannot be proven to exist scientifically- the faith part comes in in answering "So what then?"

Does one become an atheist?  That is a decision based on faith.  Does one become a Mormon because one believes in God and has found that Mormonism is the best path for them?  That is their answer.

Should one then campaign for save the whales?  Or the Democratic party?  Or ISIS?  all these are faith- based questions based on a subjective feeling of what is "right" for that individual.

But science can never answer what is the right course for any given individualy.  THAT is a religious question

In skeptic's video, the poor woman was bamboozled into exploring questions she never explored before and actually found a way to open herself to religion and seeing its value.  I see that as a missionary tool - and does not disprove religious experience at all- it fact it shows a scientific basis for it.

The problem is the idiot who did the demonstration has no understanding of what religion is about.

Edited May 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does one become an atheist?  That is a decision based on faith.

Is Agnosticism a decision based on faith too? 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Just because science can explain something doesn't make that explanation the correct one. 

I agree, but have you ever read about Occam's razor? 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Is Agnosticism a decision based on faith too? 

I agree, but have you ever read about Occam's razor? 

Agnosticism is more ignorance of what the conversation is about.  The agnostic and the atheist make "religious" decisions every day of their lives about what life is about and what is the best course for their lives, they are just stuck on the words "God" and "existence" and whether or not their understanding of the words collide or not.  It's semantic confusion as usual.

And yes, regarding occams razor: that is itself a faith based position which cannot be proven.  It is a basic assumption with no proof on which science is founded.  In fact it is often a false path- false when it takes the simple over the complex when the answer IS complex, or the question is framed poorly.

I know you will not understand this- and come back with some demand for proof, but take a look at this

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/letter-to-my-postmodern-son-john-caputo-on-the-weakness-of-god.html

There are many things not dreamt of in your science, skeptic.

 

About a writer named Caputo:

Quote

But he is not all about sweetness and light.  He thinks that when we experience the breeze we can be shaken in our foundations and called to think new thoughts and feel new feelings, especially as they dismantle our more conventional and calculative ways.  The breeze comes to us as messianic callings to remember the dead even though we cannot bring them back to life; to forgive the unforgivable even they have harmed us and those we love; to extend hospitality to strangers even if we are more inclined to despise them; and to get up each morning even in the face of bottomless despair (WG, 96).  Thus there are two sides to the book: a sacramental side which finds the breeze in the things of this world and a prophetic side which experiences the breeze a de-stabilizing call toward an unforeseeable future. 

Perhaps there is some wisdom in living from the listings of the breeze or, as he speaks of it, living from the kingdom.  A process theologian like me might call it living from the initial aims or the lures of God.  But the wisdom at issue does not lie in holding philosophical positions which function as armor in a field of conceptual combat.  Nor does it lie in pretending that we have answers to all life’s important questions.  Caputo thinks it is better to live with unanswerable questions than pretend we have answers for them.  Thus for him wisdom is not a philosophical position, but rather a way of living which includes our deeds and our feelings, our prayers and tears, our laughter and doubts.  This kind of wisdom is open-ended: like the wisdom of our Zen friend in Japan. Zen Master Keido Fukushima, who says life itself is the ultimate koan; or the wisdom of your ninety-two year old grandmother whose favorite saying is onward through the fog; or the wisdom of a carpenter from Nazareth who died with some questions of his own.

THAT is faith

Edited May 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I have questions for Occam's Razor

Should I marry Suzi?

Should I join the Mormons or save the whales?  Or some other group?  Which one, or if none, why?

What beliefs will make me more productive?

Should I donate to the Communist Party or the NRA?

Is it important if I go to grandma's for thanksgiving or to my brother's house?

Can I do something about global warming?

Will I be a spirit after I die?

What is the purpose of life?  Does it even have a purpose?  How could I know?

The next time you see Occam would you please ask his razor these questions?

While you are at it, ask him how he knows his razor is always right?

Edited May 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

.  The agnostic and the atheist make "religious" decisions every day of their lives about what life is about and what is the best course for their lives,

I agree, but Agnosticism is not a religious faith. 

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agnosticism is more ignorance of what the conversation is about.  

Exactly! Agnosticism is not wishful thinking.

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yes, regarding occams razor: that is itself a faith based position which cannot be proven.

and I wasn't talking to you about Occams razor.  I want you to answer my simple question instead please. Why is Theism better than Agnosticism? 

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 It is a basic assumption with no proof on which science is founded.  

but it is a useful assumption. 

Me: Loch Ness Monster or a Toy? 

You: Sorry, Occams Razor itself cannot be proven 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, but Agnosticism is not a religious faith. 

Exactly! Agnosticism is not wishful thinking.

and I wasn't talking to you about Occams razor.  I want you to answer my simple question instead please. Why is Theism better than Agnosticism? 

but it is a useful assumption. 

Me: Loch Ness Monster or a Toy? 

You: Sorry, Occams Razor itself cannot be proven 

 

Cream cheese.

Bongo drums.

[Teancum]

On May 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Science cannot, by rule, explain any religious experiences.

That's because such experiences cannot be tested to be verified as truthful or falsifiable.  Thus the myriad of conflicting religious truth claims.  

[Teancum]

On May 26, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Ahab said:

The only difference between a science and a religion is a definition, but each word has more than one definition, so there is a definition that can bridge that difference. 

The science that has to do with religion and God is called theology. 

Nonesense.  Theology is not a science. 

[Teancum]

On May 27, 2016 at 11:14 AM, JLHPROF said:

Your faith in science is impressive.  Especially considering all the mistakes they make.

Your post is incredibly ironic. 

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Your faith in science is impressive.  Especially considering all the mistakes they make.

Your post is incredibly ironic. 

Is it really?
My faith is in God and Christ and they have never made mistakes.

Edited May 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it really?
My faith is in God and Christ and they have never made mistakes.

It's ironic because of the myriad of varying religions and all the mistakes they have made and things they have clearly gotten wrong. LDS Church not excluded and this by admission its leaders and its defenders.

 I have not researched this but I would historically religion far outpaces science thousands upon thousands of times over.

Most of the Christian world's sects would argue that theologically your faith is in the wrong or a false Jesus. So they at least think you are making a huge mistake.

[thesometimesaint]

On 5/28/2016 at 9:12 AM, JLHPROF said:

Fixed it for you.
You can explain away anything.

Just because science can explain something doesn't make that explanation the correct one.  Scientists just assume their explanations are right and other explanations are wrong because they can't prove their existence.

Science does no such thing. Science by definition is best explanation we have, so far, for any given observation. As such it is always tentative.

SEE