An unexpected religious conversation...

09/18/2009 03:11:57 PM · #51

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping...

Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about.

So, I would assume everyone has two worlds: the physical and the mental. (One could argue that brain processes are physical but I would argue the actual thoughts are not). Or is this not the separation you are talking about? If not, I am still confused and if so, then religious belief is not required for the second world.

No this is fine. If you believe that your thoughts represent a dualistic process in your brain (ie. they are not just a product of molecular motion) then you believe in this other world. Religion falls within it, but I agree you can have a very minimal view toward this world.

All the usual suspects are showing up to the conversation and at this point I'm merely playing the role of Rossbilly who can't make his friend understand how he sees the world. I think I'm starting to learn in Rant to stop at some point because it's just an exercise in frustration. I'm not there yet, but may be at some point.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/18/2009 03:28:09 PM · #52

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping...

Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about.

So, I would assume everyone has two worlds: the physical and the mental. (One could argue that brain processes are physical but I would argue the actual thoughts are not). Or is this not the separation you are talking about? If not, I am still confused and if so, then religious belief is not required for the second world.

No this is fine. If you believe that your thoughts represent a dualistic process in your brain (ie. they are not just a product of molecular motion) then you believe in this other world. Religion falls within it, but I agree you can have a very minimal view toward this world.

All the usual suspects are showing up to the conversation and at this point I'm merely playing the role of Rossbilly who can't make his friend understand how he sees the world. I think I'm starting to learn in Rant to stop at some point because it's just an exercise in frustration. I'm not there yet, but may be at some point.

LOL. Perhaps because your arguments are always the same. You never actually get around to tying everything together. You just stick to your strength which is raising the possibility of this other world. However, we all know that's not where it ends. Where it ends is all these very specific details about this other world (ex. the bible) which REQUIRES measurements and observations to reveal yet that part is always left out and just left to "faith", which is the hope that these details are true and we haven't been duped. Now, I could believe in this other world but for me it could just as easily take on the form of another universe that is still grounded in the material just like this one. You however believe this other world is supernatural and doesn't act in a similar way this one does, to which I say where's the proof in that?

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 15:30:24.

09/18/2009 03:31:06 PM · #53

Originally posted by yanko:

LOL. Perhaps because your arguments are always the same. You never actually get around to tying everything together. You just stick to your strength which is raising the possibility of this other world. However, we all know that's not where it ends. Where it ends is all these very specific details about this other world (ex the bible) which REQUIRES measurements and observations to reveal yet that part is always left out and just left to "faith". I could believe in this other world but for me it could just be another universe that is grounded in the material just like this one. You however believe this other world is supernatural and doesn't act in a similar way this one does, to which I say where's the proof in that?

If you are expecting a scientific method answer there is none and it only reveals your ignorance. The scientific method is not the tool for the philosophical/religious world. You don't use a pipe wrench to screw in a screw. The two answers are through rational thought (we've had lots of great philosophers) and direct revelation. You can explore the first, but the second is not all in your hands.

All our answers are always the same Richard. You think you are saying anything different? :)

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 15:33:18.

09/18/2009 03:37:49 PM · #54

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is your giant blind spot Shannon which has been evident every time we talk. Your steadfast belief that truth can only be discovered through the Scientific Method. It ignores a whole body of knowledge which can be generically labelled "philosophy".

Quite the opposite. I simply don't think truth can be assumed from belief alone, particularly if it directly contradicts observation and/or the belief itself is the sole basis for dismissing all other beliefs as myth.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have no way of making you see because you are so set in your way.

You are unwilling to budge from the notion that belief trumps evidence as a basis for fact while simultaneously considering other beliefs to be fiction, and I'M set in my ways? You have absolutely no clue what my religious background is (hint: a willingness to embrace the opposing view is the antithesis of conservatism).

09/18/2009 03:40:23 PM · #55

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The scientific method is not the tool for the philosophical/religious world. You don't use a pipe wrench to screw in a screw. The two answers are through rational thought (we've had lots of great philosophers) and direct revelation.

Correct. While imagination can be used in conjunction with real tools, the imaginary can only be explored through imagination.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/18/2009 03:42:29 PM · #56

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, this answer doesn't help me with the dual worlds you brought up, then. And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

OP talked to someone who couldn't comprehend a belief system different from his own. My only thought/response to this would be that the person not comprehending never made an attempt to find out if there existed, outside his belief system, an alternate belief system. For example, if one had only ever seen white dogs and all dogs known to exist were white then any dog not fitting the pattern would either 1) be considered a non-dog or 2) change the person's beliefs about dogs. I'm hoping that this experience gives that particular person enough curiosity to investigate further. Not to change his beliefs but to better understand them.

Ignorance is shocking, even if it is innocent.

As for an unexpected religious conversation, I have one for you. When I was 12, I had to go to a baptist summer camp. It was an all day thing but not a sleep over camp and I was to be there the entire summer. I only remember, to this day, 1 event: the discussion of the punishment and extermination of the Jews at the second coming of Jesus. Being 12 and being catholic, I had never heard this before. I asked if the holocaust could be considered their punishment and was told that no, the second coming had not yet happened because we were all still here. We would be with Jesus in heaven if it had. I explained this to my mother that night; she became so distressed I never had to go back to the camp again. This was my first taste of religionism (what else can you call it?) and one that I never forgot.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

09/18/2009 03:48:01 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To the OP's post, I would perhaps put the shoe on the other foot. Reading between the lines it sounds like Ross was having a very hard time understanding the position of his friend. It sounds very much like he can't fathom it. I'm not saying this is bad or trying to stir up crap, but I'm just saying it's a two way street. The believer can see two worlds; this one and another. The atheist (and perhaps, but not necessarily, the agnostic) can only see one. What you were trying to get your friend to do, perhaps, is akin to asking a person with normal eyesight to pretend they are red/green colorblind. It would be very hard to do so with any amount of reality. You can't divorce from your mind something so ingrained as "seeing green".

There are several erroneous assumptions in your statement.

(a) Until just a few years ago (3 or 4?), I WAS a christian. I have absolutely no problem understanding or relating to my co-worker, and we have discussed that point as well. There is no 'shoe on the other foot' to wonder about at all... I just don't like wearing those shoes anymore ;)
(b) In case it wasn't clear, my co-worker(s) and I have terrific discussions about our differences on religion. Since they KNOW that I once believed as they do, they normally ask questions and then I answer them.
(c) Even though we disagree, our focus is on finding common ground that helps us in our lives despite any differences. I'm sure he goes home & talks about my views, just like I talk at home about his viewpoint. Still, the point is to learn from one another, rather than argue & make accusations. We want to help each other become better PEOPLE, not better christians or agnostics or theists or atheists.
(d) What I pointed out to my friend was that there are places that are different than where we live (ie - no religion in daily life). You missed the point that I am already aware of how things are where I live, but that he was NOT aware of how things are elsewhere.

You see, it is I that saw the two worlds, and he that only saw one. :)

(but thanks for your input Jason)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/18/2009 03:49:39 PM · #58

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The scientific method is not the tool for the philosophical/religious world.

No but I do require it when the results of your philosophy starts to describe specific details of the nature of this other world not to mention the history of this one. These things require the scientific method.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The scientific method is not the tool for the philosophical/religious world. You don't use a pipe wrench to screw in a screw. The two answers are through rational thought (we've had lots of great philosophers) and direct revelation.

Correct. While imagination can be used in conjunction with real tools, the imaginary can only be explored through imagination.

Exactly.

ETA: or hallucinogenics.

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 15:50:53.

09/18/2009 04:02:36 PM · #59

Originally posted by dahkota:

And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

Bingo! A theist who cannot comprehend the possibility of NO gods is in no position to admonish others for failing to grasp other worlds.

Konica Minolta MF 85mm f/1.7

09/18/2009 04:10:02 PM · #60

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:
And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

Bingo! A theist who cannot comprehend the possibility of NO gods is in no position to admonish others for failing to grasp other worlds.

I think you are mixing metaphors here but it could really be that I don't understand the idea of two worlds in the first place. If there are two worlds then there are infinite worlds. So, I chose to only believe in one world. Of course, I do not consider myself a dualist nor do I consider myself an atheist (thereby mixing up everything again). Everything is part of the same world be it material or not. Its so much simpler that way. :P

briantammy

Olympus PEN E-P3

09/18/2009 04:12:33 PM · #61

Originally posted by dahkota:

As for an unexpected religious conversation, I have one for you. When I was 12, I had to go to a baptist summer camp. It was an all day thing but not a sleep over camp and I was to be there the entire summer. I only remember, to this day, 1 event: the discussion of the punishment and extermination of the Jews at the second coming of Jesus. Being 12 and being catholic, I had never heard this before. I asked if the holocaust could be considered their punishment and was told that no, the second coming had not yet happened because we were all still here. We would be with Jesus in heaven if it had. I explained this to my mother that night; she became so distressed I never had to go back to the camp again. This was my first taste of religionism (what else can you call it?) and one that I never forgot.

this is interesting. when I was young and catholic i had a similar experience with a baptist uncle who had recently read Hal Linsey's Book, The Late Great Planet Earth. this sounded totally like science fiction to me.

once you start to open yourself to the beliefs of others, you start to realize how many different "worlds" there really are. at the same time you suddenly realize that what you believe is probably seen by many others as very strange.

09/18/2009 04:21:20 PM · #62

Originally posted by dahkota:

I think you are mixing metaphors here but it could really be that I don't understand the idea of two worlds in the first place.

Pretty sure he means the world of our physical universe and the world of the supernatural. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter WHICH gods/demons/spirits/planes of existence exist, only that some do. An atheist supposedly cannot grasp the idea of a world beyond our physical understanding. However, you could say exactly the same of someone who cannot grasp the concept of NO supernatural beings. Pot --> Kettle --> Black.

09/18/2009 04:25:38 PM · #63

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I think you are mixing metaphors here but it could really be that I don't understand the idea of two worlds in the first place.

Pretty sure he means the world of our physical universe and the world of the supernatural. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter WHICH gods/demons/spirits/planes of existence exist, only that some do. An atheist supposedly cannot grasp the idea of a world beyond our physical understanding. However, you could say exactly the same of someone who cannot grasp the concept of NO supernatural beings. Pot --> Kettle --> Black.

So am I wrong in assuming that the idea here is that all atheists are materialists?

09/18/2009 04:31:54 PM · #64

Originally posted by dahkota:

So am I wrong in assuming that the idea here is that all atheists are materialists?

Probably. For example, one could believe that other dimensions or universes might exist and still not believe in gods.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/18/2009 04:52:37 PM · #65

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:
And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

Bingo! A theist who cannot comprehend the possibility of NO gods is in no position to admonish others for failing to grasp other worlds.

I think you are mixing metaphors here but it could really be that I don't understand the idea of two worlds in the first place. If there are two worlds then there are infinite worlds. So, I chose to only believe in one world. Of course, I do not consider myself a dualist nor do I consider myself an atheist (thereby mixing up everything again). Everything is part of the same world be it material or not. Its so much simpler that way. :P

This makes a lot of sense to me. You can contemplate the existence of another world but then it opens the door to an infinite number of them including the one where unicorns recite poetry everyday and where DrAchoo is worshiped by ladybugs and people alike. Oh wait that's just in his dreams.

At the end of the day, people believe or are taught to believe in one of these worlds simply because of self interest. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 16:55:54.

09/18/2009 05:34:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have no way of making you see because you are so set in your way.

You are unwilling to budge from the notion that belief trumps evidence as a basis for fact while simultaneously considering other beliefs to be fiction, and I'M set in my ways? You have absolutely no clue what my religious background is (hint: a willingness to embrace the opposing view is the antithesis of conservatism).

While I have no clue what your background is, you have a very good clue what my involvement with the scientific world is. Do you, for even a second, believe I value belief over evidence when dealing with my patients or my training or when reading journal articles? The problem with your argument is I actually hold more experience in both worlds than you. Not only am I steeped in the world of religion, I qualify as "expert" in the world of Science. I'm your worst nightmare. ;P

09/18/2009 05:39:29 PM · #67

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To the OP's post, I would perhaps put the shoe on the other foot. Reading between the lines it sounds like Ross was having a very hard time understanding the position of his friend. It sounds very much like he can't fathom it. I'm not saying this is bad or trying to stir up crap, but I'm just saying it's a two way street. The believer can see two worlds; this one and another. The atheist (and perhaps, but not necessarily, the agnostic) can only see one. What you were trying to get your friend to do, perhaps, is akin to asking a person with normal eyesight to pretend they are red/green colorblind. It would be very hard to do so with any amount of reality. You can't divorce from your mind something so ingrained as "seeing green".

There are several erroneous assumptions in your statement.

(a) Until just a few years ago (3 or 4?), I WAS a christian. I have absolutely no problem understanding or relating to my co-worker, and we have discussed that point as well. There is no 'shoe on the other foot' to wonder about at all... I just don't like wearing those shoes anymore ;)
(b) In case it wasn't clear, my co-worker(s) and I have terrific discussions about our differences on religion. Since they KNOW that I once believed as they do, they normally ask questions and then I answer them.
(c) Even though we disagree, our focus is on finding common ground that helps us in our lives despite any differences. I'm sure he goes home & talks about my views, just like I talk at home about his viewpoint. Still, the point is to learn from one another, rather than argue & make accusations. We want to help each other become better PEOPLE, not better christians or agnostics or theists or atheists.
(d) What I pointed out to my friend was that there are places that are different than where we live (ie - no religion in daily life). You missed the point that I am already aware of how things are where I live, but that he was NOT aware of how things are elsewhere.

You see, it is I that saw the two worlds, and he that only saw one. :)

(but thanks for your input Jason)

Hey, no problem. If my point had no merit then discard it. I think you've had good input over the years on these threads and I'd much rather converse with you than the usual yelling across the line in the sand. I think it's great when people with different worldviews actually reach across and converse. I am familiar with the error you ran across where a Christian assumes atheist somehow equates to satanist and agree with your conclusions about its fallacy. When I get into conversations about morality on these threads it did take me a long time to fathom that to an atheist the statement "there is no God" is not as central to their moral philosophy as "there is a God" is to a theist. I'm guessing your friend is having similar difficulties.

09/18/2009 05:48:47 PM · #68

Originally posted by dahkota:

Well, this answer doesn't help me with the dual worlds you brought up, then. And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

Perhaps the word "worlds" is hanging you up. I don't mean this in any literal sense. I mainly mean two realms of thought or truth or reality. I'm sure you have seen me link this before, but Stephen J Gould's non-overlapping magesteria is a close enough approximation to what I mean. While I will admit your beliefs seem too nebulous for me to categorize, I was assuming that in the dichotomy of natural and supernatural you and I actually have more in common than not. Perhaps I am mistaken in this.

09/18/2009 06:21:29 PM · #69

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem with your argument is I actually hold more experience in both worlds than you.

I seriously doubt it on both counts, though I'm sure nothing would sway your personal belief in that fairy tale. You can start with the fact that relative experience in either field has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that particular argument.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/18/2009 06:27:02 PM · #70

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
There is no possibility of proof or disproof, and contrary observations or alternative models are simply declared false.

This is your giant blind spot Shannon which has been evident every time we talk. Your steadfast belief that truth can only be discovered through the Scientific Method. It ignores a whole body of knowledge which can be generically labelled "philosophy". I have no way of making you see because you are so set in your way.

Does God intervene in the universe?

09/18/2009 06:32:19 PM · #71

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dahkota:
So am I wrong in assuming that the idea here is that all atheists are materialists?

Probably. For example, one could believe that other dimensions or universes might exist and still not believe in gods.

Scalvert, just to clarify, I don't believe that all atheists are materialists. That is the idea i got from the two world argument.

09/18/2009 06:41:47 PM · #72

Originally posted by dahkota:

Scalvert, just to clarify, I don't believe that all atheists are materialists.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to. Belief in gods and belief any ANYTHING immaterial or unknown are two completely separate issues.

09/18/2009 06:42:17 PM · #73

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Well, this answer doesn't help me with the dual worlds you brought up, then. And I don't think the dual worlds theory supplies an answer to the OPs question/statement.

Perhaps the word "worlds" is hanging you up. I don't mean this in any literal sense. I mainly mean two realms of thought or truth or reality. I'm sure you have seen me link this before, but Stephen J Gould's non-overlapping magesteria is a close enough approximation to what I mean. While I will admit your beliefs seem too nebulous for me to categorize, I was assuming that in the dichotomy of natural and supernatural you and I actually have more in common than not. Perhaps I am mistaken in this.

I understand your use of the term world in a non-literal sense. I would argue that the person the OP talked to doesn't consider the existence of two worlds and that their world view is completely wrapped up within their religious view. From the OPs explanation, the person doesn't realize this either.

My views are very simple. There is one world. God is the world. Everything of the world is God. The world and God is both natural and supernatural; they (the natural and supernatural) are two sides of the same coin so to speak.

09/18/2009 06:49:43 PM · #74

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I see your point. I guess I was assuming that very few theists reject the material world, although they may minimize its importance compared to the supernatural one. On the flip side a great deal of atheists completely reject the supernatural world. This is probably where I am deriving a "one world versus two world" model.

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 18:50:10.