Jump to: Board index
August 25th, 2011, 4:24 pm
September 19th, 2011, 1:31 pm
JesusDillinger wrote:Yes, it is useful in that regard.
September 23rd, 2011, 3:38 pm
Youngfool wrote:Hello all; and especially GroK:
Once again, I am doing some critical thinking about your comments within their content and context; as I understand it . . .In my philosophical/scientific training, (With respect: You don't have any, and if you did it has been subverted by your subsequent dedication to an imaginary religion-based theology . . .) I refer the interested reader specifically to posts number 89, 97, and 167 in the topic "The Paradox That Science Was Forced to Ignore) I was taught that the earliest definition of a word was significant, (But as you are not bound either by definitions or scholarly conventions; what does that say? . . .) and that the best definitions were hierarchical, Quote from Wikipedia: A hierarchy (Greek: hierarchia (ἱεραρχία), from hierarches, "leader of sacred rites") is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another. Abstractly, a hierarchy is simply an ordered set or an acyclic directed graph. (end quote) where a term is defined by first identifying a super-set, that contains that which is being defined. Then a subset is named, with the characteristics that separate it from the rest of the super-set. (in other words, the words you use can mean anything you want them to mean . . . or don't want them to mean; as the case may be . . .)
In the case of faith, an early ( . . .Biblical . . .) definition is that it is "evidence" (superset), of things unseen (subset). ( . . . you've got it backwards, but hey; word definitions don't apply . . .) For example, trees swaying (evidence) reflects the wind (unseen.) So, interpreting (e.g. adjusting one's golf stroke) swaying trees, for the wind one can not see, exemplifies the earliest definition of faith. (No kidding . . . ummm, What was Jesus' golf handicap then; if you don't mind me asking . . . .
Blind, or evidence-less, faith thus becomes a contradiction in terms. (Sure, and how convenient . . . especially for you . . . .)
In theology, (Now we are getting down to brass tacks, here . . .) I learned that such contradictions in terms are evidence for something else we cannot see, (As in our own self-deceptions, rationalizations, justifications and denial . . . .) an invisible enemy that is attempting to "darken counsel." (Indeed, they do: And keep people trapped in doubt, fear, ignorance, anger, false pride, dishonesty and greed, for instance . . . . but that is what religion feeds on, and thrives on . . . . the unquestioning blind faith of it's adherants in "theologians" like you . . .)
Now, self-delusion is defined by the super-set of delusion where the sub-set is restricted to situations where the instigating entity is oneself. It refers, I believe, to the misinterpreting of something one actually sees, because of subjective pressures. (Apparently you don't understand self-delusion very well either: And being self-deluded, why would you? Quote: from wikipedia: A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception. . . .)
Not unlike faith in operation, but the one gets evidence that is surely stemming from something truly out there, such as the wind. The other gets evidence, but only to support a "selfish" and possibly unreal opinion, also about something unseen. (Of course: We are always blind to our own self delusions: That is their nature . . . who wants to admit that they are being stupid, or that something they held as a core belief about their "reality" is in essence; a lie? We'd much rather not admit our ignorance or our stupidity about religious theology, for instance . . . )
But how can we "know" whether we have one or the other? How can we know "wind" is real, but our, say, faithful spouse is unreal? We have to get more relevant evidence, or grow in faith. ( . . . Well first of all one needs to open one's mind to the possibility of error or ignorance in the first place. In other circumstances we just get tired of being lied to, or lying to ourselves . . . ) We must increase our experience, and our understanding of how any evidence might reflect what we cannot see. (or in this case, simply ignore any evidence we don't want to see . . .) But, we must (Actually, "we" don't really need to do anything . . .) turn away from our subjective pressures (Other people's opinions and value judgements. . .) to gather and interpret ( . . . different . . .) evidence that supports what we (stubbornly, unquestioningly, dogmatically, stupidly . .) want to think is true. In spite of all evidence to the contrary . . . We have to be "scientific." ( i.e. rational: . . . if only you actually were . . .)
As I studied science and theology, I was rather impressed how similar they are. (Personally I much prefer science to theology; because science deals more with reality, and theology is based on imagination becoming dogmatic doctrine and subsequent ideology . . .) Theology, I note, was once called "the queen of the sciences." (Really? By who and when, and how long ago? . . .) I was also impressed at how the historical foolishness of science was predicted by theology. ( . . . Really? . . . Well as the word "science" appears nowhere in the Bible, and as Sir Isaac Newton is given credit for "creating" the scientific method in the 1600's . . . some 1600 to 2100 years after the Books of the Bible were written; where does that leave us? . . . ) Scientific explanations (there are no sensible predictions that I know of--just ad hoc explanantions) of religion are less impressive. (At this point I am totally unimpressed . . . Since when does science attempt to explain religious theology? . . .It repudiates much of it; doesn't it? ) But science does fairly well theologically. (As religion is terrified of the dreaded "S" word; In what manner, if you don't mind me asking . . . . ?)
But, as predicted by (self-deluded theologists) theology (and Diogenes) ( . . . Diogenes made predictions? . . .) self-delusion ( . . . obviously you haven't the faintest idea of what the word as defined above even means . . . or you simply do not want to know . . . and why am I not at all surprised about that . . .) ( . . . is especially rampant in religion . . .) rampant in both religion and science, (but not science . . .) as these are ( . . . antithetical . . .) human institutions.
So, any subsequent thoughts or comments . . .?
September 23rd, 2011, 7:44 pm
Youngfool wrote:Hi GroK
Re:I'm just enjoying your continuing confirmation that the lines of thought I am pursuing are after Schopenhauer's notion of truth! Well, based on Schopenhauer's notion of truth, of course you would.
Don't forget that, early on, theology was the queen of the sciences. Well, as I wasn't even aware of it before, it actually is pretty easy for me to forget this (as far as I am concerned) completely fabricated, unsubstantiated claim. This fact What fact? tends to get covered up by the great number of scientists and even more theologians, like you . . . that fail to pass Diogenes' lantern test. Which seems to presume that you do . . . And like Diogenes, I am highly skeptical about that.
September 23rd, 2011, 8:48 pm
Youngfool wrote:Hello all; and especially GroK:Remember that, as regards biblical theology at least, "it is the glory of Kings to search out a matter," this is not Biblical theology: It is a direct quote: And as usual with you it is taken out of context. We have established that point in the topic "The Paradox That Science Was Forced to Ignore." and that there are many cautions about explaining too much. Right . . . as if you understand them or practice these cautions yourself. You can, if you want to know, research, on wikipedia even, most of the questions you raise. Thank you so much: In case you haven't noticed: I do. But aren't my opinions, in your opinion, "worthless" anyway? Whether or not I do some research? In any event: I most definitely am not going to subscribe to your opinions as being any better than mine.
September 23rd, 2011, 9:32 pm
Youngfool wrote:Hello all; and especially "GroK"
Re:Yes, your opinions (and mine) are almost completely worthless to me, Personally I think that your opinions are highly important to you: You have a very high opinion of your own opinion: And what "great possessions" indeed. but you value them, Actually I don't value your opinions: I just like parsing and critiquing them . . . and can search out the evidence I have pointed to What evidence have you ever pointed to? In spite of many requests to do so . . . as you seek to improve them. You just can't help but be arrogant and patronizing, can you? I get the most out of the opinions of those others who have proved themselves trustworthy, Thomas Bayes, for example, R.A.R. Tricker, Pascal, Jesus, Calvin, Patrick of Ireland. Noting that these others are long dead and gone: And what kind of mentor is that? But I also like the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons . . . .
Anyway: Unless you give me something more substantial to parse and critique: I'm done with you here now too.
September 26th, 2011, 3:02 pm
enegue wrote:Scott wrote:My question is simple. Is faith just another word for self-delusion? Or in another way of saying, if someone claims to believe something merely out of faith, is that person simply admitting to being in denial?
Faith as depicted by your examples would seem to be synonymous with delusion, but faith as defined by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, is something different:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
-- Hebrews 11:1
The faith spoken of here has substance, i.e. it has weight. Think of it like this: in any situation where you have placed on the scales all the evidence for and against a proposition, but the scales remain in balance, faith is what you throw on to tip the scales towards the outcome you prefer.
It is a completely rational approach to any problem not to continue in a state of indecision.
November 26th, 2011, 5:16 pm
Exogen wrote:I think if someone is believing in something in the face of strong or overwhelming contrary evidence an calling that belief "faith," one is delusional. However if evidence is lacking and one is honest about that and also believes out of "choice" and one calls that "faith," one is not delusional at all. Some may chose to not live by the second notion in favor of a strict rationality for their positions, but I don't think anyone can attack the second notion of faith because it is accompanied by both self and public honesty. I don't think anyone can level any charges of ignorance, dishonesty, or delusions against the person who believes based on faith in the second sense.
November 27th, 2011, 4:16 pm
Exogen wrote:stormy phillips wrote:If it was, then nothing would come of it, "The man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." I think self delusion resides more with the lack of faith, or the need of proof, rather than being synonymous with faith.
Not necessarily; one could be rigorous in how one goes about answering philosophical questions and be of the type where belief is only possible when one knows, or at least thinks one knows due to some reason, the truth of some proposition. This would be the type of person who would be unable to believe something unless they had good reason and would otherwise just say they don't know. There is honesty in that kind of person as well and they are by no means delusional for being that way.
November 28th, 2011, 3:43 pm
stormy phillips wrote:Thank you Groktruth, cheers!..I will have a drink to that..
November 29th, 2011, 2:01 am
Thinking critical wrote:Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Scott and All.
After reading the last group of posts I think it very safe to say the answer is YES. When the religious enter the discussion it always seems to turn into a slugfest between them.
Now we should be glad we do not have representation from the over 20000 other "christian" denominations, on this site.
But suffice it to say that each of these is convinced their faith is "THE WAY".
If that is not proof of self-delusion, I do not know what would be.
Well said, after reading through some of these post I had reached the same conclusion myself and felt compelled to make a simlar comment. It appears you have already taken the words right out of my mind .
November 29th, 2011, 5:05 pm
Wooden shoe wrote:Groktruth wrote:
FYI, the words "conclusion," and 'felt compelled" are epistemological red flags, alerting us to imminent danger of self-delusion. Truth be told, it's a process with no "conclusion" even hoped for, and feeling "compelled" implies some manipulation that is taking the decision out of your hand. Possibly, all things considered, from some malignant spiritual force, especially when the words are springing forth from the heart, almost unconsciously.
Just thought you would want to know. End quote.
Thank you so much Groktruth.
It so good to have a resident expert and practitioner of self-delusion to warn us less able on the pitfalls of using certain words.
Sorry Groktruth, the devil made me do it.[LOL]
December 1st, 2011, 2:57 pm
December 2nd, 2011, 3:32 am
Thinking critical wrote:Grok;
Perhaps you could provide a citation for your "hierarchical definition" of the word faith.
As far as I’m aware the meaning you provided derives from King James Bible, Hebrew 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. King James Bible was first published 1611. The English word faith is thought to have come from the Latin word "Armani" between 1200-1250 which means "trust" derived from the word "fid ere" to trust.
So by philosophical standards the hierarchical definition of faith is simply to trust. Therefore where evidence is lacking you must have trust. Trust is by no means evidence of things not seen.
You seem to be familiar with the epistemological theory of fideism, which holds that true belief can only arise from faith, because reason and physical evidence cannot lead to truth. So basically faith is independent from reason. How ever a strong belief in something with no evidence or yet a strong belief in something even with evidence against it in my opinion is ignorance of reality....self delusion.
You speak of faith in regards to air. As you correctly stated evidence refers to sensory data that increases the plausibility of the reality of something "air" in this case. We can also physically feel air, we see its affects, we breath it and we can do experiments that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that yes this air does exist.
Tell me Grok how is this in any way comparative to trust, belief or faith in a God?
As for your potential megalomania, perhaps in regards to your analogy you could practice some sportsman ship and leave the condescending comments on the side line
December 2nd, 2011, 5:06 pm
Philobot wrote:Groktruth, I really don't see the point in your wordiness. I mean besides the usual bickering about definitions.
What are you trying to do? Do you want to prove god? I consider your intellect is well enough to see that this can't be done.
So I'm really interested to know what your motivation is? Are you a retiree? Is it loneliness, boredom, self-validation, or what else could it be? I mean it must take you hours and hours to write all these things down. Why?