Philosophy Now Forum

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
(First and foremost – I cannot label myself a Christian; for I still have issues about certain elements of the religion. However, I’m not sure that there is such a Christian that takes not issue in some way with his own religion. Christian Philosophy in general I find to be absolutely beautiful – it is the guiding light of my life.)
.

Just another example of a religionist making a fetish of inherent contradiction.

It's all a bit sad really.

You point at a contradiction, regardless of that potential truth, you feel sad by it. You point at it as if to indicate I have nothing of value to say. Why your pity for me is so righteous of you. Tell me; are you free of contradicting yourself ever? Are you free of potential hypocrisy? Is your rational mind the end all measure of truth? Please share with me how you arrived in such a reality; for I would certainly seek to bottle what you have and sell it. What is your formula? Can I be your disciple? Truly I wish to be a God that can pity the souls of man; for oh how ignorant are they?

Ok enough of my sarcasm …

I wonder, however, if you can be honest with yourself for a moment, and see how monumentally arrogant it is to pity a man for his philosophy? Have you forgotten about what a founding father of philosophy taught us, “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.” I tell you this, I realize how foolish I am, that I should care so much about your judgment of me, as evidenced by my initial sarcastic reply.

It’s a good thing God is a God of Grace; for though I claim He is the most important being in my life, here and know is evidence that you are currently that …

Daniel Lezcano wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
(First and foremost – I cannot label myself a Christian; for I still have issues about certain elements of the religion. However, I’m not sure that there is such a Christian that takes not issue in some way with his own religion. Christian Philosophy in general I find to be absolutely beautiful – it is the guiding light of my life.)
.

Just another example of a religionist making a fetish of inherent contradiction.

It's all a bit sad really.

You point at a contradiction, regardless of that potential truth, you feel sad by it. You point at it as if to indicate I have nothing of value to say. Why your pity for me is so righteous of you. Tell me; are you free of contradicting yourself ever? Are you free of potential hypocrisy? Is your rational mind the end all measure of truth? Please share with me how you arrived in such a reality; for I would certainly seek to bottle what you have and sell it. What is your formula? Can I be your disciple? Truly I wish to be a God that can pity the souls of man; for oh how ignorant are they?

Ok enough of my sarcasm …

I wonder, however, if you can be honest with yourself for a moment, and see how monumentally arrogant it is to pity a man for his philosophy? Have you forgotten about what a founding father of philosophy taught us, “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.” I tell you this, I realize how foolish I am, that I should care so much about your judgment of me, as evidenced by my initial sarcastic reply.

It’s a good thing God is a God of Grace; for though I claim He is the most important being in my life, here and know is evidence that you are currently that …

Not only are you pitiable but you are bizarrely arrogant.
Such is your delusion.

And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

—THE RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM

Daniel Lezcano wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:


Just another example of a religionist making a fetish of inherent contradiction.

It's all a bit sad really.

You point at a contradiction, regardless of that potential truth, you feel sad by it. You point at it as if to indicate I have nothing of value to say. Why your pity for me is so righteous of you. Tell me; are you free of contradicting yourself ever? Are you free of potential hypocrisy? Is your rational mind the end all measure of truth? Please share with me how you arrived in such a reality; for I would certainly seek to bottle what you have and sell it. What is your formula? Can I be your disciple? Truly I wish to be a God that can pity the souls of man; for oh how ignorant are they?

Ok enough of my sarcasm …

I wonder, however, if you can be honest with yourself for a moment, and see how monumentally arrogant it is to pity a man for his philosophy? Have you forgotten about what a founding father of philosophy taught us, “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.” I tell you this, I realize how foolish I am, that I should care so much about your judgment of me, as evidenced by my initial sarcastic reply.

It’s a good thing God is a God of Grace; for though I claim He is the most important being in my life, here and know is evidence that you are currently that …

Not only are you pitiable but you are bizarrely arrogant.
Such is your delusion.

And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

—THE RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM

Predictable response …

Arrogant am I indeed. And I would like the fact that I am at least aware of my arrogance; to mean I am more than you, but that is just more delusion isn’t it? You aptly use the word bizarre. That which is most bizarre to you is, here before is someone that has been so broken, that I can no longer live in the world you live – no longer maintain, to use your words, a “delusional” idea of myself. What you find bizarre is that you, in your world, amongst your types of people, would never be honest about your own brokenness; lest your delusional sense of self be rendered not – how can a God be broken after all?

In all honesty, I am rather jealous of you (and that is indeed pitiful,) because you don’t have to fight fair. You can attack someone, like you did me, then upon getting the reaction you obviously crave, further break the person down, while remaining oblivious to your own wretched truth – ignorance, it seems, can be bliss.

I am angry, because you challenged my fragile insecure mind; for it is far too knew a thing to have been securely fastened yet. You challenged my only hope, and inasmuch threatened that only hope; hence, I have lost all objectivity, replacing it with distorting emotionalism. I am willing to spend so much time writing this to you, because I am currently lonely, and have not anything better to do.

But sleep easy sir; for I am only a fool … right? I’m sure you will agree, maybe even insane?

Lev Muishkin wrote: God gave a secret, and denied it me?
—THE RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM

No, you just refuse to see it.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:But just forget everything I mentioned,

As you wish.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:and focus on this – the nonbeliever always assumes his own intellect is the reason why he can’t believe in God,

The point I was making to Yon Yalvin is that people with my emotional issues don't directly 'believe' very much at all. I don't, for instance, believe in evolution, instead I believe it is the most compelling explanation for a great deal of otherwise mysterious evidence.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:but I tell you it’s not an intellectual matter, it’s always an emotional issue keeping a man from faith.

And I tell you no it isn't. There is no evidence for any god as described by any scripture: I do not believe that any such god exists; in fact I would go further and say that I believe that any such god does not exist.
Having said that, the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise. For all I know, there may be something godlike behind it all, but to accept that it is god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost as described by christianity is intellectually feeble.

uwot wrote:For all I know, there may be something godlike behind it all, but to accept that it is god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost as described by christianity is intellectually feeble.

Why?
Will you agree to retract that statement if i prove to you that it is not intellectually feeble?

attofishpi wrote:Will you agree to retract that statement if i prove to you that it is not intellectually feeble?

Okey-dokey.

uwot wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:But just forget everything I mentioned,

As you wish.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:and focus on this – the nonbeliever always assumes his own intellect is the reason why he can’t believe in God,

The point I was making to Yon Yalvin is that people with my emotional issues don't directly 'believe' very much at all. I don't, for instance, believe in evolution, instead I believe it is the most compelling explanation for a great deal of otherwise mysterious evidence.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:but I tell you it’s not an intellectual matter, it’s always an emotional issue keeping a man from faith.

And I tell you no it isn't. There is no evidence for any god as described by any scripture: I do not believe that any such god exists; in fact I would go further and say that I believe that any such god does not exist.
Having said that, the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise. For all I know, there may be something godlike behind it all, but to accept that it is god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost as described by christianity is intellectually feeble.

I respect your position on the matter. In a sense, I typically seek to, be it potentially futile, help people step away from the disdain they have within them towards religion. However, as you must know, I do so not because I am particularly religious, but because I myself can relate to what it’s like to be trapped in the vice of my own prideful delusion of being better than (than those silly fools who believe.) It is always rather obvious to me, especially since I was once one of them, those who might triumphantly concur with what Dawkins calls atheists to do, “mock with contempt religion,” that to feel justified in taking such a definitive stance reflecting the attitude of superiority, is simply foolish – in fact, it’s to do the very thing atheists might hate about religionists – ardent hypocrisy.

The truly objective man can be opposed to religion, but when such emotionalism is displayed, such as that of Dawkins, and that typically displayed by most atheists, the truth is reveled; to me it is a sure sign of hypocrisy regarding what the atheist worships – the scientific method. Nowhere in the scientific method is a place for resentful emotionalism, because science recognizes the distorting psychological effect it has on rationality. Therefore, only a fool thinks his logic is trustworthy when fueled by emotionalism.

On your last point, “the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise,” – that’s one reason why I deduce it more rational to believe in God then to not. Science can’t even come close to answering in any meaningful way, the truth about reality. As you said, indeed, it has many glorious revelations about potentials towards which all perceived signs point, but then next week a new signpost may be discovered and science will point in another direction. The scientist practices as much faith as the religionists do, but of course the scientist might not ever admit that; though some are honest enough to agree.

If these points are true, then to me it all comes down to what a man wants to believe. If reality cannot be verified as absolute truth, then there are at least two options – have faith that there is no such being as God, or have faith that there is. To be agnostic makes no sense either – that’s like refusing to play the game, but still requires as much faith as the former two choices; if that is still a matter of faith, then on principle of conviction alone, for god sake choose as side.

As a matter of reemphasis: Rationality cannot, in and of itself, provide a relationship with God. In the words of A.W. Tozer:

“A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”

So what a man needs to seek is the actual experience of God.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:...
The truly objective man can be opposed to religion, but when such emotionalism is displayed, such as that of Dawkins, ...

Be fair tho', Dawkins did not start out like this, all he did was write a liitle book(to my mind always the best philosophically) and then was hounded pillar to post by the religious, specifically the Bible-Belt bashers, and in the main it is that species of American who his ire is aimed at.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:So what a man needs to seek is the actual experience of God.

But then you'd have to say what an 'actual experience' is? Is it the same as the actual experience of a tree or the actual experience of Santa?

Arising_uk wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:...
The truly objective man can be opposed to religion, but when such emotionalism is displayed, such as that of Dawkins, ...

Be fair tho', Dawkins did not start out like this, all he did was write a liitle book(to my mind always the best philosophically) and then was hounded pillar to post by the religious, specifically the Bible-Belt bashers, and in the main it is that species of American who his ire is aimed at.

I agree that happened. But just because someone (1) from a village starts a fight with you, is it fair to want to burn the whole village down? - Especially, since many in that village wouldn’t be so offensive or disrespectful; have contributed a lot of good to the world.

Rational objectivity, though arguably not moral, would be to want to bring the one that started the fight down. The way in which emotionalism distorts reality makes it as such that one might instead decide to burn the village down – not rational.

Arising_uk wrote:

Daniel Lezcano wrote:So what a man needs to seek is the actual experience of God.

But then you'd have to say what an 'actual experience' is? Is it the same as the actual experience of a tree or the actual experience of Santa?

Neither, at the point I speak of, it becomes a properly basic belief; similar to the way you don't really give a hoot as to whether or not you can prove your real and not some brain in a vat somewhere – you feel you are real, because you experience you, and that’s all you need.

It would be considered the ultimate destination for a believer.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:I agree that happened. But just because someone (1) from a village starts a fight with you, is it fair to want to burn the whole village down? - Especially, since many in that village wouldn’t be so offensive or disrespectful; have contributed a lot of good to the world.

Depends if the whole village supports them and in this case it appears so.

Rational objectivity, though arguably not moral, would be to want to bring the one that started the fight down. The way in which emotionalism distorts reality makes it as such that one might instead decide to burn the village down – not rational.

Since when were the book-burners rational?

Daniel Lezcano wrote:Neither, at the point I speak of, it becomes a properly basic belief; similar to the way you don't really give a hoot as to whether or not you can prove your real and not some brain in a vat somewhere – you feel you are real, because you experience you, and that’s all you need.

Fine, just don't try forcing anyone else to believe it and that includes your kids.

It would be considered the ultimate destination for a believer.

Not surprised as it has little to do with actual experience.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:I respect your position on the matter. In a sense, I typically seek to, be it potentially futile, help people step away from the disdain they have within them towards religion.

That's very gracious of you. Do you do this for all religions?

Daniel Lezcano wrote:However, as you must know, I do so not because I am particularly religious, but because I myself can relate to what it’s like to be trapped in the vice of my own prideful delusion of being better than (than those silly fools who believe.)

That's your problem, or was. I have no contempt for anyone who believes in some sort of spiritual element to the universe. I happen not to 'believe' myself, for the reason I have already given, but many people who I have profound respect for do, or did.
Since you admit to delusional episodes, is there anything you can tell me about your current state of mind that will persuade me that it is not also delusional?

Daniel Lezcano wrote:It is always rather obvious to me, especially since I was once one of them, those who might triumphantly concur with what Dawkins calls atheists to do, “mock with contempt religion,”

Can you cite the source of this quote?

Daniel Lezcano wrote:that to feel justified in taking such a definitive stance reflecting the attitude of superiority, is simply foolish – in fact, it’s to do the very thing atheists might hate about religionists – ardent hypocrisy.

Who are you talking about?

Daniel Lezcano wrote:The truly objective man can be opposed to religion, but when such emotionalism is displayed, such as that of Dawkins, and that typically displayed by most atheists, the truth is reveled; to me it is a sure sign of hypocrisy regarding what the atheist worships – the scientific method.

Apart from being a hyperbolic literary device, worship doesn't mean anything outside of religion, and there is no such thing as the scientific method. The closest to it is empiricism, which can be boiled down to your hypothesis is supported by experimental data, or it is wrong.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:Nowhere in the scientific method is a place for resentful emotionalism, because science recognizes the distorting psychological effect it has on rationality. Therefore, only a fool thinks his logic is trustworthy when fueled by emotionalism.

There are much better logicians on this forum than me, but even I can tell you that logic is valid or it isn't; emotion has nothing to do with it.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:On your last point, “the origin of the universe is a mystery, what it is made of and how it works are too. Science can describe in fantastic detail what happens, but, at the fundamental level, to what and why it can only hypothesise,” – that’s one reason why I deduce it more rational to believe in God then to not.

Well, since we are talking logic, perhaps you could explain how that follows.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:Science can’t even come close to answering in any meaningful way, the truth about reality.

Scientists, very wisely, generally keep themselves distant from 'meaning'.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:As you said, indeed, it has many glorious revelations about potentials towards which all perceived signs point, but then next week a new signpost may be discovered and science will point in another direction. The scientist practices as much faith as the religionists do, but of course the scientist might not ever admit that; though some are honest enough to agree.

Some scientists do have particular philosophical beliefs, and while there are examples of 'unscientific' or outright dishonest practise, no one has yet managed to bend reality to their will. The world is the way it is, regardless of what we think about it, and it is this 'objective' world that science aims to describe. That there are confusing and conflicting ideas about which way to go is just symptomatic of the fact that no one knows for sure, and rather than put all your eggs in one basket, as 'religionists' do, it is better to be open minded.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:If these points are true, then to me it all comes down to what a man wants to believe. If reality cannot be verified as absolute truth, then there are at least two options – have faith that there is no such being as God, or have faith that there is. To be agnostic makes no sense either – that’s like refusing to play the game, but still requires as much faith as the former two choices; if that is still a matter of faith, then on principle of conviction alone, for god sake choose as side.

That's not a good enough reason.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:As a matter of reemphasis: Rationality cannot, in and of itself, provide a relationship with God. In the words of A.W. Tozer:

“A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”

So what a man needs to seek is the actual experience of God.

That's precisely the mistake that scientists seeking to support a particular conviction make. What people usually fail to understand is that the same empirical evidence can support different, and sometimes mutually exclusive hypotheses. If you believe that god created the world, then the fact that there is a world supports that belief, but it doesn't make it true.