[John Casler]

I agree with woodsyi, you cannot "reason" your way to god or belief in god.  To my experience, people either already "have" faith or they do not.  Reason plays no role in this basic question of faith or no faith.

...

Hi Tyson, haven't seen you in a while, hope all is well.

While I agree that the God others seem to find, cannot, and will not, be available through reason, I am really not "trying to find" a God, nor do I need to.

My only interest is stimulating intellectual discussion, which some offer.

Years ago I discovered a life paradigm concept call "mistaken certainties".  It simply means you are certain about something, but you are mistaken.

You must simply be open to the fact that "everything you know" is wrong.

This motivated me to question each and everything I do, think and say everyday, in order to maintain a more accurate awarness of my reality.

That is what makes me comfortable.  That is what I enjoy.  That is how I live my life.  

Let me tell you I am not ashamed to admit that I find them all the time, and gladly incorporate them into my conciousness/awarness map.

As I encounter those who live with a large number of mistaken certainties, it seems reasonable to offer them questions, that when answered with truth or reality, will lead to greater awarness.

Plus I find enjoyment in the thoughts of others, even if I don't agree.

I keep thinking that some highly intellectual person "of faith" will begin to answer some questions with "plausible" answers.

That is not a slam.  I would truly enjoy the mental gymnastics of conceptual "spiritual" exisitance, with answers that are not in the arena of science fiction.

I have had literally "thousands" of great mind sessions with people over the years.  Many of who, were quite interesting to explore with.

The vast majority of those who beleive rely on "outside" information and motivation to maintain the quality of that belief and seldom really ask the "hard" and "deep" questions.

Not intersted in changing even a single mind, but simply seeing if they know something I don't, that I can add to the "paradigm" or map I have.

And beyond that, many times a "wrong" answer (or even wrong question)can lead you to the right one.

Most lose interest, once it goes beyond their capacity to understand or threatens their comfort zone/cocoon that makes them feel safe.

Or they'd rather be building or listening to their audio systems, which is where I'm off to

[woodsyi]

Scott,  belief rooted in experience is a wise and safe thing, but to "commune" with god, one has to abandon reason

Why? I don't have to abandon reason to talk to other rational being, even ones I can't touch or see (like you, for example). Why is this case different?

You and I are rational human beings who communicate with a common language and we have a shared community in AC where our existance can be verified.  As far as I know, you make no ontological claim to be any more than a mortal, contingent being.  Neither do I.  God, triune god in your case, makes other claims of supernaturality, beyond the realm of rationality.  As much as you can follow the son's historical actions and understand the messages in rational terms, you cannot communicate with the father directly in a rational sense -- you can only experience the presence (mysterium trumendum et facinans) with the help of holy spirit.  One god in three persons that you profess to believe in requires you to use more than just your reasons.  Other major religions are similar in that requirement.  

I apologize for using the word abandon.  It was not a good choice of word.  I should rather say that one must set aside reason at some point (Tyson's point) to go further.  As long as you bind yourself to reason alone,  you are not experiencing the other aspects of god.  By the way, I find the concept of trinity facinating -- it is elegant and paints a very rational picture of our side of the door to the ineffable.

[Tyson]

I keep thinking that some highly intellectual person "of faith" will begin to answer some questions with "plausible" answers.

I thought so as well, for years and years.  Sought out discussions with said individuals.  Never got any satisfying answers.  One of them told me that such answers do not come from discussions, but rather from internal dialog or internal searching, not from outside.  

I feel I'm pretty open to the possibility of god, and have actively sought a direct connection with him, but so far it's been fruitless.  Either he's really hard to know (doesn't reveal himself all that readily), or he simply rejects my attempts to know him (for whatever his reasons may be).

In truth, based on what I've observed about the rules of the game, it almost seems as though god's rules are "believe in me first, and only after you accept me, will I then reveal myself to you".  That's a hard thing to do, but from god's perspective it's probably pretty effective at keeping out the riff-raff

[ScottMayo]

>>I keep thinking that some highly intellectual person "of faith" will begin to answer some questions with "plausible" answers.  

Dunno about highly intellectual, but I'm certainly questionable - in every sense of the word.  

"Plausable" might be interesting, though. We're talking about an alien (eg, non-human) being who claims to be unique and eternal and outside our experience. If your definition of plausibility is rooted in how the material world works from your own perspective, that could lead to a few difficulties. A goldfish that demands that his human owner cannot exist, because there is air outside his tank and only creatures that breathe water can be alive, is going to have some intellectual difficulties getting any further.


>I thought so as well, for years and years. Sought out discussions with said individuals. Never got any satisfying answers. One of them told me that such answers do not come from discussions, but rather from internal dialog or internal searching, not from outside.

I hold (with Francis Schaeffer) that what we need to know about God can be expressed in words, and can be discussed meaningfully. That shouldn't be a surprise: it's an evangelical religion, after all, and the idea of going out and *talking* about Jesus are as old as the religion itself. (The mystic, "inexpressible final experience" kind of thinking arose much later.)

I also hold (with Lewis) that there's stuff about God we have to infer from our own humanness and internal experience which is hard to put into words but is still useful to think about. And I also hold (with the writer of Isaiah) that there is stuff about God that we're simply not going to get, period -"My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways" spells that out plainly enough. So I'm certain that there will be questions that don't get answered - but I don't think those questions will prove to be an issue in a relationship with God.

>I feel I'm pretty open to the possibility of god, and have actively sought a direct connection with him, but so far it's been fruitless. Either he's really hard to know (doesn't reveal himself all that readily), or he simply rejects my attempts to know him (for whatever his reasons may be). In truth, based on what I've observed about the rules of the game, it almost seems as though god's rules are "believe in me first, and only after you accept me, will I then reveal myself to you". That's a hard thing to do, but from god's perspective it's probably pretty effective at keeping out the riff-raff.[/quote]

That's not a universal pattern. Some people who claimed a deep knowledge of God didn't go looking for it - Abraham had an unplanned and bizarre desert experience, Paul more or less got whacked upside the head by a belief he'd firmly rejected, the woman at the well was looking for some water, not a meeting with the author of creation. On the other hand, some people get there by immersing themselves in study and questions - Morison, the author of "Who Moved the Stone", set out to categorically disprove the historical accounts of the resurrection, dedicated years of his life to studying what was recorded, and came out of it a devout believer.

My own belief is that hwo a person finds God has a lot more to do with the person than it does with God - and there's no simple way to predict the time or the place of it. But it does help to make the search central to your existance, not an idle question. Hard questions rarely get answered without hard effort... though sometimes they do.

But I am convinced that the folk that don't *want* to know, never will. Not in this life, anyway.

[Tyson]

A goldfish that demands that his human owner cannot exist, because there is air outside his tank and only creatures that breathe water can be alive, is going to have some intellectual difficulties getting any further.  

True, but the goldfish isn't comdemned to hell if he doesn't believe that his owner exists.

[Tyson]

And further, I'm a pretty fair guy, I would not punish the goldfish if he did not accept my existence.  Even if I left subtle clues that the goldfish "ought" to be able to puzzle out over time, I'd still not punish him for not putting those clue's together.  In fact I'd probably only get into punish mode if I made myself manifest to the goldfish directly, in a manner that was directly perceivable to that goldfish, and told that goldfish directly "believe in me OR ELSE!".  But then again, I'm a pretty reasonable guy, and god by definition is not reasonable (he is beyond reason).  So I guess I should be suprised that he somewhat childishly asks us to make a choice to believe without providing a real compelling reason to believe, then promising to punish us severely if we don't choose to follow a being that we cannot apprehend directly, all we get are (possibly) indirect clues.

Personally I'm all for the "hit me over the head" approach that occured to paul.  I would love for that to happen to me, but from what I've been told, god doesn't like us puny humans dictating to him what we want him to do, even if it results in us believing in him or not.  So what's my alternative?  Forcing myself to believe?  I can't do that.  Changing what I would need to really believe?  I can't do that either.  I only ask that god reveal himself to me, that hasn't happened, so I don't believe, simple as that.

[Tyson]

I also hold (with Lewis) that there's stuff about God we have to infer from our own humanness and internal experience which is hard to put into words but is still useful to think about.

Again, I'll repeat what I told John earlier.  If you accept the idea of god, then everything else follows (ie, we can infer things about him from the nature of ourselves, what it written in the holy books, etc).  But if you do not accept him, then nothing else follows, and there is no inference to be drawn.  

For someone like me (wants to believe, but doesn't), there seems to be no way to "get at" god without a leap of faith of some type, as all other discussions about inferences, or analogies about how limited limited we are, they are all literally meaningless.

[Tyson]

Also, I don't want to come off as argumentative or closed off, I just know from experience how these types of discussions go.  But maybe I'm wrong, and there is something I have not heard before or considered before.  In that spirit, I'd like to continue along the lines of the "there are things we can infer" about god.  Please continue on these lines, as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[Aether Audio]

Tyson,

I only ask that god reveal himself to me, that hasn't happened, so I don't believe, simple as that.

If you continue to seek with true sincerity - you will.  GOD will see to it.

Ephesians 2:8,9 - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

May the love of God reveal itself to you,
-Bob

[Tyson]

I do continue, certainly, with sincerity.  But it hasn't happened after many years, and I'm beginning to wonder if it ever will.  I still believe it's one of life's very central questions, so I'll never abandon it, but in all honest it has truly proven fruitless up until this point.

But this brings up an interesting question to my mind.  What if there is someone (like me), who has sincerely opened himself to god, but god never reveals himself in any manner?  What does that mean?

I suppose 2 possible answers are "Well, you aren't sincere enough", to which I would respond "I don't know how I could be any more sincere".

The 2nd answer could be "God will reveal himself to you in due time", to which I would respond with 2 things - why the wait, I'm losing time everyday, and what if god never reveals himself to me, I am simply left searching until I die.  What then?

[ScottMayo]

Tyson,

I only ask that god reveal himself to me, that hasn't happened, so I don't believe, simple as that.

If you continue to seek with true sincerity - you will.  GOD will see to it.

Ephesians 2:8,9 - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Amen; but this does Tyson no good at all. He's unlikely to have a frame of reference that makes scripture useful or believable to him. At any rate; all of Jesus's teaching and the first 20 years of the apostlic movement were done without the New Testament in print, so I'm going to assume that it's ok if I don't make recourse to scriptures, for a start.

So let's stick with a book that has a modern frame of reference for now. Tyson, grab a copy of _Mere Christianity_ (C S Lewis) from a bookstore. If money's an issue, I'll buy it and mail it out. It's not a long read by any means, and it puts down in layman's terms a reasonably rationalistic argument for a belief in God. It's not a "proof" - there are no proofs in the rigorous mathemetical sense anywhere outside of mathematics. But he doesn't demand logical leaps, either - and the axioms he starts from are reasonable. As they should be: Lewis also started out as a non-believer.

[Aether Audio]

Tyson,

Big thumbs up to Scott's suggestion!  Lewis is my favorite author and although I haven't read Mere Christianity myself yet, I know others that have.  According to them it is an excellent book for helping someone such as yourself.  If good 'ol C.S. doesn't help, well...I guess you really are in a fix.

But, I would suggest one thing.  

"why the wait, I'm losing time everyday, and what if god never reveals himself to me, I am simply left searching until I die. What then?"

The number of "What if's" are as infinite as God.  I wouldn't worry about those right now.  Not to offend, but "what if" God see's that there is something in your life that He knows you're not willing to "let go of" - something that would stand in the way of your relationship.  In his infinite wisdom maybe he is waiting until he sees that you are ready to let go of that thing, person, attitude, behavior - whatever.  

I am certainly not suggesting that is true whatsoever though.  I'm just saying that there can be "what ifs" on both sides of the fence and its not good to go there.  "The evil of the day is sufficient thereof."  Don't worry about that stuff.  Just do the best you can one day at a time.  If God is Love, then whatever time it takes to make this leap or "transition" is in God's hands as well.  His timing will be perfect for your personal experience and has set that time aside from before the foundations of the world.  "Yea, while you were yet in your mother's womb - I knew you."

Whatever your experiences and struggles may have been to find God along the way, they will be useful for the days and years following your new found faith - when it does come.  Just remember, faith is a gift, you cannot even believe in God unless he grants faith to you.  He is in control of the process.  Does he want to?  You bet - "For God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ."

To be sure, your unwavering desire to know God is the first-fruits of a salvation process that is already well under way.  For you though, it just doesn't "feel" like that yet.  Your heart hungers to hear the voice of your Eternal Father.  That hunger is the key to your salvation and even that, God placed in your heart. He sees that hunger and sacrificed his first-born Son to make a path-way to Him for you.  Why some have that hunger and others don't is one of the great mysteries of theology.

My advice? Learn all you can of this "Jesus" person.  Read His teachings - the first four Gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.  If you've already read them, read them again and ask God to reveal Himself to you through them.  It is through a knowledge of Jesus Christ that the Father will work to bring you the heart felt experience of His presence that you desire.

In the mean time I'm calling on all true believers that read this to privately unite in prayer for you.  Together we will do all we can to help you find the faith you so desire.  

Hear me you guys?  We have a soul that stands in the gap here with Tyson.  Perform the work you were called to do from the day of your own re-birth and lift him up before the Throne of Grace.  The Spirit is calling for union in this matter.

Be patient Tyson, God is at work.  The hour of your salvation lies ahead.

In Christ's name,
-Bob

[Aether Audio]

PS.

Tyson's posts and other like his are the reason this thread was started.  Anybody see the contrast between this most recent dialogue between us and the debates before it?

I do not fear discussing matters of faith with anybody, regardless of their position.  At least not as long as there is a glimmer of desire expressed on their part for true deeper understanding and a willingness to be open to the possibilities I might suggest.  On the other hand, if all my efforts are twisted into becoming further fuel and a springboard for further debate - count me out.  Even Jesus taught us not to "cast our pearls before swine."  After they have trampled them they will go after you.

It's amazing how despite the ongoing advancement of technology over the centuries, mankind and society are still fundamentally the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Maybe that's why the Bible and its stories can still be as relavent to our lives today as in the days those events transpired.  Nothing's really changed, just the props are different.  Instead of scrolls and letters we have chat rooms and forums on the Internet.

And thank God the message of the Gospel hasn't changed either.  It's promise of hope and reassurance of God's love are as in need in our world today as they were 2,000 years ago - maybe even more.  Oh...not for everybody though, just for those that "hunger and thirst after righteousness."  

If the Gospel message is still intended for anyone in this so-called modern age, I'd suppose it was intended for folks a lot like Tyson.  And if there's more out there remotely resembling his position, for them I'll still be here too.  The rest can go debate the meaning of their navel with each other if they like.  They're still welcome here but don't ask me to join in.  God gave me the discernment and good sense to know when an endevor is worthwhile and when it's a waste of time.  I don't know about anybody else, but at my age, I don't have time to waste.

-Bob

[maxwalrath]

Is religion not the cause of and the solution to half of the world's problems?

My world-view and their world-view are so vastly different as to be incommensurate even at the most basic level. In the end you can only really state "this is what I think, and these are the reasons", and they can only state, "this is my belief, and this is what I base that on"...

Now seriously, what the hell is wrong with this approach? I'm usually good for going 9 rounds with people about this stuff, but after a LONG happy hour, I got through 3 or 4 of the more recent posts and knew I'd had enough. I haven't read any of page 29 or 30 of this topic.

OK.....Stop.

Read the quote above.

Did you read it?

OK...proceed.



Non-believers...you're not going to change any minds.

Believers...you're not going to change any minds.


Want to know what I think??? No?  


Fine.

If I told you what I thought, and I made the most convincing argument imaginable, would it change anything?

[woodsyi]

Also, I don't want to come off as argumentative or closed off, I just know from experience how these types of discussions go.  But maybe I'm wrong, and there is something I have not heard before or considered before.  In that spirit, I'd like to continue along the lines of the "there are things we can infer" about god.  Please continue on these lines, as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Tyson,

I like C.S. Lewis too but he is  formost an apologist for Christianity and you may not think him impartial.  Here is a scientist who has a different approach to understanding how we discover things both scientific and religious.

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/polanyi.htm

If you begin to get an inkling that maybe there is a greater being out there who makes our lives purposeful, then you should follow up within your cultural epistemolgy to seek the truth, i.e. Christian teachings if that is what you grew up with.  But please distance yourself away from any past  actions of organized religions that may have turned you away from it in the first place.  All organized religions have committed sins in the name of god, but that does not invalidate the efficacy their teachings.  There have been and are millions of believers in all religions who have done admirable things according to the teachings to make life better for those around them.

[woodsyi]

Follow up point.

The most difficult step in a religious journey is reorienting the perception of reality so that you are not at the center.  It's sort of like geocentric vs heliocentric worldview.  Are you really in control of things around you?

[John Casler]

  Non-believers...you're not going to change any minds.

Believers...you're not going to change any minds.


Want to know what I think??? No?


Fine.

If I told you what I thought, and I made the most convincing argument imaginable, would it change anything? ...

As an interesting observation, it would appear that we have the "age old", subjective versus objective argument here.

And strangely enough, as I look at (and know) some of the participants I find it interesting that some who are staunch objectivists in audio are subjective in their religious bent, and vice versa.

Not true across the board, but it is interesting that it is evident at all.

I would have assumed that objectivity and subjectivity would be consistant in all aspects of a persons interests.

[ScottMayo]

Tyson,
I like C.S. Lewis too but he is  formost an apologist for Christianity and you may not think him impartial.  

Just to be clear, debate doesn't occur between impartial people, and no one I will be recommending will be "impartial" in the sense of "uncommitted". They may have started out that way, but they all arrived at a conclusion they are partial to, and that's why I'm quoting or suggesting them. Coming to a conclusion is the point of discussions like this.

[maxwalrath]

ok...just slept one off...happy Saturday to all! I was more than 3 sheets before last night's comments, now I'll toss my 2 cents in.

All organized religions have committed sins in the name of god, but that does not invalidate the efficacy their teachings.  ...

I'm ok with a religious text being a guidebook of sorts for how to run one's life. But once the sins in the name of god start happening, I ask myself, "Is this God's will, or the will of the people, often the people at the very top of the religious hierarchy?"

Looking at history, sometimes the answer to the above question is that sins were commited in the name of god by religious leaders.

Once I get to that point, I accept that the message or stance of organized religion is not always the "will" of god. It is the interpretation of the leaders of the religion.

Religious texts can often be left open to interpretation, and then you start getting (say in Chrstianity) different branches of believers in Christ, some with their own philosophy and ideas about the book. I wouldn't believe that out of all forms of Christianity, there is one "right" one, with people of that faith granted admittance to heaven, and those believers in Christ not of that faith sent down below... These branches were created because of different interpretations of text, because of persecution of one group, and in some cases by power hungry people. And each one wants money.


I would say that all the bigotry, the money and the political influence, the people commiting sins in the name of god, and before that, the nations and kingdoms commiting sins in the name of god, are mans fault. But all that crap is enough to make me say the hell with "organized" religion.

No matter what all of you here believe, I of course respect your opinions. I hope the members of organized religion can understand the skeptics out there.

[ScottMayo]

And strangely enough, as I look at (and know) some of the participants I find it interesting that some who are staunch objectivists in audio are subjective in their religious bent, and vice versa.

Not true across the board, but it is interesting that it is evident at all.

I would have assumed that objectivity and subjectivity would be consistant in all aspects of a persons interests.

Can't speak for others, but I'm almost invariably as objectivist as possible, in anything I think about. (Objectivist in the common sense, not in the Ayn Rand, Ice Bitch of Capitalism, sense.) Audio is something you can measure, so I measure it.

History, though, doesn't come with a test meter. You have to read what others have written, and filter though biases and exaggerations, and this is never an exact science. It's not purely subjective either: good historians apply statistical tests and fixed criteria to their work.

And some things, even in the modern era, just don't measure well. Important qualities like fairness, mercy, love and justice are things we recognise when we see them, but attempts to come up with useful, applicable, measurable definitions usually end up mush. (If you think otherwise, try spending ten minutes coming up with a reasonably unbiased definition of "truth" or "reality". There's a reason epistomology is such a rich and messy field.)

Why does this matter? Among lesser reasons, it matters because history contains the account of Jesus, which is the central and only foundation of Christianity. Delete that, and the rest blows away. Which is why so many serious atheists have spent so much time trying to rip down the historical evidences for Jesus. The first one to succeed, pops Christianity like a soap bubble.

Of course, most uncritical thinkers today - and most people are highly uncritical in their thinking - just decide that history isn't knowable, and then go on to dismiss anything they don't happen to like or want to believe. Which is, of course, the most subjective possible stance anyone can take - and the least useful, not to mention being intellectially dishonest. But it's very safe and unthreatening, so I can't say I blame people for leaning that way....

Of course, I could write this a thousand times, and people will still take away "Scott believes in superstitions, so he's a flaming subjectivist."