Clarification of "Faith"

[JoeMo]

Fair enough, Tom.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

My apologies for the political red herrings contained in my last posts (which were rightly deleted).

I perceive you to be a former believer who is no either atheist or agnostic - is that a fair statement?

In a previous post, you stated that "If I am committed to what is true then I can only claim to know those things I have evidence for."

In a previous post, I mentioned that I am somewhat of a charismatic. I did not "choose" to be so. I used to be very anti-charismatic, until I experienced some unexplainable manifestations (which I interpreted as supernatural) that were so powerful that I either had to deny that they happened or change my view of things. There were not experiences I had that could be explained away as the "mass hysteria" experiences in the frenzy of a pentecostal praise services. These happened while I was mowing my lawn in the back yard. I won't wast your time describing them; but I will state that, based on these experiences and others I have had since then, I believe in the God of the Bible. I have either personally encountered Him, or I am having delusional hallucinations during my waking hours. My ego prevents me from believing the latter. I ahve met several people who claim to have had similar experiences.

Don't think I am saying I'm holier than anyone else. I believe me - I am not. I'm what many would consider a "Badventist". I don't look down on anyone who doesn't believe as I do. We all have different experiences (or lack thereof). But I have had these experiences that I cannot deny that I chalk up to be "evidence".

I was a nominal baseline believer before having these experiences, but now I feel that rejecting the concept of a supernatural God and the spiritual realm would be rejecting reality. Does that make sense?

[cardw]

JoeMo,

Apology accepted.

I am an agnostic to the idea of god. I am atheist in regards to the god of the bible. I don't believe the bible has anything advanced to say about reality. It is simply part of the evolution of western thought.

I believe that I understand what you are talking about when you say that you have had these experiences. I have had many such transcendental experiences. I have them on a regular basis. I don't doubt that these are real. The inner life is a rich life. I certainly don't deny that.

I simply find no evidence that these experiences are from the god of the Bible or from a god at all. There are too many other far more probable explanations. I simply don't know the source of these, hence I am agnostic.

These experiences tell me nothing factual about reality. The only purpose that I see is that they change who I am. They provide me subjective insights into myself and others. When we are talking about how to deal with relationships subjectivity rules the day because we all have different preferences. Love and compassion cannot be defined rationally. They are complex interactions we have within the realm of beauty. One cannot rationally define beauty. It is largely a subjective experience.

If my purpose was to support you in your search for meaning then I would look at these experiences of yours quite differently. I would ask you what they mean to you and in what form did they inform you. Did they present you with images, feelings, events, or any combination of sensory information?

Now if this experience told you that you were a worthless worm and you needed to crawl up the steps of the Vatican to get right with god, reality would inform me that you probably have an inflated view of your self importance. Unfortunately history tells us what happens when a person takes this type of message seriously and feels compelled to tell everyone else they are a worthless worm and if they don't accept this they will be burned at the stake.

These experiences often tell me about myself and what I really feel about things. They bring to the surface aspects of myself that still may be stuck in the past. They give me a chance to let things go. They don't require a god.

The human brain has more connections in one square centimeter than stars in the galaxy. Our brains are incredibly efficient at recognizing patterns. IQ tests involve a lot of testing of pattern recognition. They aren't so interested in memorizing knowledge but a persons ability to recognize patterns.

The brain does this naturally. And when you remove fear and ego, it does it a lot more efficiently because you aren't clogging up the bandwidth with a lot of nonsense about yourself and what you are afraid of.

Religion is sustained by fear and ego. One simply has to look around at our world today to see that.

[CoAspen]

Hmmmm....

{Regarding the point about abandoning reason...]

Abandoning whose reasoning? According to whom?

Truth is objective to whom and what makes it so?

[JoeMo]

cardw,

You opined that "Now if this experience told you that you were a worthless worm and you needed to crawl up the steps of the Vatican to get right with god, reality would inform me that you probably have an inflated view of your self importance." One of the things that blew my mind is that it was just the opposite of that. When I got over being complete;y overwhelmed about the mind-blowing experience I just had, it was just the opposite of what I had been programmed to believe as a Catholic, then a JW, then a traditional legalistic SDA. I believed that God had just told me that He really liked (loved?) me; and to ignore what man-made denominations had "beat" into me. It's like He told me that I had a job to do - and that job was to forget the religious programming that I had received; and to simply repeat to people what He was gonna show me. I still am a member of the SDA Church, but I admit that I don't exactly fit the mold.

If you have had such esoteric experiences, you probably know what I'm talking about. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, I was a total '"hippie" and had lots of - shall we say - "induced alternate reality" experiences. I don't know if you ever read any of Carlos Casteneda's books, but that's what I'm talking about. I've been having those kind of experiences recently (along with several other people from our church), but they are not substance-induced. For example - I was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer. Folks prayed over me. One person said they saw elephants dancing on my bladder pushing out the cancer cells (crazy, huh?). Immediately, I had to pee urgently; and 'danced" away from further prayer. When I went to my primary car physician a week later for a second opinion, He did quite a battery of tests on me, and informed my that the lab had either misdiagnosed me or I had a spontaneous healing. Coincidence? Maybe.

A couple years ago, a woman in our congregation suffered an injury that during childbirth that rendered her incapable of ever enjoying intimacy or having children ever again without major complicated surgery to repair the injury. The other women of the church prayed for her 2 days before said surgery; and when she went to the hospital, the surgeon could find no injury to repair.

Just a couple weeks ago, several people from our church went to a Muslim - dominated area of Tanzania for 2 weeks for medical and evangelistic work. On the last night, over 3,500 people showed up. Several hundred folks came up for healing/deliverance prayer after the meetings; and many (admittedly - not all) were healed of blindness, deafness, withered limbs, etc. Remind you, these were Muslims - not Christians. Coincidence? Spontaneous healing? What is one to believe? No one saw Jesus walking through the crowd; but (according to them) this stuff happened. Organized deception? I have very few choices here - do I believe what I heard, or do I dismiss it as lies or mass hysteria? If I accept it, logic tells me it came from God (or some other supernatural deity). If I dismiss it, I'm calling my fellow believers liars.

I choose the former. Does that make me a goofball religious fanatic or a realist?

I'm not trying to convert you or paint you into a corner. I'm just telling you what I've experienced as a basis for my "faith" as "truth". I respect where you are - I have children in the same place. I'm just saying ...

[cardw]

CoAspen,

Reasoning has been very well defined based on 2000 years of western philosophy. Its basis is formed by a binary decision process. It works pretty well if you have the correct facts. This is easily demonstrated by the progress humanity has made based on this system of reasoning. Where humanity has failed has generally been where humans fail to reason well.

This is not my reasoning system. If you believe that everyone can have their own reasoning process then there is no method to determine truth and our conversation is pointless.

You are basically debating definitions with me. If you want to understand what reasoning is then I suggest you take a few courses on reasoning. Here is an excellent one available free from Oxford University.

Critical Reasoning for Beginners

[cardw]

JoeMo,

It's very likely that your cancer was misdiagnosed. If you knew the medical basis for cancer diagnosis you would understand that the science is in the dark ages. That being said, there is also a chance that your shift in attitude and the removal of fear had a physical effect as well. Both of these don't require god. This type of shift is a natural result of a change in consciousness. When you have fear your body will express this someplace in your body as a freeze response. You have a connective tissue system that can isolate parts of your body when there is chronic fear present. This certainly causes cancer.

I have seen documentation in the form of before and after biopsies of uterine cells that demonstrate this. And I have had patients describe seeing similar things as you have described in the elephants dancing on your belly. I believe that our minds have perceptions we don't use. This still does not need god for it to happen.

As far as people having withered limbs healed I think we would need hard evidence for that. There are a number of substantial financial awards for someone demonstrating this type of healing in a controlled environment. No one has been able to do this under controlled observation. When you understand how easily people are fooled you will have a healthy skepticism of these types of claims.

My wife treats women all the time with the problem you described and has prevented numerous surgeries for women who have problems with painful intercourse and incontinence. This is a very common problem. The body is the mind and we see the effects of chronic fear every week in the bodies of people we treat. What we observe is that the body has everything it needs to heal. Most times it is some form of ignorance and fear that sustains the dysfunction. This is easily remedied by education, a shift in consciousness, and simple treatment to release the connective tissue.

Obviously there are times when structural damage will require surgery, but there are many people we treat that respond very quickly to treatment. These are not miracles, but we are simply using capabilities the body has built in.

These practices go back thousands of years and appear to be magic when you don't understand the structure of the body. It is wonderfully complex and robust, but it is not magic.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

On a more personal note. I think the very best thing you can do for yourself is, like you said to forget the religious programming that you had received.

One of the things that I have discovered within myself is when something doesn't feel right I need to pay attention. The subconscious mind has a tremendous ability to let you know when something isn't right. It generally doesn't explain it, but there is a part of you that knows.

One of my guides is that if anything uses fear or shame to make its point, I need to be very skeptical of it. Truth generally inspires and creates freedom, not shame and fear.

My other guide is if something tries to appeal to my ego, then I need to be very skeptical as well.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

I truly admire your scholarship and objectivity. My mind is open to everything; and you present some interesting and challenging thoughts. As I have told others on this board - I reserve the right to be wrong and to change my mind at any time given sufficient logical persuasion.

Considering what you said about the amazing natural healing powers inherent in the human body, let's assume the healings I spoke of were simply the manifest powers of the human immune system you posted rather than miracles I posted. I can't help but think that if you are correct, those attributes scream of intelligent design rather than random benevolent mutation.

I appreciate what you said about me rejecting religious programming. It was a big jump for me. I consider myself a spiritual being, but anti-religious and anti-denominational. There are non-believers on this board whose opinions I respect; and who I consider friends. I'm hoping you and I can reach that point.

You challenge my mind and make me think about my belief system. I appreciate that.

[CoAspen]

Not at all, merely trying to understand your frame of reference, since you are having difficulty with mine. I would say that you feel constrained by a certain set of 'rules' for reason and if others don't follow those...then you are simply at a loss to understand them. Hey , thats okay!

Believing in a God is not reasonable if one has to stay confined by a set of 'rules' for reason...maybe that is where faith comes in!!

I like the definition given by a writer of the NT....faith being something hoped for but not seen. You can say what you will about what that does to ones life, but I can tell you from my point of view, it works for me. I have hope for a future and you don't. As I have said before, neither of us will know who is 'right' when we die, so why don't I let you have your system to deal with life and you let me have mine!

[cardw]

CoAspen,

It is you who is defining my disagreement with you as an attempt to restrict your right to have your own views.

Only you have the power to let anyone restrict your views. I do not have that power, nor am I attempting to have that power. Disagreement is not a grab for power over your views.

And when you state that I have no hope you reveal the limitations of your own view. I do understand your viewpoint. I disagree with it. That is not a lack of understanding.

Like I suggested before you might want to view the course on reason presented by Oxford University. If you want to understand where I am coming from this is the framework that I am coming from. These are the rules of reason that I am accountable to.

You are simply redefining what reason is and you are only claiming accountability to yourself. And quoting the Bible doesn't help because then you aren't using reason, but authority as the basis of your belief.

These are basic definitions that most reasonable people agree on.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

Thanks for clearing up your position. I want to express some slight corrections of my views at the moment.

It is true that it is tempting to attribute complexity to intelligent design. The problem for me is if the universe is a function of intelligent design, why do we observe such destruction in the universe? Disease doesn't appear to be intelligent design to me. I can list a number of observations in our world that don't really seem all that intelligent to me.

I observe order, but that order seems unaware of the conscious beings the live within the universe. It seems to be unaware of the idea of suffering and injustice.

The bible is not a complex document. Too often people attribute contradiction and difficulty in understanding to a designed complexity. If the bible is god's message to the world it certainly is a poor communication of that message. Considering that there are 40,000 different versions of Christianity I think that's evidence of a lack of design within the bible. The bible is an iron age attempt at explaining the world we live in, but we know so much more today and I think we should incorporate the best evidence to determine what is true.

I do not consider the human person to be the result of random chance. I see life as the inevitable result of an ordered universe. When you understand the nature of fractal geometry you will understand how complex order can emerge from simple elements. It becomes more surprising that life would not exist.

Take a look at the work of Dr. Pollack on structured water at the University of Washington to get a glimpse of the aggressive nature of how water and light create order.

Whether that order is created by some super consciousness is beyond any method of determination that I know of. Hence I am an agnostic.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

I agree that [the existence of some super consciousness creating order] is beyond any method of determination. I'll be honest with you - logical or not - I'm simply more comfortable with the assumption that the order of things is the result of intelligent design rather than the "order out of disorder" proposed by fractal geometry and chaos theory. I don't claim to know that much about either one. On the surface, it makes sense to me that the order of the universe follows "rules". The rules were put into place by some sort of "intelligence". If there are no "rules, couldn't the rules (as we presently know them) change randomly as we pass through different regions in the universe? Take for example, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which basically states that, in a closed system (i.e., one that is not influenced by outside forces), entropy (i.e., chaos) will increase. Following this law forward, eventually the universe will become a very large burnt-out cinder. Following it backwards, there had to be a time of almost perfect order. That just doesn't make sense to me (at least it makes less sense than assuming that some intellgent source is in control of everything.

I don't "know" that for a fact; but I choose to believe it. If we were honest, based on absolutely empirical evidence, I think we all would be agnostic to one degree or another. We may believe, but we don't really know...

As far as your assertion about 40,000 versions of Christianity, I agree. It's ridiculous! But each of those 40,000 versions is some man-made interpretation on God's word. In fact, I'll go so far to say that the Bible is not necessarily 100% God's word (I'll catch some flack on that!). The writers of the Bible are God's pen men, not His pen. God did not "dictate" the Bible to them; it came through dreams, visions, and "downloads". They interpreted God's inspiration to them through their own baggage; and then translators interpreted their interpretation of God's inspiration through their own baggage; and people who started denominations interpreted God;s word through translator's baggage. IMO, the only way man can get a clear view of God's word is though the Holy Spirit.

[CoAspen]

I have already said, I don't need to understand everything to get on with life. Besides, at my age I am more into enjoying it than finding the correct answers. And no, I am not trying to redefine anything or saying you don't have any 'hope'. I merely pointed out possible scenarios for our futures. I do understand your need for a correct def of reason, which is often times most helpful, its just that I find 'faith' outside of your accepted def and that is okay! I find the idea of faith, that I used, as the most useful in describing it.

We disagree, of course, but so......

An interesting statement[regarding the rules of reason]!

I believe that I'm accountable to what I believe in also. So we are each accountable to different ideas.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

I think you misunderstood my statements. It's not order out of disorder. It's more complex order from order. There is no such thing as disorder within the universe. There are situations that are not conducive to humans, but that doesn't mean it is out of order. We are egocentric because we define things within our view of the universe. As far as I can tell the universe doesn't care.

There are a lot of people more comfortable with a large variety of ideas. To me that's an ego centered way to find truth because it is based on what you are comfortable with.

I have found far more success being accountable to the order we understand within the universe. Reason is a description of this order and is not the product of one person, but the collective intelligence of humanity.

Reason has demonstrated success over and over.

Now I hope there is something waiting after death, but since I have no evidence there is something I try and order my life as if this is all I'm going to have. That doesn't mean that I am advocating hedonism because that is not a joyful life.

As humans we have come to an awareness of very sophisticated ethical understandings that bring a quality of life that is much more desirable. Atheists tend to be very highly educated and very engaged with life. I'm sure you will find exceptions, but when I gather with other atheists they tend to be really fun, interesting people. This is a rational way to live life.

[cardw]

CoAspen,

When you have your private definition of reason you aren't disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with thousands of years of collective human thought.

Being rational doesn't take away from the joy of life. Being reasonable is not about trying to find all the answers. It is a method that helps you get rid of nonsense.

You are certainly free to choose what you like to do, but this is quite different from claiming that your opinion is based on reason.

Communication and understanding require that we are both accountable to common definitions. Floating the definition until it agrees with your statement is not accountability.

And being accountable to your own beliefs is not being accountable at all. Accountability requires that there is something outside yourself. What you are talking about is not being hypocritical. That is being consistent with your own claims. That is not the accountability I'm talking about.

These are not my opinions. These are collective definitions.

What I hear you saying is that you prefer to live a particular way. That's fine, but it's not truth when it has no evidence.

[CoAspen]

Hmmm...by beliefs is that there is a God so I would call that being accountable. I can also be accountable to others as well.

Oh, I get it! You want me to be accountable to 'reason' as defined by those that thatsay there is no God! Ain't going to happen! If I can't be accountable to what I believe in, then how am I going to be accoun table to others.

(Thats a lot of accounting, need a better word!)

I am not asking you to meet or believe in my reasons, they are mine and I take full ownership of them. Just remember the 'Truth is out there', and we are all looking for it!!(loved that series). You have yours and, well, I have mine! So, we will just have to let each other travel on in thier own 'truth'.

Starting to repeat myself, so will wait for a new topic or idea. Been nice talking to you!!

[JoeMo]

cardw,

Thanks for clarifying your statements. I agree that atheists tend to be well educated. I find the same is true of many pagans that I meet. They are not as hung up on being "better than thou" or ensuring that their little quirks and imperfections are well-hidden as non Christians. In other words, they tend to be more "real". One of my short-term goals as a Christian is to quit hiding my real self; and just accept the fact that it will get me in trouble with other believers at times.

I think you are correct about reason being a rational way of life, for the most part. But isn't even reason itself subjective? If it were objective, how come some people (even athiests) can look at the world and see it going to hell in a handbasket; and others look at the same world and see universal prosperity and happiness right around the corner? Doesn't our past experience, education, and world vie color our reason? Isn't it rational that my personal (albeit subjective) experiences with God color my reason?

I ask this not to argue. I ask it as "How does one get around his/her history and emotions to eliminate the subjectivity in their reasoning?" In my experience, it seems impossible.

[phkrause]

Great post CoAspen

[phkrause]

Great points CoAspen. I very much

[cardw]

CoAspen,

I'm not talking about changing your beliefs. I'm talking about definitions. We are having two different conversations because you don't understand the concept of reason.

When you say that your belief is rational you are misusing the word reason. You may have a belief, but belief is not reason. To use reason in the first place you have to have evidence.

My disagreement with you is not with your belief. If you want to have a belief that is something you have chosen subjectively. Reason has nothing to do with that.

One cannot use reason to prove or disprove god. The problem is a lack of evidence.

[cardw]

JoMoe,

Reason isn't subjective at all. It is very well defined. The problem we have as humans is lack of knowledge. Reason cannot operate without knowledge. And because we don't know everything we have to guess. And that is where subjectivity enters. And when we guess reason informs us that we don't know.

Reason cannot tell us what we like or prefer. One cannot use reason to explain love or emotions or consciousness.

Reason operates more like a filter to help us discard those things that contradict themselves.

My core ethics are based on empathy. That is a very subjective base. Reason informs me that understanding how others feel is a way to gather knowledge, but reason can't deduce why I might love someone or be attracted to a particular profession or song.

There is a need for subjectivity so that we can experience joy and beauty. Reason is too linear to be much help in these areas. Subjectivity is a large part of what gives us individuality and consciousness.

But when we make claims of truth, reason has to clear the way. It may be true that I like chocolate milk, but I can't claim that to be a truth for everyone just because I like chocolate milk.

To me, claims of god are the same thing. It may make you feel good to think there is a god watching over you. That is a true statement for you, but it is not a rational truth. It is a preference or opinion based on how it makes you feel.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

Don't take this wrong - it is not meant as a smart-alec remark or sarcastic question. I'm just curious, because I have heard this statement from one of my sons who is an agnostic/athiest; and he argues his point well.

Do you consider reason to be god? By "god", I don't mean a living interactive entity; just the overriding guiding force in your life.

I like your analogy about liking chocolate milk. Simple as it is, it is a clear deminstration of how something can be true for one and not another.

It also demonstrates how something (including an entity),can be a guiding force for one and not another. God can indeed exist; and I can let Him be a guiding force in my life; and you can choose otherwise. In a certain sense, if something (especially if that "something" is not manifest in the physical world) has no influence over you whatsoever, it's as though it doesn't exist.

For instance, my dreams are not real to you; and therefore have no influence over you. Yet they are very real to me; and may set the tone for my entire day. Does that make sense? If it doesn't, no worries. I'm just exploring a new "country" here.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

Reason is not a force. It is demonstrable description of the patterns we observe in reality. Like I told CoAspen, the issue as far as god is concerned is evidence or lack thereof.

Now the guiding force in my life is love. I accept that since I am human and I have consciousness there is a quality of life that reason alone cannot provide. In my experience love provides the best quality of life. That is a rational choice if you want to have a pleasurable life. It is an empirical choice.

Part of loving skillfully is a commitment to rigorous honesty. This includes intellectual honesty. Reason is the best tool we have to express intellectual honesty.

Since the Bible, if taken literally, contradicts itself and is simply plain wrong, it falls to reason to tell us this. And without reason we would still be following principles of Christianity practiced in the dark ages. That would include burning witches at the stake and the use of torture to force people to become Christians.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

You stated that without reason we would still practicing the Christianity of the dark ages including burning witches and the use of torture. Is that really the reality you see? I don't see that at all! I think that if we still practiced "religion" as they did in the dark ages (even as some continue to practice it today), we would still be burning witches at the stake, etc. Religion (i.e., denominationalism) has not only been the opiate of the people; it has been the bane of society. I look at Jesus' life as an example of love personified. I don't see any force or threatening involved. I don't see Him ever telling someone "You sinner! Here - have some leprosy!" I see Him curing people regardless of their belief. But that's just how I see things. Other people live in a different reality than me.

I also see that most (admittedly not all) of the contradictions in the Bible as how people choose to live their lives. Those who choosw to live by the law are judged in accordance with the law. Those who choose to live under grace through faith in Christ are judged by His righteousness - not their own.

I've been told that is a crazy way to think. I don't say that to you to argue your point - I'm just sharing my reality. I have noticed a big change in my life since I quit trying to live by the law and start living by grace. I have a lot more peace and a lot more success in being "me".