Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[Arising_uk]

Yes, the later. We can document and prove that I can reliably know whether there is orange juice in my refrigerator. I'm not interested in turning that in to some grand philosophical question.

I assert that at the present time there is no evidence that we are in a position to come to conclusions on topics of this scale. As example, we also currently have not the slightest idea whether there is one universe, or 17 trillion universes.

That said, apologies, but your logic is sloppy, and seems to be driven by the conclusion you want to reach. Until recently we had no way of knowing about gamma rays and all kinds of things like that etc, but they still have an effect on us. Why couldn't gods fall in to this huge class of phenomena? ...

Why are you trying to turn something that you say we can't have the slightest idea about into a question?

Just like the gamma rays we can have no questions about their effects upon us until we discover they exist.

[evangelicalhumanist]

So the question, to me, then becomes a little different. If you assert that there is no possibility of knowing about the existence of gods, then I can only conclude that is because, if they exist, they can have no effect whatever upon us.

I assert that at the present time there is no evidence that we are in a position to come to conclusions on topics of this scale. As example, we also currently have not the slightest idea whether there is one universe, or 17 trillion universes.

Good. So what will be your response to the question of "how many universes" in the conduct of your life, and more importantly, in what you require of others, in light of this profound ignorance? (As you no doubt guess, I'm hoping your response is "nothing at all," in which case you will begin to understand me, as I'm trying -- and admittedly failing -- to understand you.)

That said, apologies, but your logic is sloppy, and seems to be driven by the conclusion you want to reach. Until recently we had no way of knowing about gamma rays and all kinds of things like that etc, but they still have an effect on us. Why couldn't gods fall in to this huge class of phenomena?

I disagree that the logic is sloppy, because if you'll look up and note, I was very, very careful in my choice of words. I said: "If you assert that there is no possibility of knowing about the existence of gods, then I can only conclude that is because, if they exist, they can have no effect whatever upon us."

And this is, you must admit (or I think you must), something you yourself have asserted -- that this is beyond our mere human capacity to know. In which case, my logic was sound.

It is clear, in principle at least, that if there were an effect attributable to gods and only to gods, then that effect would be detectable (otherwise, how can it be an "effect?").

No, that's not clear at all. Why do you assume the human mind would be capable of detecting and analyzing "the hand of god"?

Exactly what you just described above -- gamma rays. While we detect no effect of any kind, we can do nothing. When we do detect an effect, we can at least begin the process (scientific) of understanding. That process may be long, and certainly incomplete, and we may even come to many wrong conclusions along the way, but the human mind -- presumably for many because of its very design by God, having detected (you conflated "capable of detecting and analyzing"), could analyze.

And in that case, again at least in principle, it could be studied and possibly learned about.

I agree it might someday be possible.

And that's all I said.

In the absence of any such effect from which we might discover at least some small hint, then, I propose that the existence of gods is utterly irrelevant, along with the existence of anything else which can have no possible noticeable effect.

If it's utterly irrelevant, why are you, me and billions of other folks unable to let go of the subject? Our interest is a well documented hard fact. It could also be a fact that this question is the biggest cultural event in human history.

So, let's start from the facts. Many of us, including you, are incurably interested. I'm not prejudging in any way what it is we are interested in, only stating the obvious point that we are interested in a concept generally labeled god.

I went to some effort to explain that in my previous post, not sure why you ignored it. It's not the existence of indetectable gods I'm interested in, but the very detectable gods acting out of the human hosts infected with those memes.

To me, the relevant question is...

Do we wish to continue pursuing our interest in the same way we've always pursued it, in the hopes that doing the same thing over and over again will somehow lead to different results?

I've told you -- I'm a humanist. I wish to pursue the question from that viewpoint. With you, or with whomever else would find that interesting. I gave up on the argument of "belief/lack-of-belief" in my last post for that very reason. It's a distraction leading to nothing but an endless parade of definition/redefinition -- technical philosophy at its worst and most useless.

It's an interesting thing to consider, however, that at least some few of the billions of words exchanged around the world on this topic have had some small effect.

Ok, I agree.

And on that basis, let the argument continue!

[Typist]

Good. So what will be your response to the question of "how many universes" in the conduct of your life, and more importantly, in what you require of others, in light of this profound ignorance?

The vast majority of us seem able to easily walk away from the universe question. This is not true of the god question. The universe question is important only to a relative handful of specialized scientists. The god question is the biggest cultural event in the history of the human race.

I have no complaint if someone can walk away from the god question, and it's true that many can. But that's not you, not me, and not billions of others either.

(As you no doubt guess, I'm hoping your response is "nothing at all," in which case you will begin to understand me, as I'm trying -- and admittedly failing -- to understand you.)

I understand that you have a predetermined conclusion you very much wish to reach, and that agenda interferes with a truly objective investigation.

I understand you don't understand me, and two possible reasons come to mind.

First, I may simply suck as a writer. This problem could be solved by seeking out other writers.

Second, my suggestion lies outside of the system you are used to. You are familiar with, comfortable with, and adept at the "this concept vs. that concept" game of philosophy.

My proposal is that we've already tried this a million times and have little to show for it. This suggests to me that if we are serious about the question, then it's not yet another concept we need, but a new method of inquiry.

Which is more important to us?

The question, or our favorite method of investigation?

If the evidence demonstrates that philosophy has shown itself incapable of moving the inquiry forward, what will we do then?

Stick with philosophy anyway because we like philosophy? Or listen to what the evidence is telling us, and seek new ways to approach the question?

I disagree that the logic is sloppy, because if you'll look up and note, I was very, very careful in my choice of words. I said: "If you assert that there is no possibility of knowing about the existence of gods, then I can only conclude that is because, if they exist, they can have no effect whatever upon us."

Yes, and this is sloppy, because you are assuming that an inability to know about gods automatically equals them having no effect on us.

We didn't know what gravity was for thousands of years. We still don't really. But gravity has an effect on us, yes?

Exactly what you just described above -- gamma rays. While we detect no effect of any kind, we can do nothing.

Do we want to do anything? Or do we prefer instead to endlessly repeat we can do nothing? That is, if one method of inquiry fails to resolve the question, shall we quit, or look for another method of inquiry?

I would suggest that you have a destination you are determined to arrive at, and so you will choose any path that leads you where you've already decided you want to go.

You are of course entirely within your rights to do so, no question about that. But that's not reason. That's belief, faith, dogma.

I went to some effort to explain that in my previous post, not sure why you ignored it. It's not the existence of indetectable gods I'm interested in, but the very detectable gods acting out of the human hosts infected with those memes.

I do understand this. You are very interested in bad behavior by some theists. Ok, fair enough, we all have our interests.

I've told you -- I'm a humanist. I wish to pursue the question from that viewpoint.

Ok. It is of course entirely your call.

By "humanist" do you mean you wish to pursue the question with reason?

If yes, ok, I can go for that. If yes, then let's use reason to ask this reason based question.

Where is the evidence that using reason, concepts, philosophy and thought etc, will resolve this question?

With you, or with whomever else would find that interesting. I gave up on the argument of "belief/lack-of-belief" in my last post for that very reason. It's a distraction leading to nothing but an endless parade of definition/redefinition -- technical philosophy at its worst and most useless.

Yes, we agree here.

And on that basis, let the argument continue!

We agree here as well!

[evangelicalhumanist]

Good. So what will be your response to the question of "how many universes" in the conduct of your life, and more importantly, in what you require of others, in light of this profound ignorance?

The vast majority of us seem able to easily walk away from the universe question. This is not true of the god question. The universe question is important only to a relative handful of specialized scientists. The god question is the biggest cultural event in the history of the human race.

I have no complaint if someone can walk away from the god question, and it's true that many can. But that's not you, not me, and not billions of others either.

Let us stop for just a moment, take a breather, and let me explain once again which question I am addressing.

I am not addressing “the existence of (some sort of) god” question. I’ve already agreed with you, and have stated here before (and elsewhere), that while I personally don’t think such a thing exists, I can’t prove it, and can’t really say much more about it than that. I have walked away from that question.

I have told you, on the other hand, through an entire essay, to begin with, that the gods that people conjure up in their imaginations – and which gods they then purport to obey – are indeed questions I think we can address. In exactly the same way that we can address political ideologies, questions of art and beauty, and so forth. We may find we cannot agree, but we can always find ways, with enough effort, to talk to each other. I can, for example, find ways to explain the musical syntax of a Beethoven Sonata to the person who really only cares for Meatloaf and finds classical music boring and hopelessly old-fashioned. Why, I’ve even, on the rare occasion, been able to lead them to a slightly increased appreciation for what they’re listening to. (And by the way, I listen to more modern music now than I ever used to, because I discovered on my own that I was prejudging rather than listening, and that there actually are still fine musicians at work).

Let me take you back just a little bit in my life. You know I’m a gay man. You don’t know that I am also part native Canadian (Mohawk, to be precise). On both those counts, religion has played an unpleasant part in my life. My father (according to my mother the most beautiful boy she’d ever seen) was a product of the dreadful “Residential Schools” system in Canada, whose only purpose was to destroy native culture, language and religion, and replace it something the white folks – Christians to a (wo)man – were more comfortable with. As a result of his heritage, of course, he was not permitted to marry my mother (he did offer), and she settled, after I was born illegitimately, for a drunken abuser who nearly killed both of us on a number of occasions. Eventually, I was taken away and made a permanent ward of the Crown.

And of course, being brought up in a Christian Children’s Aid Society, in a very Christian nation at the time, and you might consider what my sexuality caused others to think of me. Several of my friends from long ago committed suicide as a result, but this wasn’t always considered a terribly bad thing. After all, God hated them, it said so right there in their Good Book and was repeated regularly from the pulpit.

(As you no doubt guess, I'm hoping your response is "nothing at all," in which case you will begin to understand me, as I'm trying -- and admittedly failing -- to understand you.)

I understand that you have a predetermined conclusion you very much wish to reach, and that agenda interferes with a truly objective investigation.

Now, with what I revealed to you above, I will admit that I have a distaste for religion, and for the invented gods that many of the religions tout. My own history made me more sensitive to the other things that I read as a grew up and studied history. The wars of religion, the terrible, terrible depredations of the missionaries around the world (as in the Canadian Residential Schools), all told me over and over again in no uncertain terms that whatever else I might say about religion, it was most certainly not an unmitigated source of good!

So, no, I am not “truly objective” on that subject. As to a “truly objective investigation,” I don’t believe that would lead to anything, unless there were in fact something there to be discovered. Here’s where I find your notion of aphilosophy to be a “wrong path.” Human imagination, without the use of reason, is just as capable of conjuring up even more false deities, and in fact, without reason, is almost incapable of preventing those from being conjured up.

I understand you don't understand me, and two possible reasons come to mind.

First, I may simply suck as a writer. This problem could be solved by seeking out other writers.

Second, my suggestion lies outside of the system you are used to. You are familiar with, comfortable with, and adept at the "this concept vs. that concept" game of philosophy.

You write perfectly well. I understand your words. I do not, however, as I’ve just made clear above, think that we can discover anything that can be called meaningful with the use of reason. And that, I think, is because of the very nature of the evolved human brain. This is what I was talking about when I wrote on our propensity for belief (even in, and mostly in, wrong things) before reason a few posts back. But reason must always follow, or we might be safe, but usually incorrect. Sorry, but that seems to be a sticking point between us.

My proposal is that we've already tried this a million times and have little to show for it. This suggests to me that if we are serious about the question, then it's not yet another concept we need, but a new method of inquiry.

And as I said, I think that we have a little something to show for it. We don’t burn witches and heretics, and that seems to me to be an achievement of no small moment.

Which is more important to us?

The question, or our favorite method of investigation?

If the evidence demonstrates that philosophy has shown itself incapable of moving the inquiry forward, what will we do then?

Stick with philosophy anyway because we like philosophy? Or listen to what the evidence is telling us, and seek new ways to approach the question?

I’ll stop here, and not answer the rest of your post, because this is, indeed, the question. Now, we know (approximately) how philosophy works. So what I would like to hear from you is how aphilosophy can add any truth to our collective human knowledge. That, surely, is what we should be exploring next.

[Typist]

I am not addressing “the existence of (some sort of) god” question.

Um, it seems you are, as illustrated here in the next sentence of your post.

I have told you, on the other hand, through an entire essay, to begin with, that the gods that people conjure up in their imaginations –

You assume that gods are a function of imagination, based on no ability to know such a thing. And then you build the rest of your perspective on this foundation of ignorance.

Let me take you back just a little bit in my life. You know I’m a gay man. You don’t know that I am also part native Canadian (Mohawk, to be precise). On both those counts, religion has played an unpleasant part in my life.

Right, I do understand this. SOME theists have injured you, and so you are now on a life long holy jihad against ALL of theism.

This would be the equivalent of saying a gay man once cheated me largely because he was gay and I am not, (true) therefore I'm against all gay people (NOT TRUE!).

Here's an alternative. I reject all adamant homophobes. I don't care whether they are theists or not.

Now, with what I revealed to you above, I will admit that I have a distaste for religion, and for the invented gods that many of the religions tout.

I have a distaste for invented fantasy knowings of all flavors, which are then used to heap scorn upon millions of people we've never met. I don't care whether it's a theist or an atheist doing it.

So, no, I am not “truly objective” on that subject.

A point of agreement. I'm not either.

Human imagination, without the use of reason, is just as capable of conjuring up even more false deities, and in fact, without reason, is almost incapable of preventing those from being conjured up.

You've already agreed you have no way of knowing whether gods exist or not. So what will you build your human reason plan upon? And if reason is the flag you wish to salute, please be loyal to reason, and provide us some evidence that reason is going to resolve this question.

For my case, I will provide you with the evidence of our year long conversation, which is still pretty much right where it started. I offer you a few thousand years of such conversations, repeated endlessly all over the world.

You write perfectly well. I understand your words.

Ok, cool.

I do not, however, as I’ve just made clear above, think that we can discover anything that can be called meaningful with the use of reason.

Ok, I don't object to you thinking that. It's clearly your business.

But um, how would you know this? You've been clear you don't want to do the investigation. Ok, no problem. But you're going to come to a firm conclusion anyway? And you call this reason?

I suggest instead, "aPhilosophy doesn't interest me, so I guess I'll skip it as I know nothing about it." This would be a more factual reason based statement.

But reason must always follow, or we might be safe, but usually incorrect. Sorry, but that seems to be a sticking point between us.

You're worried about false beliefs regarding gods, and the damage those false beliefs might cause others.

Ok, here's how we solve that.

Admit you aren't in a position to have valid beliefs about gods. You can still have beliefs, just admit you have them because you want to have them, not because you are in a position to know. Have the beliefs, enjoy them, but don't take them seriously. Now your beliefs won't hurt anybody.

But of course it's not your beliefs you're worried about. It's other people's beliefs. Ok then, please document your ability to change other people's deeply held religious beliefs. Give us the list of names of theists you've converted.

If you can't give us a list of names of theists you've converted, then use reason, face the evidence, and listen to it. You don't know whether gods exist, and you can't convert those who believe they do. Just as I can't convert you!

I’ll stop here, and not answer the rest of your post, because this is, indeed, the question. Now, we know (approximately) how philosophy works.

So what I would like to hear from you is how aphilosophy can add any truth to our collective human knowledge. That, surely, is what we should be exploring next.

Aha, I have successfully hijacked another thread!

Ok, seriously....

You want truth.

And so I will ask you, what is truth? What exactly is this thing you say you want? Be precise. If we don't know what it is we really want, we're unlikely to get it.

Is a photograph of you truth? Is your name truth?

Is any word, thought, concept or abstraction truth?

Or are all these things highly imperfect symbols which point to the truth, to reality?

Do you want to meet a live human being? Or look at their picture?

Do you want truth? Or words about truth?

[evangelicalhumanist]

I am not addressing “the existence of (some sort of) god” question.

Um, it seems you are, as illustrated here in the next sentence of your post.

I have told you, on the other hand, through an entire essay, to begin with, that the gods that people conjure up in their imaginations –

You are having some difficulty with a pretty simple concept. The contents of some segment of computer memory might contain some data -- or it just as easily might contain the address, somewhere else in memory -- of the required data. This is a fairly common trick in programming.

If I imagine a thing, that thing doesn't pop into existence in the way that I mean existence. Yes, it exists as a subject of my imagination, but it does not objectively exist anywhere else. I am not thinking about god, I am thinking about other people's thoughts about god. Difference. See?

Let's try it another way. I just went to see the film "The Help." Pretty devastating picture of the mindsets of an awful lot of presumed "good people" in Jackson Mississippi in the 60s. And yet, I would put it to you that the pictures some of those people held in their minds of their black maids is not the reality of those poor souls at all. I wouldn't want to change the black maids. I would want to change the contents of those tormented minds.

You assume that gods are a function of imagination, based on no ability to know such a thing. And then you build the rest of your perspective on this foundation of ignorance.

I assume that the gods in people's heads are in fact their imagination, or else you have admitted that there is, after all, a way to detect the existence and nature of gods. And if that is the case, then clearly, there isn't one "God," there are as many as there are people who believe, because they are all different. We may not understand gravity, but we all behave in the same way under its influence. We and the earth move towards one another's centers of mass under its influence, and we do this unfailingly. The contents of many people's imaginations on the subject of gods really doesn't come very close to that sort of unfailing similitude. I therefore conclude that those contents are not externally generated.

Let me take you back just a little bit in my life. You know I’m a gay man. You don’t know that I am also part native Canadian (Mohawk, to be precise). On both those counts, religion has played an unpleasant part in my life.

Right, I do understand this. SOME theists have injured you, and so you are now on a life long holy jihad against ALL of theism.

This would be the equivalent of saying a gay man once cheated me largely because he was gay and I am not, (true) therefore I'm against all gay people (NOT TRUE!).

Here's an alternative. I reject all adamant homophobes. I don't care whether they are theists or not.

Where, exactly, have I rejected theists? Or have I, rather, only rejected those whose theism leads them to reject others? You saw my own website. The people who I regularly communicate with there are theists, not atheists like myself, and we have good, respectful conversations. I am a member of Soulforce, which is a decidely theist organization.

Please get this straight. I have my own beliefs about the existence of gods, which I do not expect people to share. I have, on the other hand, my own beliefs about what should not be done to other people regardless of what my personal values are, and those I would hope we would all share. You know, things like "don't kill, don't steal, don't mess with the little altar boys, and leave people alone who don't happen to believe what you do." That last, by the way, comes a little harder to some.

Now, with what I revealed to you above, I will admit that I have a distaste for religion, and for the invented gods that many of the religions tout.

I have a distaste for invented fantasy knowings of all flavors, which are then used to heap scorn upon millions of people we've never met. I don't care whether it's a theist or an atheist doing it.

Please go back through my posts, here and elsewhere, and find an example of my having "heap[ed] scorn upon millions of people," met or unmet.

Human imagination, without the use of reason, is just as capable of conjuring up even more false deities, and in fact, without reason, is almost incapable of preventing those from being conjured up.

You've already agreed you have no way of knowing whether gods exist or not. So what will you build your human reason plan upon? And if reason is the flag you wish to salute, please be loyal to reason, and provide us some evidence that reason is going to resolve this question.

Which question? I have never said that reason was going to resolve "this question." I have said that since the question cannot be answered through reason, unless there's another method, it can't be answered at all. Then you're left with trying to navigate life without an answer to the question, making the question itself irrelevant -- especially when applied to other people.

I do not, however, as I’ve just made clear above, think that we can discover anything that can be called meaningful with the use of reason.

Ok, I don't object to you thinking that. It's clearly your business.

But um, how would you know this? You've been clear you don't want to do the investigation. Ok, no problem. But you're going to come to a firm conclusion anyway? And you call this reason?

I suggest instead, "aPhilosophy doesn't interest me, so I guess I'll skip it as I know nothing about it." This would be a more factual reason based statement.

I cannot see through your eyes. I must rely on what you say to have any knowledge of what you see and think. You keep mentioning "do the investigation" but I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for. (Oh yes, "the truth," that thing that magically pops into people's heads when they stop trying to think. The number of such conflicting "truths" out there, by the way, is truly staggering. And that they are all true at the same time, that's even more mind-blowing.)

You're worried about false beliefs regarding gods, and the damage those false beliefs might cause others.

Ok, here's how we solve that.

Admit you aren't in a position to have valid beliefs about gods. You can still have beliefs, just admit you have them because you want to have them, not because you are in a position to know. Have the beliefs, enjoy them, but don't take them seriously. Now your beliefs won't hurt anybody.

But of course it's not your beliefs you're worried about. It's other people's beliefs. Ok then, please document your ability to change other people's deeply held religious beliefs. Give us the list of names of theists you've converted.

If you can't give us a list of names of theists you've converted, then use reason, face the evidence, and listen to it. You don't know whether gods exist, and you can't convert those who believe they do. Just as I can't convert you!

Or perhaps I should just shoot those who do physical or emotional harm to others?

We have same-sex marriage in Canada. During the debate, over the course of many years since our first Pride Parade (I was part of it), the attitudes of Canadians -- including Canadian Christians, have changed, from a solid majority saying "never," to a majority who now accept it. Did we change their religion? Nope. Did we perhaps alter their understanding? I think we must have done, or else they'd still be pounding their Bibles gesticulating at Leviticus until they turned blue.

Change can happen. And it can happen without killing people. We've proved it.

You want truth.

And so I will ask you, what is truth? What exactly is this thing you say you want? Be precise. If we don't know what it is we really want, we're unlikely to get it.

Is a photograph of you truth? Is your name truth?

Is any word, thought, concept or abstraction truth?

Or are all these things highly imperfect symbols which point to the truth, to reality?

Do you want to meet a live human being? Or look at their picture?

Do you want truth? Or words about truth?

That's a diversion. If you can't express your "truth" in words, then we cannot share it, and we can never know whether our "truths" bear resemblance to one another. Thus, there are as many "truths" as there are people, if you insist that "the thing" is not "the thing pointed to." While this is true, it is essentially unhelpful when it comes to sharing. It is at its very essence solitary and selfish.

If that is what you are saying, then the discussion must be at an end, because it can't be had -- especially over the internet -- in the absence of such pointers.

[Arising_uk]

... The god question is the biggest cultural event in the history of the human race. ...

No its not. The biggest cultural events were either the appearance of language or the creation of writing. The 'god' question is a small subset of these and its just one answer to a biggish cultural event, i.e. the language question, 'Why everything?' or 'Why anything?', etc. The actual singular answer of 'god' is a pretty late arrival as an answer.

[evangelicalhumanist]

You want truth.

And so I will ask you, what is truth? What exactly is this thing you say you want? Be precise. If we don't know what it is we really want, we're unlikely to get it.

Is a photograph of you truth? Is your name truth?

Is any word, thought, concept or abstraction truth?

Or are all these things highly imperfect symbols which point to the truth, to reality?

Do you want to meet a live human being? Or look at their picture?

Do you want truth? Or words about truth?

Jumping back in, before I've even given you time to respond (really, Typist, you've got me worked up -- if you want to keep up, you're going to have to get a wiggle on! ).

What can it mean to ask about truth versus description of truth? Sans description, we are left with the content of our own experience, which we cannot even describe to ourselves. Let me give you a serious example:

Go to the bathroom! Make it a bathroom with a fairly complex, fairly small-scale, and fairly ambiguous and as random as possible tile patterning on the wall. Sit (even if you're a boy) still and simply observe these tile patterns. An absolute multitude of shapes, thoughts, possibilities, notions, pictures -- you name it -- will flash across your mental projector. Worse, you'll never get a single one of them back the same as before, if you can get it back at all!

What's going on? Your mind is a pattern-analysis crazy. It can't stop doing it, and never (ignoring the post-corporeal) will. Absolutely no observation you can make is ever free of this incessant activity, and it is only very marginally under your own control for extremely brief periods -- and only then when you begin to name, to classify, to think.

In all of that, what "truth" do you think you may uncover? And what, then, would you do with it? the following paragraphs in blue were written by me a few years ago on another forum. I'm simply copying them here for convenience:

In their book Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science & The Biology of Belief, Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili describe experiments on meditating monks -- real masters of the discipline, using advanced imaging technologies to study brain activity during "peak" meditative states. What they found is strong suggestion of a characteristic radiological profile and uncovered some specific correlations between brain function and subjective religious experience. For example, in subjects who reported a feeling of infinite perspective and self-transcendence during meditation, the researchers identified decreased activity in the brain's "object association areas" where perceptions of the boundary between self and other are normally processed. The authors conclude that these experiences are the result of normal, healthy neurophysiology. (Disclosure, the authors also conclude overall that many "spiritual experiences" are real and external. I disagree and think that they erred, but that's a personal opinion based on reading their evidence, correlating it to their conclusions, and assuming I'm smart enough to do either very well - something of a moot point. )

So, the fact is, it is entirely possible that feelings that are highly spiritual in nature are the result of the brain's constantly-processing object association areas being disafferented. Because we cannot know or experience anything at all without the brain (at least not while we're alive, that anybody has been able to demonstrate), then such feelings would be perceived as completely real. But that's the point of disafferented brain functioning -- what feels real is not based upon anything that is real.

I don't suggest that's the be-all and end-all answer, but I think it needs just as much consideration as unverifiable suppositions about souls and the like.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't think, at the end of the day, that "experience," that what the zen masters and meditation masters are seeking, can in the end provide much that could be considered "truth." And even more, I am utterly convinced that none of it can be communicated to others. And that leads to the last point -- that if it cannot be successfully communicated, there's no way for even the greatest masters to share their personal experiences in sufficient detail to adequately assess whether they are even the same, let alone "the truth."

(By the way, I understand, vaguely and only intellectually, that Zen seeks to find a way which concentrates on direct experience rather than on rational creeds or revealed scriptures. I know that Zen considers that wisdom may be passed, not through words or concepts, but through a lineage of one-to-one direct transmission of experience from teacher to student. I do not, however, believe that this is practicable for very many in this world, and especially not for those of us who've attained a "certain age" and must still struggle to make a living. And for those of us inflicted with all those constraints, and who are as well the heritors of a different cultural imperative, I'm not sure it's really even possible. I can assure you, for example, that I will not have the luxury of enough time, that being nature's decision rather than my own.)

[Typist]

I am not thinking about god, I am thinking about other people's thoughts about god. Difference. See?

You are basing your opinions about other people's thoughts about god upon the fantasy that you are in a position to know whether gods exist or not. Take away that faith based assumption, and the rest of your perspective falls apart.

You are publicly backtracking on the "does god exist" question, because you now see it's indefensible to claim you know. But underneath this dodge and weave, nothing has changed.

And let me add, you are entirely within your rights to do so, and I'm a fantasy fool to think I'll have any influence on this procedure, which you are committed to on a level that isn't about logic, and thus can't be reached by logic.

I'm committing the same silliness you are committing, thinking that piles of logic can address a perspective that is rooted in emotion. We're both doing this, because we're both incurable logic nerds, and thus want everything to be about logic, because then we'd be in a world that is comfortable to us personally.

I assume that the gods in people's heads are in fact their imagination,

Ok, fair enough. This assumption is not based on anything more than the fact that this assumption is the comfortable one for you personally.

The contents of many people's imaginations on the subject of gods really doesn't come very close to that sort of unfailing similitude. I therefore conclude that those contents are not externally generated.

Yes, you assume you are in a position to analyze gods, despite the lack of evidence of any such ability. This is the same process as theists who assume they are in a position to analyze gods, despite the lack of evidence of any such ability.

Theism. Atheism. Fundamentally the same thing. Different sects of the same faith based conceptual system.

Where, exactly, have I rejected theists?Or have I, rather, only rejected those whose theism leads them to reject others? You saw my own website.

You always refer to other sites, as if the real you can be found there. How about posting the real you here on this site too? I don't have time to read all these other sites.

On this site, you are always on the offensive against theism, usually with various dramatic horror stories. You demonstrate no understanding that theism is a huge thing that comes in endless variation.

As example, you never make any reference to the fact that many Christians are in fact gay, and are part of Christian churches that embrace them as they are. You walk away from these facts, because they don't serve the conclusion you decided to reach before you began your investigation.

I have, on the other hand, my own beliefs about what should not be done to other people regardless of what my personal values are, and those I would hope we would all share.

We share the same values. You are only interested in these values if they can be used to promote your anti-theism dogma. I'm interested in these negative behaviors NO MATTER WHO COMMITS THEM.

Please go back through my posts, here and elsewhere, and find an example of my having "heap[ed] scorn upon millions of people," met or unmet.

Almost everything you write is about attacking the foundation upon which billions of people build their lives. And then you do the dodge and weave and try to pretend you're not attacking them. This dodge and weave business is the least appealing aspect of your writing. You always want your cake and eat it too. You want to label theists in general with every slander you can come up with, and then present yourself as an open minded humanist.

You sincerely believe this story. I don't.

I have said that since the question cannot be answered through reason, unless there's another method, it can't be answered at all.

Having adamantly rejected an investigation of other methods, you then proceed to claim there is no such method.

I cannot see through your eyes. I must rely on what you say to have any knowledge of what you see and think.

No, you don't. You can conduct your own investigation, and have your own experience. What I see and think doesn't matter, and is of no use to you or anybody else.

You keep mentioning "do the investigation" but I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for.

Simple practical techniques for taking control of your own mind. If we can't even control the on/off button of this device, why should we assume we are skillful users of the device?

(Oh yes, "the truth," that thing that magically pops into people's heads when they stop trying to think. The number of such conflicting "truths" out there, by the way, is truly staggering. And that they are all true at the same time, that's even more mind-blowing.)

All of that stuff is talk about reality, not reality.

Yes, I could make a huge pile of photos of people. I could collect billions of photos. And not a single one of the photos would be a real person.

You see the difference between a photo and a person. It's not complicated, right?

Look, this is really pretty simple. You are entirely sincere about dealing with reality. I agree with your intent here, and think it's wise.

So deal with reality. Not talk about reality, not theories and conclusions about reality. Reality.

aPhilosophy suggests, if we want to experience the person, put the photo down, and focus our attention on the real living person. If we want to experience reality, set the talk about reality aside for awhile, and focus our attention on reality.

Or perhaps I should just shoot those who do physical or emotional harm to others?

The solution to emotional harm is to take responsibility for our own minds.

The solution to physical harm? Ok, I'm on board for shooting.

We have same-sex marriage in Canada. During the debate, over the course of many years since our first Pride Parade (I was part of it), the attitudes of Canadians -- including Canadian Christians, have changed, from a solid majority saying "never," to a majority who now accept it. Did we change their religion? Nope. Did we perhaps alter their understanding? I think we must have done, or else they'd still be pounding their Bibles gesticulating at Leviticus until they turned blue.

Again, completely ignoring that many Christians supported you all along.

That's a diversion. If you can't express your "truth" in words, then we cannot share it, and we can never know whether our "truths" bear resemblance to one another.

First, it's not my truth, as much as I like to claim such things.

You are making a very common, and very understandable, assumption that all truth must be small enough to be translated in to symbols.

Symbols are thought, right? And thought is inherently divisive. Thus, thought may be a poor tool for approaching some aspects of reality.

We're back to the key question.

Which is more important to the reader? The question? Or the tool?

If our favorite tool can not do the job at hand, do we set aside the too, or abandon the job?

Thus, there are as many "truths" as there are people, if you insist that "the thing" is not "the thing pointed to." While this is true, it is essentially unhelpful when it comes to sharing. It is at its very essence solitary and selfish.

If that is what you are saying, then the discussion must be at an end, because it can't be had -- especially over the internet -- in the absence of such pointers.

I'm having no problem talking about it all, as my last 14,000 posts on the topic would seem to demonstrate.

But if you'd like to move on to something else, I have no objection.

[Typist]

Jumping back in, before I've even given you time to respond (really, Typist, you've got me worked up -- if you want to keep up, you're going to have to get a wiggle on! ).

So, you're challenging The Typist to a typing contest! A brave man!

What can it mean to ask about truth versus description of truth? Sans description, we are left with the content of our own experience, which we cannot even describe to ourselves.

Then don't describe it. Experience it.

Do you sit down and write a book about sex after you've had sex? Or is the sex good enough on it's own, and needs no embellishment?

No details please!

Go to the bathroom!

Oh geez, and I just asked to be spared the details.

Make it a bathroom with a fairly complex, fairly small-scale, and fairly ambiguous and as random as possible tile patterning on the wall. Sit (even if you're a boy) still and simply observe these tile patterns.

Ok, simply observe. I like it.

An absolute multitude of shapes, thoughts, possibilities, notions, pictures -- you name it -- will flash across your mental projector. Worse, you'll never get a single one of them back the same as before, if you can get it back at all!

Ok, simply observe this too. Watch it come, watch it go.

What's going on? Your mind is a pattern-analysis crazy. It can't stop doing it, and never (ignoring the post-corporeal) will. Absolutely no observation you can make is ever free of this incessant activity,

Again, you are absolutely insistent on coming to firm conclusions before you've run any experiment. It's the same thing that plagues your writing on theism. You don't actually want to experience or understand it, you just want to be against it.

I propose that this is the divisive nature of thought at work, and it isn't really a personal thing. I'm doing it too. I define myself as an aphilosopher so I can be divided from you the atheist. You define yourself as atheist so you can divide yourself from theists.

Anything thought touches it tries to divide. Thus, all ideology, including aphilosophy ideology, is a path towards conflict.

In all of that, what "truth" do you think you may uncover?

Nobody can answer that for you.

And what, then, would you do with it?

Experience it.

You're demanding that this experience MUST be translated in to symbols, abstractions, thoughts, theories and conclusions etc. That is, you demand the investigation be conducted with your preferred tool, the tool you're used to and comfortable with.

Ok, there's no sin in that. And it's your call entirely. I'm just pointing out, by making this decision you're limiting yourself to exploring that which can be explored with your favorite tool. Thus, some areas of this inquiry will be forever beyond your reach. Not because you're stupid or anything like that.

But because you're stubborn, and won't follow the inquiry where ever it leads you. You want to drive the inquiry, and demand the inquiry take you towards the conclusions you've already decided you wish to reach. Again, that is not reason, that's belief and faith.

So, the fact is, it is entirely possible that feelings that are highly spiritual in nature are the result of the brain's constantly-processing object association areas being disafferented.

Yes, that's possible. It's also possible you've just described the mechanical mechanism by which gods talk to people.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't think, at the end of the day, that "experience," that what the zen masters and meditation masters are seeking, can in the end provide much that could be considered "truth."

You're not really talking about truth. You're talking about thoughts about truth. See the difference?

You're demanding photos, abstractions. The zen guys are interested in the live human being the photo represents.

The zen guys are interested in reality. Not conclusions ABOUT reality.

And even more, I am utterly convinced that none of it can be communicated to others.

You are so easily utterly convinced. No investigation is required, let's jump right the fun part, the part where you are right, and somebody else is wrong. See? Thought, ever intent on division.

And that leads to the last point -- that if it cannot be successfully communicated, there's no way for even the greatest masters to share their personal experiences in sufficient detail to adequately assess whether they are even the same, let alone "the truth."

What these masters are saying, or should be saying, and what I'm saying is....

Nobody can do this for you the reader. Nobody else has your answer. You do it yourself, or you don't. Thus, there is no authority, an aspect of aphilosophy I thought you might enjoy.

I would agree many of the lesser masters get caught up in parading around pretending they have authority, have the answer, and will give it to you, sometimes for a fee. I agree this is all crap.

(By the way, I understand, vaguely and only intellectually, that Zen seeks to find a way which concentrates on direct experience rather than on rational creeds or revealed scriptures.

Direct experience, yes.

I know that Zen considers that wisdom may be passed, not through words or concepts, but through a lineage of one-to-one direct transmission of experience from teacher to student.

Maybe so, I have no idea, and am not too interested in the teacher thing, as I feel it's usually a trap, and excuse, a diversion.

Well, that's not exactly right. I suggest reality is the only authority, the only teacher we need concern ourselves with. Human teachers are like circus acts that entertain the curious. I would include my posts in this category. Stay tuned, I'm going to juggle naked strippers next!

I do not, however, believe that this is practicable for very many in this world, and especially not for those of us who've attained a "certain age" and must still struggle to make a living.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Your conclusion machine is spinning wildly out of control.

And for those of us inflicted with all those constraints, and who are as well the heritors of a different cultural imperative, I'm not sure it's really even possible.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Your conclusion machine is spinning wildly out of control.

I can assure you, for example, that I will not have the luxury of enough time, that being nature's decision rather than my own.)

But you do have enough time to spend hours a day blowharding with me.

Seriously, we could examine this time business. Time is necessary if we're traveling from here to there. aPhilosophy suggests we stop traveling, and just be where we already are.

Time is not necessary. But surrendering the endless journey through time is.

Fundamentally, it's simple. I'm going now to eat a salad, cause I'm trying to lose few pounds. After dinner, I will raid the pantry and eat a bunch of cookies, or I won't. A choice. Surrender the cookies, or eat them. Yes. Or no. Not easy, but not complicated either.

[Arising_uk]

Hi EH,

...
(By the way, I understand, vaguely and only intellectually, that Zen seeks to find a way which concentrates on direct experience rather than on rational creeds or revealed scriptures. I know that Zen considers that wisdom may be passed, not through words or concepts, but through a lineage of one-to-one direct transmission of experience from teacher to student. I do not, however, believe that this is practicable for very many in this world, and especially not for those of us who've attained a "certain age" and must still struggle to make a living. And for those of us inflicted with all those constraints, and who are as well the heritors of a different cultural imperative, I'm not sure it's really even possible. I can assure you, for example, that I will not have the luxury of enough time, that being nature's decision rather than my own.)

Not sure if its the same as what the Zen chaps don't talk about, nor what Typist yaks about but never states how to achieve but if you want a cheap and quick way to get in contact with this 'reality' they all waffle about, try this but best have someone about when you get it to work.
How to have a reduced rate of 'thinking'.

[evangelicalhumanist]

aPhilosophy suggests we stop traveling, and just be where we already are.

But I have done exactly that! I'm smack dab in the middle of an argument! Haven't been going anywhere! You?

All-in-all, though, I think I give up. I've tried to talk to you about me -- I've opened up a fair amount, I think. I've been as honest as I know how to be, but you always find ways to suppose that you can psychoanalyze me, decide what it is I'm trying to do, what I want, what I reject. I have a fundamental rule by which I have always lived -- I accept that what people tell me the feel is what they feel, what they tell me they think is what they think, and then I try to proceed from there. I do not, and never have, told them they ought not feel or think what they do, but rather that I accept their feelings and thoughts, and hope we can find a way to explore together. My employees have liked that about me, by the way.

I don't want to have such conversations as you and I are having, in which you constantly try to misrepresent my own thoughts and my own feelings -- about which, Sigmund, you know little. I've yet to tell you what you think and why you think it (go back pages, you'll find no such thing).

If ever we are to converse again, it will be on these rules:

• One will tell the other what they think.
• The other will acknowledge that, and then respond with their objections based on their own knowledge, not what thy suppose thy know about the former's mental state (about which they know diddly fucking squat).
• And so forth.

Frankly, after spending so much time telling you WHAT I THINK, I'm sick to freaking death of being told WHAT I THINK according to the all-knowing Typist.

[Typist]

All-in-all, though, I think I give up. I've tried to talk to you about me -- I've opened up a fair amount, I think. I've been as honest as I know how to be, but you always find ways to suppose that you can psychoanalyze me, decide what it is I'm trying to do, what I want, what I reject.

In other words, I'm smart enough to see through your BS (which we all have) and stupid enough to talk about it. My wife is so much wiser.

I have a fundamental rule by which I have always lived -- I accept that what people tell me the feel is what they feel, what they tell me they think is what they think, and then I try to proceed from there. I do not, and never have, told them they ought not feel or think what they do, but rather that I accept their feelings and thoughts, and hope we can find a way to explore together. My employees have liked that about me, by the way.

In other words, you like to post lots and lots of posts on Internet forums about what is wrong with other people's perspectives, but you don't want anybody analyzing your perspectives in return.

I don't want to have such conversations as you and I are having, in which you constantly try to misrepresent my own thoughts and my own feelings -- about which, Sigmund, you know little. I've yet to tell you what you think and why you think it (go back pages, you'll find no such thing).

What you find annoying about me is that I do understand, and do make a lot of accurate observations about the contradictions your faith forces you to embrace.

I might point out this is exactly the same process you are engaged in. The problem here is that you want to be the debunker, instead of the debunkee.

But real life doesn't work like that. Once we step out in to the public square, anything can happen. Somebody may now jump in to this thread and tell me why I'm full of shit. Hopefully I won't whine about it when they do.

If ever we are to converse again, it will be on these rules:

Sorry dude. Here's the rules. Everybody will write whatever they wish, and take responsibility for their own reading experience.

If taking responsibility for your own reading experiences requires you to not read me, ok, that's entirely your right, and I don't object. Taking a break from me is often a good idea.

(PS: We both know you'll be back in 3 days.)

[Arising_uk]

...
But real life doesn't work like that. Once we step out in to the public square, anything can happen. Somebody may now jump in to this thread and tell me why I'm full of shit. Hopefully I won't whine about it when they do. ...

But whine is about all you do when we point out why you are full of shit, that and ignore and refuse to address others questions, project and displace your pet psych-theory upon others, repeat the same bollocks time and time again upon numerous threads and write gibberish when others replies get all to much for your brain.

[Arising_uk]

Hi Notvacka,
Not sure if this helps or will go anywhere but the pedant in me wishes to talk.

...

• A practical example:
  
  I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. Though this evidence from experience is not an absolute guarantee that it will hold my wight again, it's enough for me to claim knowledge.) - I'm not sure? Is it not 'I believe that this ladder will hold my weight? As I think the evidence you present only gives us the statement "I know that this ladder has held my weight." Is it I deduce or infer that it will hold my weight again, so deduction is knowledge?
  
  I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's enough for me to claim knowledge from experience.)
  - So, "I deduce or infer that this ladder will hold my weight", is this knowledge? Could be.
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. But I'm cautious and won't claim knowledge until I'm actually on the ladder.) - This one I think but only knowledge when we get off it
  
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.) - Faith?
  
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (Perhaps it doesn't look all that sturdy, but I'm brave and don't mind taking chances.) - Hope?
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. That's the foundation of my faith.) - Not faith but the hope?
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's the foundation of my faith.) - Probably.
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.) - Hope?
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I saw in a dream that I climbed it, and in that dream, it held.)

- Lunacy

All these are acceptable uses of the words in question, I think. And these examples show that the distinction you mention is far from obvious in the English language. To me, the difference is not so much about the evidence as about the level of conviction:

Maybe and I think that how we arrive at or understand how we have a conviction or how we know we are convinced or have a truth to us is one of the more interesting questions to answer for oneself.

"I believe it won't rain today" is rather non committal. I might still bring an umbrella, just in case, while "I have faith that it won't rain today" means that I won't bring an umbrella.

Sounds like hope to me. For myself, if I believe it won't rain I won't be taking an umbrella but will be okay with getting wet if it does. But since I live in England I'll be taking an umbrella anyway.

Edit: Both "belief" and "faith" translates as "tro" in Swedish. However, in many cases "faith" translates as "tillit", which in turn translates back as "trust" in English. Maybe that's the reason why I interpret "faith" as a belief that you trust, for whatever reason, while I see "knowledge" as a belief that you trust also, but in this case the reason is evidence of some kind.

Sounds okay to me. English is a great language for creating these issues as its effectively two european languages combined and what a merry hi-jinks it has caused as we have two terms for most things, but I think its also its strength and thank 'god' that we dropped most of the gender terms. Reminds me of a joke story that the comedian Lee Mack told, its at point 6:12.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz4X4W2QGXU