You can live with hope or you can live without hope.

[torridon]

My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.

The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research.  For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary!  All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain.  Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.

The world of inner experience is not off limits to science.  That might have been the case 30 years ago, but areas like consciousness research are hot areas in science now. And where research goes, technology is not far behind; Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3162060/The-mind-powered-CAR-BMW-i3-navigates-track-using-driver-s-brain-waves.html

The world of thoughts and emotions is very much under the remit of science now so your habit of claiming some sort of exception for your beliefs because they are 'beyond science' somehow is starting to look decidely dodgy to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.

The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research.  For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary!  All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain.  Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.

The world of inner experience is not off limits to science... Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :

Torridon you seem to have, like the hyena who fell into a vat of OXO, made a laughing stock of yourself.

I don't think making your motor go just by thinking about can be classed as ''Inner experience''.

Fuck me, you are so far off the mark I certainly wouldn't allow you any where near the thought control of a car.

[jeremyp]

Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.

You hope for eternal life.  I hope for a peaceful prosperous and sustainable future.  I think you hope for more than me.

[Sassy]

Nobody mocks those who depend on God until they try to mix science with faith and make 'true for me ' true for everyone, even those for whom the Christian 'truth' has brought nothing but pain.

Your view isn't realistic...
You cannot mix science with faith.I think you meant religion and science... because both religion and science require faith from a person. 

Truth is that science and religion both require a blind faith at first. Though faith in science has not yet been made by sight...

And your view is realistic Sass?

If you believe my view above is unrealistic then by all means state what is unrealistic and why. If you cannot do that, then what are you talking about?

[Sassy]

I cannot see why that hope would alone sustain belief?
It didn't for you.

Of course not! I believed "God" existed because that is what I was taught from childhood and accepted what I was taught about him and his kingdom.

Do you not want more? It is NEVER too late to ask...remember that...

There are many things I would like to believe, Sass, but wanting to believe them is useless if you are unable to convince yourself that they are true.

There lies the error, Len.

If you were trying to convince yourself then you had no faith in what you believed.
You should never be the person trying to convince yourself. You can do nothing of yourself.  You needed to remember you cannot succeed in your own strength. You needed to do everything through Christ...

[Sassy]

Christians chose the former...


Is it just about hope? No it isn't.
But the truth is God has a much better plan for our lives and most people are just to scared to let go of the reins and let someone else make the plans and decisions for them.

A number of threads on the forum read like a battle of keeping your own independence from God so mocking those who would rather depend on God. What options are there?
What do YOU  really know about God when it comes to making that choice?
A choice we all make sometime in our life whether  it is a conscious choice or not.

We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.

So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?

My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.

A man gets tied up to the ground he gives the world it's saddest sound, it's saddest sound....

Scientific methods do not and cannot represent the truth from God or the creation and Christ. Fantasy is what we create but what the bible does is reveal the truth and power of God. Your reply does not really represent what I asked.... Why do you believe what the Christians hope for to be fantastic?

[Sassy]

Why do certain types of Christians think NON-Christians are somehow stupid, ignorant or 'refuse' to see the Truth???

For myself...I personally have not found that to be the case.

Stupidity, refusal or being ignorant does not stop you finding Christ.
It is because man looks through the natural to find God and the knowledge of science etc. But the truth of God is simple and is found
through humbling ourselves and finding Gods way of calling man to himself. Man cannot do it, through his own understanding, his own will or strength. Christ is the ONLY way to know God.

Ok but you wont know that until you die. And maybe not then either ?!!?!?

Know what? I know what I have said that Christ is the ONLY way to God. It is personal experience that allows me the knowledge that we cannot do it through our own wisdom and strength.

We can know the presence of God here and NOW....

[Sassy]

Interesting you believe the believer hopes for more.

You hope for eternal life.  I hope for a peaceful prosperous and sustainable future.  I think you hope for more than me.

My hope is present too. 

[Leonard James]

There lies the error, Len.

If you were trying to convince yourself then you had no faith in what you believed.
You should never be the person trying to convince yourself. You can do nothing of yourself.  You needed to remember you cannot succeed in your own strength. You needed to do everything through Christ...

But I couldn't believe what Jesus said, no matter how hard I tried, so I prayed for help. None came.

[Sriram]

Hi again Sriram,

I have now read the articles and learned that when subjected to external stimuli the subconscious can indeed come to a right/wrong decision of its own volition, and sometimes  contrary to the conscious thought decision. Thank you.

Now I am struggling to remember how this affects the subject under discussion in this thread! 

I have already covered this in the 'Faith' thread.

You seem to have missed the 'placebo' effect and the fact that leaving it to the unconscious makes for better decisions. Ref my thread 26 above.

***********************************************

  "It's not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes] it's what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts. This mechanism is automatic, fast and powerful, and does not depend on deliberation and judgment.

...shown that people do indeed make optimal decisions—but only when their unconscious brain makes the choice.

...most of the decisions you make aren't based on conscious reasoning," says Pouget.

************************************************

You really think these are small matters to be dismissed casually?! And it should be obvious how relying on the unconscious relates to 'faith'.  And we are just beginning to  scratch the surface in this area.

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the subconscious mind is taking into consideration all the religious stuff that has been fed to it as if it were fact. Remember that the experiments you have told me about were with real external stimuli, not just recounted stories.

You are still thinking of the unconscious mind as just a dumb repository of memories. From what we have seen it is more observant, more careful, more intelligent and more powerful than the conscious mind. And our ego self awareness is not connected to it at all.

For you...faith healing is nonsense. Just an imaginary and delusional belief.  For me.... 'faith healing' is real. I have seen it happen. And from the placebo effect of the unconscious mind, I am able to see how this 'faith healing' works.

Similarly...for you....any power superior to the conscious mind is nonsense. So...for you...giving up ego control is nonsense. For me.... abandoning all ego control leads to happiness and better decisions in the long run. I can see how this also works through the unconscious mind.

You think of the unconscious mind  as 'you'. Just an extension of the conscious mind. Reality is that the 'you' is confined to the conscious mind and the unconscious mind is outside your control and even your awareness.

What the unconscious mind  has observed, what it knows, what it decides and how it works...is completely outside our orbit...and understanding.

Do you get my point now?! 

[torridon]

The problem with this approach, imo torri, is that it limits one to a relatively narrow area of reality - namely those elements of reality that are open to empirical research.  For instance, there are some parts of the natural world that I absolutely adore being in - walking behind waterfalls; hiking in the some of the most incredible landscapes around; (until fairly recently) running with no real purpose through wild countryside and demoralising urban sprawl: being different to others, being immersed in a book, being part of a community, being contrary!  All these are things and conditions that science doesn't even attempt to explain.  Science deals with patterns; imo, life deals with experience.

The world of inner experience is not off limits to science... Samsung is working on a next generation mobile that uses thought control. BMW have a modified vehicle that you drive using willpower only; you can apply for a test drive here :

Torridon you seem to have, like the hyena who fell into a vat of OXO, made a laughing stock of yourself.

I don't think making your motor go just by thinking about can be classed as ''Inner experience''.

Fuck me, you are so far off the mark I certainly wouldn't allow you any where near the thought control of a car.

That is where we are at already Vlad, in terms of man/machine interface, it's already a reality. Beliefs, thoughts, desires are not immaterial things beyond science, they are material things that can be measured, calibrated, fashioned, transmitted. Our great grandchildren will consider our tech soooo primitive, I mean, grandad, did you really have to interface with a computer by typing characters of a language on a keyboard ? Soo clunky that.  In the future we will be biologically and psychologically integrated with machines.

[torridon]

We all need hope. I prefer mine to be realistic rather than fantastic.

So you believe the Christians hope is 'FANTASTIC'? Why is that?

My preference is to remain grounded, tethered to reality by valuing the disciplined ethos characterised by scientific methods. Anyone who actually cares about whether their beliefs are true or not would want to stay focused and not wander far from what is well evidenced through research I would have thought. If you wander too far you risk ending up in a fantasy land of baseless beliefs.

A man gets tied up to the ground he gives the world it's saddest sound, it's saddest sound....

Scientific methods do not and cannot represent the truth from God or the creation and Christ. Fantasy is what we create but what the bible does is reveal the truth and power of God. Your reply does not really represent what I asked.... Why do you believe what the Christians hope for to be fantastic?

Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology.  As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one.  Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.

[Leonard James]

Because any belief not derived from evidence is fantasy, by definition. If there were any evidence for a god, then 'goddidit' would be a leading theory in cosmology.  As it is, there is no such evidence, so goddidit is not even a theory, never mind a leading one.  Goddidit, is therefore, is an indulgence, a fantasy indulged for psychological reasons, but not a rational explanation based on evidence.

Wise words wasted, I'm afraid, Torri. You might as well say it all in Chinese ... Sass will understand it no worse. If it ain't in the Bible it ain't true!

[Alien]

...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.

Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.

You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?

[Alien]

Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.

Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.

Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.

Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?

[jeremyp]

Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.

Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.

Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.

Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?

What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:

"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".

[Alien]

Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.

Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.

Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.

Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?

What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:

"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".

Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?

I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.

[Nearly Sane]

Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.

Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.

Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.

Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?

What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:

"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".

Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?

I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.

That isn't what Floo wrote

[Alien]

Science reveals that reality is often counterintuitive.

Suggesting, of course, that some folks' views - that a belief in something beyond science is counterintuitive and therefore not real - are, at the very least, open to question.

Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.

Your claim here is self-refuting. What verifiable evidence do you have to back it up so that it is reasonable for me to believe?

What evidence do you need for the self evident truth:

"if you have no evidence I can check, I don't need to believe your assertion".

Floo was claiming that is wrong to believe something "beyond science", whatever that means. It sounds like scientism to me. Would you agree? If so, would you say that scientism is correct?

I'm not here arguing that Christianity is correct, just pointing out that Floo's claim is self-refuting since it seems to be "beyond science" itself and has no verifiable evidence itself to back it up.

That isn't what Floo wrote

Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?

[Nearly Sane]

That isn't what Floo wrote

Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?

'Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.'

If something is 'as reasonable not to believe' then that isn't saying believing is wrong, is it?

[Alien]

That isn't what Floo wrote

Maybe I misunderstood what she wrote. What do think she wrote?

'Belief in something beyond science might seem real to the person concerned, but as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up, then it is as reasonable not to believe.'

If something is 'as reasonable not to believe' then that isn't saying believing is wrong, is it?

Indeed. I read her wrongly.

OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed. I read her wrongly.

OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).

Not sure of your point here. Evidence that can be verified would to me be something that independent of the observer could be established using an agreed methodology. It may be that Floo's point is that there is an absence of such a methodology for non scientific claims, which I would suggest is incorrect but if you were to substitute naturalistic for science, I would probably agree with. That isn't to say that either everything that is natural can have verified evidence provided for it or that there is only the natural.

[Alien]

Indeed. I read her wrongly.

OED says "verify" means,"Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." That goes for everything, doesn't it, scientific or not (apart from perhaps believing something to be, on balance, true, i.e. assigning some significant uncertainty, but not >50%).

Not sure of your point here. Evidence that can be verified would to me be something that independent of the observer could be established using an agreed methodology. It may be that Floo's point is that there is an absence of such a methodology for non scientific claims, which I would suggest is incorrect but if you were to substitute naturalistic for science, I would probably agree with. That isn't to say that either everything that is natural can have verified evidence provided for it or that there is only the natural.

And I'm not entirely sure of Floo's point either, so I'll call it a day.

[BeRational]

...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.

Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.

You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?

Not sure, I also see reality as the truth.

We do our best to find them out, but cannot be sure if and when we have.

[Alien]

...
True as always, means best approximation of truth, and always subject to change.

Is your statement here true as in a best approximation of truth and always subject to change? If it were to change it would mean that "true" would mean something other than a (best) approximation of truth.

You seem to be using "true" and "truth" in significantly different ways. Would it not be better to say that something is the best approximation to reality?

Not sure, I also see reality as the truth.

We do our best to find them out, but cannot be sure if and when we have.

Are you sure about that? Etc.