Encountering God? Or the word of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gabriella, here is the new thread and my opening post

Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives –

I think Hillside means people who claim to have met a risen spiritual personal mohammed

do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?

I don’t see given the context how he can mean this. I feel moved to find instances where the word encounter is used in terms of literature here. Could your term ‘’encounter with stories’’ be used for any literature or is there an extra dimension to it in the case of Mohammed and the environment he interacted with?

He was just a man so once he is supposed to have died it is not part of mainstream Muslim tradition for Muslims who came after him to claim they encountered him.... or God for that matter

Stupid question but How does God therefore end up being central in Islam? Is he central in Islam?

There is no equivalent belief to the claims by some Christians of encountering Jesus.

But is it true to say that you can encounter the Koran? And would it be fair to say that the Koran is for some Moslems the Word of God?

I say "some" because I have no idea if that is universal belief amongst all Christians.

The Muslim faith belief is that they have the Quran - a book of his messages believed to be the revelations

To whom?

or words of Allah/ God

So the actual word of God is embodied in the words of the Quran in the ink or Liquid crystals and materials which make up the words?

communicated via "angel" Jibreel .

Like gold transported in a crucible, to use a metaphor?

Most Muslims don't claim they have encountered 1 or 3 supernatural entities

And yet they encounter the actual word of Allah only made available to man via an encounter with a supernatural entity

- the Muslim faith as I understand it has a different vibe from the Christians - unless there are some Christians who don't believe it is possible to have personal encounters with God.
 Our concept is that we know of God through words we read and that there is nothing comparable to God

I would suggest that a Christian could also sincerely say there is nothing comparable to God

because if God can be compared to anything e.g. a man  (like Jesus for example)

But this isn’t what Christians are doing, by comparing I think you are talking rather about equating here or anything else that we would "encounter" or make sense of, [/quote] And yet you encounter the word of Allah

then God doesn't seem unique enough to be worthy of worship.

  On the contrary there is enough in Christianity to still make God the supreme subject or object of worship. But feel free to expand on why this cannot be true.

  There are various (99 to be precise) characteristics/ attributes given to God such as "merciful" or "just" etc but not physical attributes ( though I think physical attributes are occasionally used metaphorically) .

But these are human attributes to. Yes they may be superior analogues of the human version but I take it that we are to understand that God is merciful and just etc.

Most Muslims don't seem to want to encounter their concept of God nor do they seem to want their concept of God to be like one of them

I think you would be surprised at the number of anybody who wouldn’t actually want to meet an incarnate or any version of God

i.e. a man,

But they seem quite happy to have his word embodied in ink and paper and for Mohammed to have the supernatural encounter

nor do they believe that an all-knowing God would need to become a man to understand anything

nor do I and that certainly isn’t the purpose or function of the incarnation in the bible. 
I think it also fitting to say at this juncture that mainstream Christians are keen to point out the belief that Jesus was both Fully man and fully God without confusion of the two. In other words he is not a man shaped God. I would also challenge the claim that no comparisons are ever made between God and man. Take the comparison of the comprehensibility of God and Man expressed by yourself for starters.
And with that, I’ll hand the floor back to you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Vlad

Thanks for starting this thread on "encountering" God. Rather than breaking up my response to respond individually to each point you raised, as some points seem to be repeated, I thought it might be easier to provide a general response to some of the questions and ideas you have raised.

I think people can add an elevated i.e. mystical meaning to "encountering" the word of God, in so much as it moves them in a particular way, and yes they may believe they are in the presence of God when they read the words in a book, whereas reading about for example Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra does not I think cause people to feel they are encountering Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra. I think the feeling of being in the presence of God would be more to do with the descriptions of the nature of God e.g. that God is everywhere and all-powerful etc so it may inspire a sense of awe, and possibly people like the feeling they are in the presence of greatness and power so it would be understandable to interpret whatever sensations they are experiencing while reading the words as being in the presence of the entity being described. I am not aware of any method to independently verify if they are encountering or in the presence of any supernatural entity, so it can only ever be a subjective interpretation and reporting of experiences based on faith. Hence, it is also understandable that there would be some / many people who dismiss these interpretations of experiences as wishful thinking and not fact.

God / Allah is central in Islam through the consideration and efforts of Muslims in all aspects of their daily lives, to try to understand and practise the guidance in the Quran, which Muslims believe was provided through revelations given to Prophet Mohammed, as well as follow the guidance attributed to the Prophet Mohamed. The central idea of Islam is submission to the will of Allah. Of course, this doesn't happen in practice because people have different levels of motivation and ability to understand and implement the guidance and control or subsume their personal desires into the guidance due to nature/ nurture; hence there are so many different interpretations of the guidance, and Muslims often follow their own inclinations  to interpret the guidance in a way that is in accordance with their personal desires or ignore the rules in the guidance in favour of their personal desires. That is a common theme amongst the human species - doing what they want, not following rules etc, which leads to innovation, change, and progress but may also result in criminal or morally unacceptable behaviour. When I refer to morality, I am referring to human understanding and implementation of morality and moral rules, which changes depending on time and place because people's priorities change depending on time and geographical location and socio-economic contexts.

I personally don't think the actual word of God is embodied in the ink that makes up the book we call the Quran. The Quran i.e. supposed "revelations from God" to Prophet Mohammed via angel Jibreel / Gabriel were transmitted by Prophet Mohammed orally to his followers, and then those who believed that the messages were revelations from the supernatural entity described in the revelations, memorised the revelations and transmitted them to others. These "revelations" happened over time and often in response to specific circumstances and context. They were only written down later, and eventually the revelations were collated and put in a particular order and incorporated in the form of a single book for replication, publication and distribution.

I can't speak for what other Muslims might believe about God being in the ink. There have been reports of some Muslims going crazy and committing violence due to a copy of the Quran being damaged but I don't know if they literally believe God is in the ink or if they just take damage to the Quran as a sign of disrespect and they have severe anger management issues.

Regarding your interpretation of encountering God in the Christian sense, did the disciples of Jesus encounter God? Or did they encounter a man?

My understanding of the Islamic perspective is that the Muslims in the time of Prophet Mohammed did not encounter God. There is a difference of thought/belief amongst Muslims about whether Prophet Mohammed ever encountered God or whether his described encounters on the Night Journey and Ascension to Heaven was with a supernatural entity described as an angel i.e. Jibreel.

I would agree that Muslims make a comparison between man and God to illustrate and emphasise their own limited human capabilities and the vast, limitless powers of the supernatural entity described as God/ Allah.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Vlad

Thanks for starting this thread on "encountering" God. Rather than breaking up my response to respond individually to each point you raised, as some points seem to be repeated, I thought it might be easier to provide a general response to some of the questions and ideas you have raised.

I think people can add an elevated i.e. mystical meaning to "encountering" the word of God,

I’m not sure I can confess to adding anything to my experience or of the dishonesty that would entail. There are different definitions of the term mystical , on a spectrum. Identification with God, union with God, encounter with God, belief in God, view of God. So I am approaching our dialogue that one’s encounter is what it is. I think that makes your own vista of God and how you acquired it, mystical in the sense that it runs against your atheism at the time.

in so much as it moves them in a particular way, and yes they may believe they are in the presence of God when they read the words in a book, whereas reading about for example Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra does not I think cause people to feel they are encountering Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra. I think the feeling of being in the presence of God would be more to do with the descriptions of the nature of God e.g. that God is everywhere and all-powerful etc so it may inspire a sense of awe, and possibly people like the feeling they are in the presence of greatness and power so it would be understandable to interpret whatever sensations they are experiencing while reading the words as being in the presence of the entity being described. I am not aware of any method to independently verify if they are encountering or in the presence of any supernatural entity, so it can only ever be a subjective interpretation and reporting of experiences based on faith. Hence, it is also understandable that there would be some / many people who dismiss these interpretations of experiences as wishful thinking and not fact.

I think there are a host of people for whom their experience can hardly be described as ‘wishful thinking’ in that they experience ego deconstruction. I’m thinking of the writer of Isaiah, Perhaps from what you have said Mohammed, St Augustine and John Bunyan. I would be interested in the warrant you think you have for dismissing powerful encounters or accepting the dismissal by others

God / Allah is central in Islam through the consideration and efforts of Muslims in all aspects of their daily lives, to try to understand and practise the guidance in the Quran, which Muslims believe was provided through revelations given to Prophet Mohammed, as well as follow the guidance attributed to the Prophet Mohamed.

So the words of the Quran and Mohammed are embodied in or at least mediated through a community who seek to show what the word of God is through thermselves?  A similar goal exists in the church which is identified in the bible as the Body of Christ 

I personally don't think the actual word of God is embodied in the ink that makes up the book we call the Quran.

To which the obvious question has to be ‘’if not the actual word then what?’’

The Quran i.e. supposed "revelations from God" to Prophet Mohammed via angel Jibreel / Gabriel were transmitted by Prophet Mohammed orally to his followers, and then those who believed that the messages were revelations from the supernatural entity described in the revelations, memorised the revelations and transmitted them to others. These "revelations" happened over time and often in response to specific circumstances and context. They were only written down later, and eventually the revelations were collated and put in a particular order and incorporated in the form of a single book for replication, publication and distribution.

And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.

I can't speak for what other Muslims might believe about God being in the ink. There have been reports of some Muslims going crazy and committing violence due to a copy of the Quran being damaged but I don't know if they literally believe God is in the ink or if they just take damage to the Quran as a sign of disrespect and they have severe anger management issues.

I would put that down to them not believing that God was as they used to say ’’Big enough, old enough and ugly enough to look after himself’’ Christ’s response to an armed response to those who had come to collect him for his official ‘kicking’ was to stay the hand of the disciple with the sword.

Regarding your interpretation of encountering God in the Christian sense, did the disciples of Jesus encounter God? Or did they encounter a man?

They encountered both since I have said that mainstream Christians want to make it clear to themselves as to anyone else that Jesus is fully God and Fully man without confusion of the material or the divine.

My understanding of the Islamic perspective is that the Muslims in the time of Prophet Mohammed did not encounter God. There is a difference of thought/belief amongst Muslims about whether Prophet Mohammed ever encountered God or whether his described encounters on the Night Journey and Ascension to Heaven was with a supernatural entity described as an angel i.e. Jibreel.

They do tend to claim now that atheism wasn’t a thing then so that would make theism the default. I’m not so sure and there is still the question then of what moved them and indeed people in general from a vague theism to an Islamic or indeed any mediated version of theism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I’m not sure I can confess to adding anything to my experience or of the dishonesty that would entail.

I wasn't trying to suggest dishonesty. I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.

There are different definitions of the term mystical , on a spectrum. Identification with God, union with God, encounter with God, belief in God, view of God. So I am approaching our dialogue that one’s encounter is what it is.

Agreed on the different definitions. My view is I don't know what I have encountered - my brain comes up with an interpretation of my experience, my brain can contemplate its thoughts /interpretations and wonder if the interpretations are reality, my brain can acknowledge that maybe it is impossible to know whether my reality is the same as everyone else's reality. My brain then makes a decision on the interpretation to go with out of the various interpretations it comes up with, which is probably influenced by the future outcome my brain desires.

I experience this sometimes in situations relatied to fear as well. I hear an unusual noise e.g. loud banging in the night at the window or my front door is open when I return home, my brain comes up with various interpretations of whether it's a dangerous intruder or something benign, and eventually makes a decision to investigate rather than run away because it decides getting hit over the head and possibly killed is a better way to "live" your life than standing there doing nothing one way or the other out of fear.

I think that makes your own vista of God and how you acquired it, mystical in the sense that it runs against your atheism at the time.

It certainly was disconcerting to have a thought I couldn't unthink. I guess you could describe that as an "encounter".

I think there are a host of people for whom their experience can hardly be described as ‘wishful thinking’ in that they experience ego deconstruction. I’m thinking of the writer of Isaiah, Perhaps from what you have said Mohammed, St Augustine and John Bunyan. I would be interested in the warrant you think you have for dismissing powerful encounters or accepting the dismissal by others

I think it's not so much a dismissal as acknowledging that alternative explanation is possible and I can't rule it out.

So the words of the Quran and Mohammed are embodied in or at least mediated through a community who seek to show what the word of God is through thermselves?

I'm not sure - my impression is the Muslims I have encountered do have an element of trying to convey their beliefs to others through their actions, and yes they seem to believe that these instructions on how to behave is from a higher source, and they seem to be trying to modify their behaviour to please that source.

A similar goal exists in the church which is identified in the bible as the Body of Christ

Yes I can see why that would be their goal

To which the obvious question has to be ‘’if not the actual word then what?’’

I think it's a record of the word but I would have no problem throwing a Quran away e.g. if there were too many books and we needed to get rid of one.

And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.

As in  Jesus would then be considered by many Christians to be like the Quran is to many Muslims?

I would put that down to them not believing that God was as they used to say ’’Big enough, old enough and ugly enough to look after himself’’ Christ’s response to an armed response to those who had come to collect him for his official ‘kicking’ was to stay the hand of the disciple with the sword.

In agreement with you there that if the Muslims who respond violently really believed God could look after himself they would control their response and stick to dialogue rather than violence. Also, some people who feel disrespected respond with violence because they fear that if they don't respond with violence the provocation will escalate as politeness is mistaken for weakness and a licence to repeat or increase the insults or offence.

They encountered both since I have said that mainstream Christians want to make it clear to themselves as to anyone else that Jesus is fully God and Fully man without confusion of the material or the divine.

Ok.
 

They do tend to claim now that atheism wasn’t a thing then so that would make theism the default. I’m not so sure and there is still the question then of what moved them and indeed people in general from a vague theism to an Islamic or indeed any mediated version of theism.

I tend to be happy with thinking that some words I read in the Quran seemed to convey that the author of those words seemed to know me and my thoughts/ desires that I barely realised or had admitted to myself. Which caused/ moved me to contemplate the concept of a god described (metaphorically) in the Quran that I guess represented something I started to believe could be real, but obviously I can't demonstrate exists and that "moved" me to eventually decide to become a Muslim. If it's just my thoughts that "moved" me, that's ok with me.

I don't know what moved others.

[ekim]

And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.

'Word' is an English translation of Greek 'Logos' which I suspect means more than just something written or spoken.  Philo of Alexandria who lived at about the time of Jesus might give an idea as to what it represented.  See lower down in this link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'Word' is an English translation of Greek 'Logos' which I suspect means more than just something written or spoken.  Philo of Alexandria who lived at about the time of Jesus might give an idea as to what it represented.  See lower down in this link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Interesting read.

I had no idea the concept also existed in Sufi Islam - per your link the concept of logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity).

[ekim]

Interesting read.

I had no idea the concept also existed in Sufi Islam - per your link the concept of logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity).

Yes, there seems to be a similar idea associated with the mystics of many 'religions', the idea being to discover it within so that a union of the two is attained or to put it another way, the separation is dissolved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't trying to suggest dishonesty. I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.

And both you and I, I assume have revised or have had our interpretations revised by experience to become theists. 

My view is I don't know what I have encountered - my brain comes up with an interpretation of my experience, my brain can contemplate its thoughts /interpretations and wonder if the interpretations are reality, my brain can acknowledge that maybe it is impossible to know whether my reality is the same as everyone else's reality. My brain then makes a decision on the interpretation to go with out of the various interpretations it comes up with, which is probably influenced by the future outcome my brain desires.

Of course, but would you agree that you are now on a new trajectory in which theism is acceptable?

I experience this sometimes in situations relatied to fear as well. I hear an unusual noise e.g. loud banging in the night at the window or my front door is open when I return home, my brain comes up with various interpretations of whether it's a dangerous intruder or something benign, and eventually makes a decision to investigate rather than run away because it decides getting hit over the head and possibly killed is a better way to "live" your life than standing there doing nothing one way or the other out of fear.
 It certainly was disconcerting to have a thought I couldn't unthink. I guess you could describe that as an "encounter".
I think it's not so much a dismissal as acknowledging that alternative explanation is possible and I can't rule it out.
I'm not sure - my impression is the Muslims I have encountered do have an element of trying to convey their beliefs to others through their actions, and yes they seem to believe that these instructions on how to behave is from a higher source, and they seem to be trying to modify their behaviour to please that source.  Yes I can see why that would be their goal
 I think it's a record of the word but I would have no problem throwing a Quran away e.g. if there were too many books and we needed to get rid of one.

But would you throw the last one out?

As in  Jesus would then be considered by many Christians to be like the Quran is to many Muslims?

You extend here my conception of what a muslim is but with qualification to do with the difference between a book and a life, I would say yes that's very broadly correct.

[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, there seems to be a similar idea associated with the mystics of many 'religions', the idea being to discover it within so that a union of the two is attained or to put it another way, the separation is dissolved.

Not sure how you are relating union in mysticism with Logos theologies here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.

No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something. And those arguments are either sound or unsound according to their structure, not according to “the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting” (unless of course you want to extend the idea of the nature/ nurture of the individual to include the idea that the nature/nurture of some people means they accept rubbish arguments).   

[ekim]

Not sure how you are relating union in mysticism with Logos theologies here.

In the sense that a theologian would use the word to explain the idea of a relationship between the Divine and man and a 'mystic' would use a method to discover such a relationship within and beyond the mental expressions  of a theology.  I believe 'religion' comes from a  word meaning to re-bind which I suspect derives from the Biblical idea of Adam's fall or separation from God and the need to rejoin (as 2 separate entities).  A 'mystic' tends towards transcendence of thought processes and may relate to the experience as union or merging with the divine or will remain silent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Encountering God? Or the word of God? Or just some words?

FIFY

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

FIFY

Anyone?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something. And those arguments are either sound or unsound according to their structure, not according to “the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting” (unless of course you want to extend the idea of the nature/ nurture of the individual to include the idea that the nature/nurture of some people means they accept rubbish arguments).   

I'm sure there are people out there basking in the calm certainty of your agnostic atheism. Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the sense that a theologian would use the word to explain the idea of a relationship between the Divine and man and a 'mystic' would use a method to discover such a relationship within and beyond the mental expressions  of a theology.  I believe 'religion' comes from a  word meaning to re-bind which I suspect derives from the Biblical idea of Adam's fall or separation from God and the need to rejoin (as 2 separate entities).  A 'mystic' tends towards transcendence of thought processes and may relate to the experience as union or merging with the divine or will remain silent.

I thought logos theology was about the link between the creator and created, in Christianity
The universe is Created through the word of God,Who is God and the divine will is carried out through Christ.
I’m sure what you say regarding mysticism is true but logos theology has cosmological as well as anthropological implications.

[ekim]

I thought logos theology was about the link between the creator and created, in Christianity
The universe is Created through the word of God,Who is God and the divine will is carried out through Christ.
I’m sure what you say regarding mysticism is true but logos theology has cosmological as well as anthropological implications.

Christian theology may well present the logos theory the way you have stated. In my message to Gabriella I was just suggesting that other 'religions' have similar ideas. Some may see Logos as Intelligence in the sense of that word's Latin origin - inter legere - to choose between.  If I remember correctly, there is a similar Hindu concept of Sattwa as a conscious intelligent force which regulates two other forces - Rajas, sometimes seen as energy, and Tamas, sometimes seen as Mass. Intelligence, as the regulatory force,  uses Energy to stir or stimulate Mass and uses Mass to stabilise Energy.  It goes through phases of creation, sustenance, destruction and recreation. To me, theology is just the study of a God based belief system.  I was using the word 'mystic' to try to distinguish between indoctrinatory methods of the theologian (via e.g.the Apostles' Creed), and the transcendental method of a mystic (e.g. Jesus).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christian theology may well present the logos theory the way you have stated. In my message to Gabriella I was just suggesting that other 'religions' have similar ideas. Some may see Logos as Intelligence in the sense of that word's Latin origin - inter legere - to choose between.  If I remember correctly, there is a similar Hindu concept of Sattwa as a conscious intelligent force which regulates two other forces - Rajas, sometimes seen as energy, and Tamas, sometimes seen as Mass. Intelligence, as the regulatory force,  uses Energy to stir or stimulate Mass and uses Mass to stabilise Energy.  It goes through phases of creation, sustenance, destruction and recreation. To me, theology is just the study of a God based belief system.  I was using the word 'mystic' to try to distinguish between indoctrinatory methods of the theologian (via e.g.the Apostles' Creed), and the transcendental method of a mystic (e.g. Jesus).

Fair point although I think much of theology is an attempt to bridge the gap between the mystical and the intellectual and this is true of monotheists.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something.

Justified to whom?

My experience of theistic belief is that I became conscious of / aware of my belief. I didn't try to justify my belief to myself with an argument. I don't count me thinking "this belief seems to be improving my quality of life" as an argument to justify my belief. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Justified to whom?

To whomever the holder of such beliefs expects them to be taken seriously.

My experience of theistic belief is that I became conscious of / aware of my belief. I didn't try to justify my belief to myself with an argument. I don't count me thinking "this belief seems to be improving my quality of life" as an argument to justify my belief.

If you’re indifferent to whether or not the objects of your belief are real provided you feel better about believing them to be real that’s a matter for you. We’re made differently that way – the truth of the claim would matter to me, but ok. In your shoes though I’d also be troubled at least I think by the behaviours of those who share your “true for me only” beliefs but then reify them to “true for you too” beliefs and behave accordingly. But again, I guess we’re different that way too.       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

To whomever the holder of such beliefs expects them to be taken seriously.

Ah well, in my case I am indifferent to whether people take them seriously or not, as the beliefs benefit me and they are not against the law and do not offend my morals so I stick with them. On that basis, I don't know and am indifferent to whether they benefit anyone else.

If you’re indifferent to whether or not the objects of your belief are real provided you feel better about believing them to be real that’s a matter for you. We’re made differently that way – the truth of the claim would matter to me, but ok. In your shoes though I’d also be troubled at least I think by the behaviours of those who share your “true for me only” beliefs but then reify them to “true for you too” beliefs and behave accordingly. But again, I guess we’re different that way too.     

I am troubled by the behaviour of people who share my beliefs to the extent that I condemn any criminal behaviour or coercion or oppression and if I had an opportunity to try to prevent the behaviour and give them an alternative perspective, I would try to take it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Ah well, in my case I am indifferent to whether people take them seriously or not, as the beliefs benefit me and they are not against the law and do not offend my morals so I stick with them. On that basis, I don't know and am indifferent to whether they benefit anyone else.

Clearly, which is why in Reply 9 I said “The narratives people use to explain…” rather than “…narratives you use to explain”. As I said though, I guess I care about what’s true above what’s comforting and you’re the other way around.   

I am troubled by the behaviour of people who share my beliefs to the extent that I condemn any criminal behaviour or coercion or oppression and if I had an opportunity to try to prevent the behaviour and give them an alternative perspective, I would try to take it.

But the point rather was that you share with such people the same justification for your common beliefs – ie, “faith”. That you nuance your version with a “but true only for me” whereas they overreach to “and therefore true for you too” would make us uneasy bedfellows if I was in your shoes, but there you go. I guess by way of a counter-argument to that by the way you could equally say that the same of “true for me only” Christians and the Klu Klux Klan (an avowedly Christian organisation).

Ah well. At root though, that’s why I reject “faith” as an epistemic justification for any ”true for you too” truth claim – it’s all indistinguishable from just guessing no matter what its objects.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Clearly, which is why in Reply 9 I said “The narratives people use to explain…” rather than “…narratives you use to explain”. As I said though, I guess I care about what’s true above what’s comforting and you’re the other way around.

But the point rather was that you share with such people the same justification for your common beliefs – ie, “faith”. That you nuance your version with a “but true only for me” whereas they overreach to “and therefore true for you too” would make us uneasy bedfellows if I was in your shoes, but there you go. I guess by way of a counter-argument to that by the way you could equally say that the same of “true for me only” Christians and the Klu Klux Klan (an avowedly Christian organisation).

Ah well. At root though, that’s why I reject “faith” as an epistemic justification for any ”true for you too” truth claim – it’s all indistinguishable from just guessing no matter what its objects.

If I think it is possible to ascertain what is true, then in many cases I would care about what is true. There are some situations where I think being happy is more important than being right - in the sense of what is "true".

If I seriously entertain the belief/possibility of a god, rather than dismiss the concept/idea/ entity as nonsensical fantasy, then it seems to me that by the very nature of the concept I accept it goes hand in hand with the inability to determine if a god really exists - i.e. gods go hand in hand with faith. I appear to like this god I find in Islam and the requirement for faith appears to be part of its charm for me at the moment - it's an interesting change from being an atheist.

Having faith feels like it has opened up my mind/ heart to other experiences in life that I wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion. I appear to not have a good enough reason to forgo those feelings and experiences by giving up this faith...as yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophically there is no empirical evidence for empiricism
Material evidence for materialism natural evidence for naturalism...particularly if you are arguing that the universe just is. Your justification for being a materialist and physicalism is unconvincing. Your commitment to scientism is obvious.

[ekim]

Fair point although I think much of theology is an attempt to bridge the gap between the mystical and the intellectual and this is true of monotheists.

You could be right.  There are 'mystics' who appear to see the intellect as an obstacle that needs transcending rather than indulging.  e.g.
Jesus : " Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a little child will not be able to enter therein."
Upanishads:  " Let a Brahmin reject erudition and live as a child"
Sri Ramakrishna : "So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination."
Takuan: " Zen is to have the heart and soul of a little child."
Black Elk(Holy Man of Oglala Sioux):  "Grown men may learn from very little children, for the hearts of little children are pure, and, therefore, the Great Spirit may show to them many things which older people miss."
Huang Po :  "Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it.   Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road."
St Augustine:  " You must be emptied of that which fills you so that you may be filled with that of which you are empty."
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri : " Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him."

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

If I think it is possible to ascertain what is true, then in many cases I would care about what is true. There are some situations where I think being happy is more important than being right - in the sense of what is "true".

It is possible to ascertain what’s "true", and if you think that your happiness is sometimes more important than knowing what’s true then that’s up to you. 

If I seriously entertain the belief/possibility of a god, rather than dismiss the concept/idea/ entity as nonsensical fantasy, then it seems to me that by the very nature of the concept I accept it goes hand in hand with the inability to determine if a god really exists - i.e. gods go hand in hand with faith. I appear to like this god I find in Islam and the requirement for faith appears to be part of its charm for me at the moment - it's an interesting change from being an atheist.

No doubt, but “seriously entertaining” the possibility of something must then include the conjectures of others about anything – Allah, God, Neptune, Zeus and Tooth Fairy included. 

Having faith feels like it has opened up my mind/ heart to other experiences in life that I wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion. I appear to not have a good enough reason to forgo those feelings and experiences by giving up this faith...as yet.

Well, if that works for you… I’m not sure you can claim “wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion” with any confidence though – how would you know that for example the consolations of philosophy wouldn’t have done the same (or an even more profound) job?

Ah well.