Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Seeing Intentionality and Purpose where there isn't any

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seeing Intentionality and Purpose where there isn't any

    Some research explain how religious believers can come to see design and intentionality where there isn't any [background: theory of mind, in laymen's terms, involves attributing mental states to stuff (such as other humans)]:

    "Supernatural believers attribute more intentions to random movement than skeptics: An fMRI study"
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...6#.Vekai_lViko
    "A host of research has attempted to explain why some believe in the supernatural and some do not. One suggested explanation for commonly held supernatural beliefs is that they are a by-product of theory of mind (ToM) processing. However, this does not explain why skeptics with intact ToM processes do not believe. We employed fMRI to investigate activation differences in ToM-related brain circuitries between supernatural believers (N = 12) and skeptics (N = 11) while they watched 2D animations of geometric objects moving intentionally or randomly and rated the intentionality of the animations. The ToM-related circuitries in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) were localized by contrasting intention-rating-related and control-rating-related brain activation. Compared with the skeptics, the supernatural believers rated the random movements as more intentional and had stronger activation of the ToM-related circuitries during the animation with random movement. The strength of the ToM-related activation covaried with the intentionality ratings. These findings provide evidence that differences in ToM-related activations are associated with supernatural believers’ tendency to interpret random phenomena in mental terms. Thus, differences in ToM processing may contribute to differences between believing and unbelieving [emphasis added]."


    "Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose"
    http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manusc...ive_Biases.pdf
    "Cognitive theories of religion have postulated several cognitive biases that predispose human minds towards religious belief. However, to date, these hypotheses have not been tested simultaneously and in relation to each other, using an individual difference approach. We used a path model to assess the extent to which several interacting cognitive tendencies, namely mentalizing, mind body dualism, teleological thinking, and anthropomorphism, as well as cultural exposure to religion, predict belief in God, paranormal beliefs and belief in life’s purpose. Our model, based on two independent samples (N = 492 and N = 920) found that the previously known relationship between mentalizing and belief is mediated by individual differences in dualism, and to a lesser extent by teleological thinking. Anthropomorphism was unrelated to religious belief, but was related to paranormal belief. Cultural exposure to religion (mostly Christianity) was negatively related to anthropomorphism, and was unrelated to any of the other cognitive tendencies. These patterns were robust for both men and women, and across at least two ethnic identifications. The data were most consistent with a path model suggesting that mentalizing comes first, which leads to dualism and teleology, which in turn lead to religious, paranormal, and life’s-purpose beliefs. Alternative theoretical models were tested but did not find empirical support [emphasis added]. "
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    "Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose"
    http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manusc...ive_Biases.pdf
    "Cognitive theories of religion have postulated several cognitive biases that predispose human minds towards religious belief. However, to date, these hypotheses have not been tested simultaneously and in relation to each other, using an individual difference approach. We used a path model to assess the extent to which several interacting cognitive tendencies, namely mentalizing, mind body dualism, teleological thinking, and anthropomorphism, as well as cultural exposure to religion, predict belief in God, paranormal beliefs and belief in life’s purpose. Our model, based on two independent samples (N = 492 and N = 920) found that the previously known relationship between mentalizing and belief is mediated by individual differences in dualism, and to a lesser extent by teleological thinking. Anthropomorphism was unrelated to religious belief, but was related to paranormal belief. Cultural exposure to religion (mostly Christianity) was negatively related to anthropomorphism, and was unrelated to any of the other cognitive tendencies. These patterns were robust for both men and women, and across at least two ethnic identifications. The data were most consistent with a path model suggesting that mentalizing comes first, which leads to dualism and teleology, which in turn lead to religious, paranormal, and life’s-purpose beliefs. Alternative theoretical models were tested but did not find empirical support [emphasis added]. "
    [/INDENT]
    I don't know what the point of this is. Cognitive bias is a human trait, not a religious one. An atheist can have as many cognitive biases as any religious person. What is the point?
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
      I don't know what the point of this is. Cognitive bias is a human trait, not a religious one. An atheist can have as many cognitive biases as any religious person. What is the point?
      It is possible that everyone may have cognitive biases regardless of what they believe, but I believe that what is referred to here is a cognitive bias to see things and relationships, such as paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose, and claim them as factual based on evidence, which there is not evidence that any such thing exists. On the other hand Metaphysical Naturalists tend to limit their beliefs to things there is objective verifiable evidence for.

      I am a theist and I avoid claiming paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose, are factual and there is any objective evidence for believing in them.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 06:13 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        ... I am a theist and I avoid claiming paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose, are factual and there is any objective evidence for believing in them.
        But you've also claimed that your belief in God is based upon an 'independent investigation of knowledge'. Is there a contradiction here or is your belief in God irrelevant to belief in life's purpose? Or something else?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          But you've also claimed that your belief in God is based upon an 'independent investigation of knowledge'. Is there a contradiction here or is your belief in God irrelevant to belief in life's purpose? Or something else?
          The difference is I do not consider the evidence for God nor intentionality of purpose to be 'factual' and objectively verifiable. My belief is more philosophical, based on the premise of the universal purpose and Revelation throughout all the history of humanity and all possible universes including ours, ie many Adams. This view negates the specialness nor exclusiveness of any one belief, religion nor church as 'catholic' nor universal. It is not based on the belief that ALL religious views including atheism are not 'factual' nor objectively verifiable paranormal nor belief is 'special' explaining life's purpose. ALL the actual evidence we have is the same regardless of belief nor world view. I am aware that any belief system including my own may be objectively considered as 'anecdotal,' and easily challenged based on the unbiased view of the objective evidence, and 'specialness' is an illusion of the ego. This actually led me to the fundamental agnostic position that in reality, 'I do not know.' I fully realize by the objective evidence our existence possibly has no purpose other than the natural course of existence.

          My experience with the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' led me to the early conclusion from Buddhist inspiration that, 'Nothing is Necessary,' 'Everything is Impermanent,' and 'Clinging to any one belief at the exclusion of others' is an illusion, because everyone is most likely wrong, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

          The Catholic or universal nature of anything is beyond the fallible ability of human nature. Too many different and variable beliefs claim to represent the universal, to be objectively reasonable that any one is.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 08:09 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The difference is I do not consider the evidence for God nor intentionality of purpose to be 'factual' and objectively verifiable. My belief is more philosophical, based on the premise of the universal purpose and Revelation throughout all the history of humanity and all possible universes including ours, ie many Adams. This view negates the specialness nor exclusiveness of any one belief, religion nor church as 'catholic' nor universal. It is not based on the belief that ALL religious views including atheism are not 'factual' nor objectively verifiable paranormal nor belief is 'special' explaining life's purpose. ALL the actual evidence we have is the same regardless of belief nor world view. I am aware that any belief system including my own may be objectively considered as 'anecdotal,' and easily challenged based on the unbiased view of the objective evidence, and 'specialness' is an illusion of the ego. This actually led me to the fundamental agnostic position that in reality, 'I do not know.' I fully realize by the objective evidence our existence possibly has no purpose other than the natural course of existence.

            My experience with the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' led me to the early conclusion from Buddhist inspiration that, 'Nothing is Necessary,' 'Everything is Impermanent,' and 'Clinging to any one belief at the exclusion of others' is an illusion, because everyone is most likely wrong, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

            The Catholic or universal nature of anything is beyond the fallible ability of human nature. Too many different and variable beliefs claim to represent the universal, to be objectively reasonable that any one is.
            So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?
              Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

              Fallible Reason always is the tool, but in all humility it is severely limited in making factual claims concerning 'intentionality and purpose.' My view is based to a great extent on reason, of course, and above all it is reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all beliefs that claim to represent the universal above all others, especially 'Old World' beliefs. Ancient religious beliefs and traditions are the worst reasons to believe by themselves. My conclusions, at present, my assumption of the 'best case' is whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience and take into consideration change have the greater explanatory power. For example; as far as the objective nature of our physical existence science has the best explanation. At present my belief of the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God, Creation, and Revelation the Baha'i Faith offers the best explanation, if God exists. The objective evidence is that IF Revelation is true, it is progressive and evolves throughout the history of ALL humanity, and not belief system of one Religion nor Church
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 10:29 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.
                How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Fallible Reason always is the tool, but in all humility it is severely limited in making factual claims concerning 'intentionality and purpose.' My view is based to a great extent on reason, of course, and above all it is reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all beliefs that claim to represent the universal above all others, especially 'Old World' beliefs. Ancient religious beliefs and traditions are the worst reasons to believe by themselves. My conclusions, at present, my assumption of the 'best case' is whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience and take into consideration change have the greater explanatory power. For example; as far as the objective nature of our physical existence science has the best explanation. At present my belief of the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God, Creation, and Revelation the Baha'i Faith offers the best explanation, if God exists. The objective evidence is that IF Revelation is true, it is progressive and evolves throughout the history of ALL humanity, and not belief system of one Religion nor Church
                A few questions pertaining to what I've underlined above:

                1. At one point above you speak of 'my conclusions, at present my assumption ...' Is this a provisional conclusion that is, in fact, also an assumption, or at least based upon assumptions?

                2. Is the above, at least in part, relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind?

                3. I'm also curious about your conditional statements pertaining to the existence of God and revelation: 'if God exists ... IF Revelation is true'. Do you actually believe that God exists, ie, are you in fact a theist, or is this merely a hypothesis that you are entertaining, in which case I suppose you might more accurately describe yourself as an agnostic?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  It is possible that everyone may have cognitive biases regardless of what they believe, but I believe that what is referred to here is a cognitive bias to see things and relationships, such as paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose, and claim them as factual based on evidence, which there is not evidence that any such thing exists. On the other hand Metaphysical Naturalists tend to limit their beliefs to things there is objective verifiable evidence for.

                  I am a theist and I avoid claiming paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose, are factual and there is any objective evidence for believing in them.
                  You are not getting my point. If you are claiming that believing in the paranormal is a cognitive bias, then there are probably thousands of atheist that share the same bias. There are atheists that believe in ghosts, for example, based on what they see as factual evidence. Again, this is a human trait. It has very little to do with religion.
                  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                    You are not getting my point. If you are claiming that believing in the paranormal is a cognitive bias, then there are probably thousands of atheist that share the same bias. There are atheists that believe in ghosts, for example, based on what they see as factual evidence. Again, this is a human trait. It has very little to do with religion.
                    First, to put Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism in proper context of above. No it is as rare as hen's teeth that atheists believe in Ghosts, since to believe in Ghosts would logically lead to belief in souls and some sort of life after death therefore . . .

                    In the Orient where there is wide belief in spirits, ghosts and non-omnipotent deities would not be atheism as such, despite wide spread disbelief in the western God(s).

                    I would need references where Metaphysical Naturalist atheists believe in ghosts
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?


                      A few questions pertaining to what I've underlined above:

                      1. At one point above you speak of 'my conclusions, at present my assumption ...' Is this a provisional conclusion that is, in fact, also an assumption, or at least based upon assumptions?
                      Yes, of course, it is. We all base our beliefs based on certain assumptions, including me. I consider my assumptions based on evidence of science, the history of humanity, the nature of belief claims in the world today and in history.

                      2. Is the above, at least in part, relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind?
                      No. First, my views are not that popular at all. Second if you want argue from the perspective of ad populum in the West, either Christianity or some form of materialist agnosticism/atheism. In other cultures and societies of the world, popular dominant belief is the ancient religion of that society and culture.

                      3. I'm also curious about your conditional statements pertaining to the existence of God and revelation: 'if God exists ... IF Revelation is true'. Do you actually believe that God exists, ie, are you in fact a theist, or is this merely a hypothesis that you are entertaining, in which case I suppose you might more accurately describe yourself as an agnostic?
                      I have a skeptical agnosticism as a foundation of my philosophy, because I acknowledge in humility the fallibility of my choices of belief. Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism.

                      my line, 'I do no know, therefore everything is in pencil.' reflects this.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        First, to put Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism in proper context of above. No it is as rare as hen's teeth that atheists believe in Ghosts, since to believe in Ghosts would logically lead to belief in souls and some sort of life after death therefore . . .

                        In the Orient where there is wide belief in spirits, ghosts and non-omnipotent deities would not be atheism as such, despite wide spread disbelief in the western God(s).

                        I would need references where Metaphysical Naturalist atheists believe in ghosts
                        I know this is hard for you, but try to grasp what I am saying, alright? I used ghosts as an "example". Here is another example, 32% of Atheists/Agnostics believe in some form of afterlife. Does that sound like it's as rare as "hens teeth"? Being an atheist does not mean you can't believe in spirits. Atheists deny the existence of God/gods, not the existence of the paranormal/supernatural. You might not want to try and speak for the atheist community.

                        Now, back to cognitive biases...

                        Source: Pacific Standard


                        Even Atheists Intuitively Believe in a Creator


                        Since the discoveries of Darwin, evidence has gradually mounted refuting the notion that the natural world is the product of a deity or other outside designer. Yet this idea remains firmly lodged in the human brain.

                        Just how firmly is the subject of newly published research, which finds even self-proclaimed atheists instinctively think of natural phenomena as being purposefully created.

                        The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”

                        In the journal Cognition, Järnefelt and her colleagues describe three studies conducted at Boston University, the first of which featured 352 North American adults recruited online. All were shown a series of 120 photographs, including natural landscapes and human-made artifacts.

                        They were instructed to assess whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture” by pressing keys designated “yes” or “no.” Approximately half of the participants did so under the “speed condition,” in which they had no more than 865 milliseconds to respond to each photo.

                        Not surprisingly, the researchers found that “religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of their non-religious counterparts. More importantly, however, they found that non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking.”

                        The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practiced explicit beliefs.”

                        The second study used the same procedure as the first, but the participants were 148 North American adults “who were recruited via the e-mail lists of atheist and other explicitly non-religious associations and organizations.”

                        The results mirrored those of the first study, in that atheists “increased their tendency to endorse nature as purposefully made by some non-human being when judging natural entities under speeded conditions.”

                        A third study of non-religious people from Finland, a country where atheism “is not an issue, and where theistic cultural discourse is not present in the way it is in the U.S.,” produced similar results.

                        “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”

                        So “true non-belief may be even rarer among adults than previously suggested," as Järnefelt and her colleagues put it. This, they argue, helps explain why so many people misunderstand the theory of evolution.

                        We tend to absorb “newly learned scientific information” into our existing belief systems, the researchers note. In this case, such an attempted synthesis leads to the mistaken notion that natural selection is “a quasi-intentional designing force that gives animals the functional traits that they need in order to survive.”

                        So members of the new atheism movement shouldn’t get too cocky that their ideas will eventually prevail. And science educators trying to instill the basics of evolutionary theory will have to find a way to do so while acknowledging their students' instinctive tendency to make the leap from creation to creator.


                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Anyone can play the cognitive bias game. An that is because it's human nature.
                        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think you neglected one of my questions:

                          robrecht: So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

                          Shuny: Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

                          robrecht: How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Yes, of course, it is. We all base our beliefs based on certain assumptions, including me. I consider my assumptions based on evidence of science, the history of humanity, the nature of belief claims in the world today and in history.
                          OK.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          No. First, my views are not that popular at all. Second if you want argue from the perspective of ad populum in the West, either Christianity or some form of materialist agnosticism/atheism. In other cultures and societies of the world, popular dominant belief is the ancient religion of that society and culture.
                          I did not mean to imply that your views are popular or that you were basing your views only on Western religious traditions. Rather, it does seem that your justification of your belief is based, to some extent at least, on 'whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience' and 'the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God'. Thus I ask if your viewpoint, at least in part, might be relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind, not of any one population but of your view and best explanation of evolving 'universal' beliefs of most of humanity?

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I have a skeptical agnosticism as a foundation of my philosophy, because I acknowledge in humility the fallibility of my choices of belief. Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism.

                          my line, 'I do no know, therefore everything is in pencil.' reflects this.
                          This seems to be bordering on an implicitly exclusivistic claim. If it were not for Baha'i theism, you would not be a theist. No other theism would justify your belief in God. How is this different from your believing that the Baha'i theism is the only true theism?
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I think you neglected one of my questions:

                            robrecht: So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

                            Shuny: Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

                            robrecht: How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?
                            Of course ultimately ALL theist belief is based on the belief in Revelation. I believe all people in some way justify their experiences and reasons to believe in Revelation based on rational choices and assumptions. It is true that most people simply by default the religious belief they were raised with, but it remains that each person still uses their own rational mind to justify their belief, I find this not a good reason to believe.

                            I did not mean to imply that your views are popular or that you were basing your views only on Western religious traditions. Rather, it does seem that your justification of your belief is based, to some extent at least, on 'whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience' and 'the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God'. Thus I ask if your viewpoint, at least in part, might be relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind, not of any one population but of your view and best explanation of evolving 'universal' beliefs of most of humanity?
                            This is an assumption on my part based on my personal journey and experience. IF God exists, God is a more universal God than is portrayed in any one belief system out of the many diverse possible choices. It does not even in part rely on ad populum assumption of some kind. If I made my personal preference choice ad populum in my view I would a loosy goosey free will compassionate Buddhist Unitarian Universalist, and not make tough decisions concerning my belief and why.

                            This seems to be bordering on an implicitly exclusivistic claim. If it were not for Baha'i theism, you would not be a theist. No other theism would justify your belief in God. How is this different from your believing that the Baha'i theism is the only true theism?
                            No, because I do not believe it is the only 'One True Theism.' Everyone who makes a choice of belief obviously believes that their choice was the best they can make based their assumptions, like 'the sky is Carolina blue at noon on a clear cloudless 4th of July.' The problem of exclusivity is more a problem with churches and religions that claim to be the only source of Revelation and Salvation.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 05:25 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Of course ultimately ALL theist belief is based on the belief in Revelation.
                              I'm not so sure of this. I think some believe in God on a purely philosophical basis. If they formulate a proof for the existence of God, you may or may not accept their proof, but they themselves need not believe in revelation. Others, such as John Scottus Eriugena and myself, believe that revelation occurs, but does not necessarily reveal anything beyond what may be known through fallible human reasoning and intuition.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I believe all people in some way justify their experiences and reasons to believe in Revelation base don rational choices. It is true that most people simply by default the religious belief they were raised with, but it remains that each person still uses their own rational mind to justify their belief.
                              Perhaps to justify their belief or perhaps to test, confirm, and modify their beliefs.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              This is an assumption on my part based on my personal journey and experience. IF God exists, God is a more universal God than is portrayed in any one belief system out of the many diverse possible choices. It does not even in part rely on ad populum assumption of some kind. If I made and ad populum choice in my view I would a loosy goosey free will Unitarian Universalist, and not make tough decisions concerning my belief and why.
                              So your own beliefs about the evolution of revelation does not rely at all on the assumption of the legitimacy of evolution of revelation to the greater part of humanity throughout history? Really?

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No, because I do not believe it is the only 'One True Theism.' Everyone who makes a choice of belief obviously believes that their choice was the best they can make based their assumptions, like 'the sky is Carolina blue at noon on a clear cloudless 4th of July.' The problem of exclusivity is more a problem with churches and religions that claim to be the only source of Revelation and Salvation.
                              But you do not believe in any other approach to theism that you think is convincing, right? Without Baha'i revelation, you would not be a theist, but rather an agnostic or atheist. This is a very different issue than whether or not you believe your choice of belief is in fact your best choice. Faced only with other forms of theism, you would not merely reject them in favor of a better form of theism, in your view, but you would reject theism in general and all other theistic beliefs and be an agnostic or atheist. Thus, in your opinion, your form of theism is indeed the one and only true form of theism, right? Every other form of theism is not worthy of theistic belief, in your opinion, correct? Other churches and religions are not so exclusivistic about their own form of theism, but rather affirm that everyone can have genuine knowledge or and a relationship with God.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X