Why have you rejected all forms of faith? (page 8)

AuldSoul

Yes. You may ask why. I am not defining the word as "untestable" but from the definition of the word the net effect of "untestability" is obvious.

AuldSoul

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

Yes. You may ask why. I am not defining the word as "untestable" but from the definition of the word the net effect of "untestability" is obvious.

I would say that subjective experiences are at best a subset of the untestable. "Subjective" means "existing only in the mind". Not all untestable propositions fall into this category. However "subjective" could be taken to mean "imaginary" so, in this sense, I would agree that God is subjective.

AuldSoul

I contest your definition, FunkyDerek, on the grounds that it is overly simplistic. Here's Merriam-Webster Online: sub·jec·tive

I think you'll discover that your definition is a bit too narrow. If you wish to refer to love as imaginary, then maybe I can go along with your usage. However, that would mean you believe in imaginary reality which has been my point from the outset.

EVERYONE believes in imaginary reality, if we say that subjective is "only in the mind."

AuldSoul

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

I think you'll discover that your definition is a bit too narrow.

Yes, but there's really no point in taking all the dictionary definitions. They aren't all compatible. As you claimed it was an antonym of "objective", the definition that fitted best was something like 3a: "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."

If you wish to refer to love as imaginary, then maybe I can go along with your usage.

I don't. Love is real, even though it is necessarily a subjective experience. It is characterised by various electrochemical changes, which are in principle at least, measurable, but nobody can experience what love feels like for someone else.

However, that would mean you believe in imaginary reality which has been my point from the outset.

I don't. I only believe in things that actually exist.

EVERYONE believes in imaginary reality, if we say that subjective is "only in the mind."

There's no subjective reality. Reality is objective, our perceptions and judgements of it are subjective.

AuldSoul

FunkyDerek, if you don't see yourself as talking in circles to avoid the point, I hope others do.

You chose, "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind," as an antonym of objective. I agree.

Love belongs to reality as perceived, that is to "subjective reality." It is therefore subjective, because that is what subjective means. There must be such a thing as subjective reality if your definition of "subjective" includes "reality as perceived." Love cannot be perceived independent of mind.

Some physical manifestations we associate to the emotion can be perceived independent of the mind but love, itself, cannot. These physical reactions are not love, they are the physical effects associated with love. These effects have names and are objective things, but they are not love. Love is subjective, it is a subjective experience and it cannot be defined apart from defining an experience as perceived.

I doubt you will agree. And that is okay with me, you don't have to.

AuldSoul

proplog2

There is a better word than "faith". Induction. Some think that faith is blind - no that's wishful thinking. Inductive reasoning is based on pattern, intuition, experience, fuzzy data. Induction is a legitimate basis for planning the future.

I would love to have the faith of Abraham. And I will as soon as one of those Angels materializes and does some REAL magic.

googlemagoogle

The question regarding love was not to make faith in a god appear more rational, but to illustrate that we operate on faith on many levels, both in our secular life and for those of us that have a spiritual life.

somewhere in the many threads about it i commented on the different semantics of "belief". the belief in a god can not remotely be compared to our daily "believing" in something. every "secular life" belief has some backup.

if i believe i left my keys at home on the table, i believe it because it maybe already happened to me once or that's the last where i saw it. when i go home to pick it up and it is NOT there, i won't be that surprised, because i only "believed" it, i didn't *know* it. in "secular life" believing = not knowing (for sure).

in religion/faith, "believing" won't be substituted for "not knowing (for sure)". because as soon as you say "i don't know for sure if there's (a) god(s) or other invisible entities" you're already on your way becoming an agnostic.

AuldSoul

I can only speak from my experiences. Such as leaving the car keys on the table. Such as belief that I own a car. Such as belief that I can start the car. Such as belief that the car will move when I put it in gear. Such as belief that the car will slow and stop when I apply pressure to the brake pedal.

I get your point googlemagoogle. Now, imagine you have never even seen an airplane. Imagine no one in your tribe has ever seen an airplane. You have heard about them from people who have seen them and even claim to have ridden in them. As if such a thing was possible!

Suppose, one day, you see one fly overhead. Do you necessarily know for certain what it is you saw? No. But you believe it must be that airplane thing that you have heard about.

Does anyone else in your tribe have reason to believe what you say you saw, what you claim to have experienced? Can you prove your experience to them? Is there any possible way you can convince them that you can PROVE what you saw, unless they see it, too?

Obviously, no. Do I have proof that God exists? No. Are my beliefs based on experiences? Yes. Do you have any basis on which to believe what I say? No. But, as was requested at the outset, this should not become a God thread.

I have not rejected all forms of faith because my experiences have led me to retain faith. I believe everyone exercises faith in a multitude of ways every day, they just don't call it faith.

AuldSoul

Utopian Reformist

I have come to believe that it is important (for me) to be spiritual, although I do not have or profess any faith. In my opinion, faith and spirituality are completely different and separate items (for me).

I find that typically speaking, most humans express faith as a belief in something or someone. A natural by-product of a basic faith is reverence, or worship. The by-product is where all of the world's religious problems begin and end.

I have discovered (for me) that I feel spiritual when I isolate myself from secular and mundane life, AND reflect, meditate, concentrate, think (and any other appropriate synonym that applies) about my life. I review my life, the world I live in, my circumstances, how I feel about reality, who I love, what I love, where I want to go, be, visit, live, etc. I contemplate every facet of being and silently think about everything and attempt to determine new ideas, new direction and sometimes arrive at decisions.

Some might call that simple personal quiet time and/or simple reflection. I think it is spiritual because you are alone, and privately reaching inward and facing yourself and cannot hide and realize who, what and how you are in the grand scheme of things.

It takes a relaxed mind and a willing spirit to reach inside and examine yourself. I personally feel that is more important and much more beneficial than trying to decide whether or not something or someone created the universe and whether or not something or someone exists in another dimension and should be contacted and respected through procedures and methods assembled by other humans.

None of us will ever control who or how the universe came into existence. It cannot be reversed or controlled, thus is it relevant? However, who you are and how you feel about yourself, those you love, your environment, and your future are very real and you have the power, capacity and intelligence to make changes and improvements in the way you relate to those things.

Rather than trying to fix faith or religion, I would rather fix life. That is why I do not profess a faith in anything or anyone. It simply does not improve my life, only causes distractions.

Solamente pecuniae minutiae meum!
MJB

poppers

This is a very interesting question, but it makes a fundamental assumption that nearly always goes unnoticed: That there is a "you" who can accept or reject anything. We nearly always assume that "I and you" exist as separate and distinct entities, so much so that it seems ludicrous to even question their existence. But when searched for, where is the "I" to be found? If there is no "I" can there be a "you"? What's left when "I and you" are not to be found? Look directly and see.

I challenge anyone to actually look and see if there even is such a thing as "I" outside of an idea only. Can you be an idea? What is it that sees ideas of "I" and "you"? When that is found then see if there is anything real which can accept or reject anything.

Why have you rejected all forms of faith?

Share this