You cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist with logic, the guy in this video is wasting his breath. In the end it comes down to faith. Also, I wish people would stop thinking there are only believers and atheists, there are also people like me, who have a Taoist/Buddhist world view, a view that I think more people should take into consideration.
I just wanted to point out a flaw in your post. You are irritated with people like Doug who think they can come to a reasonable decision about God using logic. You think logic is not a meaningful way to discover God and that faith (which is a nonrational leap of non-logic?) is the only way to go. But then you really make a mistake. You then say that you wish more people would take Buddhism into CONSIDERATION. Which I take it, means you think they should logically look at it and accept it on its own reasonable merits. Your criticism erodes your foundation. :(
My world view is really just as illogical as the rest of them I'm afraid. But I think it's more in tune with nature and reality and thus has greater potential to lead to happiness, peace, goodness, virtue, etc. When I say consider I mean think about, explore, research, study, try to understand, not necessarily with logic.
May I ask how you came to the conclusion that your worldview is more "in tune" with nature and "reality" without using any form of logic or reason? Also, I would challenge you to better explain your position that all worldviews are illogical. I think Christianity is the worldview that makes the most sense of the world (including nature and reality). You should read more of what this website has to offer (especially in Greg Koukle's articles).
-Seth
Thank you for clarifying your position. I would encourage you to re-analyze your position. You agree that your position is illogical yet still whether you will admit it or not, appeal to reason or to analyzing. I am by no means an expert on these things but if you have not already done an exhaustive study of Christianity, I would recommend Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy who was a disciple of Francis Schaeffer. It is the book that helped me to see how Christianity makes the most sense out of the world and jives with reality and how things are. But I wish you well on your search and appreciate you having the courage to dialogue on the blog about this stuff. :)
"Please explain how that works." "May I ask how you came to the conclusion that your worldview is more "in tune" with nature and "reality" without using any form of logic or reason?"
Feelings, intuition, observation, application of Occam's razor, being humble, not making assumptions. We make decisions all the time that aren't based on logic or reason. Do you honestly think everything is within the realm of logic and reason? If God's existence could truly be proven with sound logic I don't think people would still be arguing about it. And besides, isn't God supposed to be mysterious? Aren't His ways not our ways? Using logic and reason to "prove" things like God is... well, childish. I have a lot more respect for Christians who will admit that their beliefs are based on faith.
"And besides, isn't God supposed to be mysterious? Aren't His ways not our ways?"
I think what Timbo was trying to get at is: Could we say that God both is and isn't mysterious in exactly the same way at the same, or that God's ways are the same as our ways and not the same as our ways in exactly the same way at the same time? (The answer, I think, as it seems you were implying in your questions above, is "no".)
BTW I did a quick search on the guy in the video, apparently he has a book out, sounds like it would be a useful resource/compilation although for many here nothing particularly new:
http://tinyurl.com/2pxvy6
Steve is entirely irrational, attempting to deny logic using the tools of logic. One cannot seek to convince another of ones point of view without using logic. Also, Buddhism has not feature that I am aware of by which we may measure its claims. Buddhism insists that we see facial features in a shadow.
Every argument Steve had thus far employed is logic, though mostly fallacious, particularly with the straw man of Christianity he has built.
I cannot convince of that God exists by the rules of logic. And you cannot attempt to deny him without using logic. But we do require some grounding for logic if we are going to press it into service in some universal way, assuming that one can reason.
Yes, everything is within the realm of reason and logic, inasmuch as no conversation gets off the ground without them. Indeed Steve, your question, "Do you honestly think everything is within the realm of logic and reason?" Would you like to me abandon reason to respond, or would you like me to reason based on your objection? If you do not want to allow logic, then my answer to your question is "bananas are funny and bugs walk on some legs next to broken tar."
By the way, that same Doug you have seen in the video is a Biola student, a gentleman, and profound thinker.
Steve, why do you believe Buddhism is an accurate explanation of reality?
Darn, I got caught again. It's true I am trying to tear down logic using logic. But here's the real problem. I think logic doesn't have any business poking its nose into the metaphysical realm and calling itself truth when its really just speculation. It's my belief that we can loosen our stranglehold on logic, embrace the mysteries of the universe instead of trying to solve them, and live by intuition, observation, meditation, and following the moral law. The existence of the moral law is the foundation of the Christian argument for the existence of God. If there's a moral law there has to be a law giver according to Christianity. I agree that there is a moral law, but I think that's as far as we can go. Who knows how it got there? Does it matter? Well, yes, it does matter to you, but to me it doesn't. I just follow the moral law because it feels right, it makes me happy, it makes others happy, etc. I think that's reason enough.
And by the way, to clarify things, the main religion I believe in is what is referred to as Philosophical Taoism, which is primarily based on a text called the Tao Te Ching. It's a very short text, well worth reading, I promise you'll get something out of it even if you color it Christian, which is very easy to do since the language is so similar to the New Testament. I also agree with some parts of Buddhism, mostly Zen, but certainly not everything you find out there with the label "Buddhism" I've never heard of that face thing and have no idea what it means. Eastern religions are like that, you can be Taoist, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, and even a little Christian all at the same time.
Let me buttress Steve's claim by pointing out one historically relevant philosophical example: Aristotle proposed a "virtue ethics" that is predicated on one's phronetic (practical, skilfull) grasp of the situation that cannot be codified in language, laws, or logic. Yes, it is undeniably (and trivially) true that if one is 'arguing' a position one must use logic. But that is not to say that logic and propositions themselves are not grounded in a non-logical (not illogical) grasp of the world (being virtuous or wise) and how to act within it.
As I understand Buddhism, it is this non-logical ground of existing that is the primary focus, as that from which propositions emerge and from which we can act skillfully and wisely in the world. Thus, the claim is that "logical" and "illogical" are not the only categories nor are they fundamental because they stem from this non-logical grasp of the world.
I think I understand you, Steve. But as you have aptly seen, you cannot escape the logic dilemma. Any time you use "if", "then", "have", "never", "similar",you are using the very tools that Christians use to reach their conclusions about reality and morality.
I do not think you can embrace the ethic that you embrace when you say "I just follow the moral law because it feels right, it makes me happy, it makes others happy, etc. I think that's reason enough." It may indeed feel that way (especially if there is a creator that created to experience joy when we live a moral life), but that says nothing about whether or not it is actually right or wrong. And, different people have different ideas of what happiness is in context to morality. And, how do you know what the moral law is that leads to your happiness? Can you trust your own impulses. Perhaps there are immoral activities that make you or me or others "happy".
Also, you surely act immoral at times - we all do. But if following the moral law makes you happy, then why do you act immorally at times? That would seem irrational, correct? If I think having sex with your wife (stay with the analogy and forgive the seeming harshness of it) not immoral, and if having sex with her her makes me happy, have I acted immorally? Perhaps seeing her enjoy the physical and emotional experience under a moonlit starry sky is tantamount to embracing the mystery of the universe, and I think that limiting our sexual experiences to one person is silly.
I am only trying to bring these thoughts to their "logical conclusion"!
Steve said: "My world view is really just as illogical as the rest of them I'm afraid."
Then why would you want to follow it? Christians don't claim that their worldview is illogical. Just the opposite. (Maybe others think that about Christianity, but that's not the claim Christianity or Christians make.)
I really need to stop throwing around the word 'happy' assuming people have the same definition I do. First of all, I believe experiences only make you happy or sad if you let them, how you feel is up to you, not your circumstances. Like Guido in the film Life is Beautiful, or Andy in Shawshank Redemption, or some of the true stories of holocaust survivors who made it through that unimaginable experience with their hope intact. Their lives were horrible, but they chose to be happy. Even if life hands us lemons over and over, we can just keep on making lemonade. Following the moral law by letting go of your ego, your self, serving and loving others, doing what's best for everyone, not just yourself, even if it means sacrificing your life, is what will make you truly happy. You are putting a very narrow definition on the word happiness.
P.S. Thank you, Steve (and the others involved) for coming here and having a good, decent, polite conversation even though not everyone might agree. It's a rare thing on the internet in general!
I would also highly recommend Nancy Pearcey's book, 'Total Truth'. Don't be intimidated because it's as big as a college textbook. It is written in everyday language, expressing huge concepts in a way that is accessible to even non-scholars like me!
Actually, Steve, I am applying the definition of happiness employed by Greek philosophers - it is like unto the Jewish Shalom - a sense of fulfillment that corresponds to ones success in living (morally etc) in a manner consistent with what it means to be human - a sort of design feature.
You fool yourself, I fear, if you think you can avoid sadness. On what basis do you conclude that you can choose those responses? Should I be happy at the announcement of someone's death? Would I be right to celebrate that happiness?
And by the way, coming to terms with the reality that we cannot dictate our circumstances is different than choosing to be sad etc. Those with horrible lives may learn to find meaning despite those horrors, but there is no way that immediately happens in a well functioning person. You would be hard pressed to speak to a person that found happiness while in Auschwitz. Furthermore, learning to be happy despite those horrors in no way makes those horrors any less immoral.
Finally, you seem to want a subjective understanding of things and insist on being able to autonomously define "the moral law" all the while suggesting everyone else "ought" to agree. If not, then why bother?
"You fool yourself, I fear, if you think you can avoid sadness."
This is indeed a flaw of mine, I am too idealistic. But it's a flaw I recognize and it's something I'm working on. Working out how the ideals should work in reality is hard, but that doesn't mean the ideals aren't worth believing in. I know I can't avoid sadness, and that trying to avoid it is can even be unhealthy. If a friend dies of course you should mourn, be miserable even, have a desire for revenge even. But you can't feel that way forever, sooner or later you have to accept reality and move on with life. Taoism advocates knowing your limits, similar to the Christian virtue of humility. We can't bring back the dead, change the past or control the actions of others, but that doesn't mean we should not allow ourselves to feel sorrow or anger. However, we shouldn't let that sorrow and anger control us either.
"Finally, you seem to want a subjective understanding of things and insist on being able to autonomously define "the moral law""
How can the moral law be subjective if it's supposed to apply to everyone? And how can we understand it objectively from our human state? I guess that's a pretty good argument for God, he has an objective perspective of the world so he can teach us. My argument, the way many eastern religions see it, is that through meditation, reflection, and contemplation we can reach a more objective state of mind from which to determine the best action.
I have a couple of questions for you in trying to understand Taoism.
- If reality can only be accurately experienced through meditation, is there any way of evaluating these experiences? If logic and reason are inadmissable in the realm of metaphysics (itself a rational proposition), how can we know the difference between delusion and reality? If reasoning only clouds our meditative awareness, how do we know what meditation tells us about reality - if it tells us anything at all? How do we evaluate the knowledge we gain through meditation if not by reason and logic?
"how can we know the difference between delusion and reality?"
"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man" -Chuang Tzu
Philosophical Taoism, like Agnosticism, is always skeptical but also always open to new insight. We act on our intuition, or what might be called faith. In Mormonism (the religion I grew up with) it is taught that every action is an act of faith. You act a certain way because you believe a certain result will follow. That idea makes sense to me. Well, it basically comes down to where you put your faith, trust and hope. You put it in God, the power of prayer, the church and the Bible. I put it in the power of meditation and the goodness of mankind. Let me just clarify that by "meditation" I'm not talking about something mystical or trance-like, meditation is basically just thinking deeply, thinking with your heart.
How do I know? Well, I don't 'know' in your sense of the word. But I know in my heart there is something wrong with most religions. Zero evidence for God's existence, contradictions in the bible, the ineffectiveness of prayer, the lies churches tell, atrocities that have been committed in the name of God... take your pick.
That. Was. Awesome. God Bless him.
Posted by: Elias | October 09, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I second your Awesome. Amen.
Posted by: Damian | October 09, 2007 at 02:50 PM
You cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist with logic, the guy in this video is wasting his breath. In the end it comes down to faith. Also, I wish people would stop thinking there are only believers and atheists, there are also people like me, who have a Taoist/Buddhist world view, a view that I think more people should take into consideration.
Posted by: Steve | October 09, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Hey Steve,
I just wanted to point out a flaw in your post. You are irritated with people like Doug who think they can come to a reasonable decision about God using logic. You think logic is not a meaningful way to discover God and that faith (which is a nonrational leap of non-logic?) is the only way to go. But then you really make a mistake. You then say that you wish more people would take Buddhism into CONSIDERATION. Which I take it, means you think they should logically look at it and accept it on its own reasonable merits. Your criticism erodes your foundation. :(
Brad
Posted by: Brad | October 09, 2007 at 04:47 PM
My world view is really just as illogical as the rest of them I'm afraid. But I think it's more in tune with nature and reality and thus has greater potential to lead to happiness, peace, goodness, virtue, etc. When I say consider I mean think about, explore, research, study, try to understand, not necessarily with logic.
Posted by: Steve | October 09, 2007 at 04:56 PM
"When I say consider I mean think about, explore, research, study, try to understand, not necessarily with logic."
Please explain how that works.
Posted by: Mike Sears | October 09, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Steve,
May I ask how you came to the conclusion that your worldview is more "in tune" with nature and "reality" without using any form of logic or reason? Also, I would challenge you to better explain your position that all worldviews are illogical. I think Christianity is the worldview that makes the most sense of the world (including nature and reality). You should read more of what this website has to offer (especially in Greg Koukle's articles).
-Seth
Posted by: Seth P. | October 09, 2007 at 05:51 PM
Hey Steve,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I would encourage you to re-analyze your position. You agree that your position is illogical yet still whether you will admit it or not, appeal to reason or to analyzing. I am by no means an expert on these things but if you have not already done an exhaustive study of Christianity, I would recommend Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy who was a disciple of Francis Schaeffer. It is the book that helped me to see how Christianity makes the most sense out of the world and jives with reality and how things are. But I wish you well on your search and appreciate you having the courage to dialogue on the blog about this stuff. :)
Brad
Posted by: Brad | October 09, 2007 at 06:37 PM
"...try to understand, not necessarily with logic."
How do you try to understand something without using logic? Its like asking a fourth grader to do long division without doing math.
Posted by: Alexis Ch- | October 09, 2007 at 06:39 PM
"Please explain how that works." "May I ask how you came to the conclusion that your worldview is more "in tune" with nature and "reality" without using any form of logic or reason?"
Feelings, intuition, observation, application of Occam's razor, being humble, not making assumptions. We make decisions all the time that aren't based on logic or reason. Do you honestly think everything is within the realm of logic and reason? If God's existence could truly be proven with sound logic I don't think people would still be arguing about it. And besides, isn't God supposed to be mysterious? Aren't His ways not our ways? Using logic and reason to "prove" things like God is... well, childish. I have a lot more respect for Christians who will admit that their beliefs are based on faith.
Posted by: Steve | October 09, 2007 at 06:39 PM
"Do you honestly think everything is within the realm of logic and reason?"
Yes and no at the same time and in the same respect.
Posted by: Timbo | October 09, 2007 at 07:14 PM
Yes and no at the same time and in the same respect.
Whoa, good answer. I think I get what your saying, but I'm not sure, could you break it down for me?
Posted by: Steve | October 09, 2007 at 07:22 PM
"And besides, isn't God supposed to be mysterious? Aren't His ways not our ways?"
I think what Timbo was trying to get at is: Could we say that God both is and isn't mysterious in exactly the same way at the same, or that God's ways are the same as our ways and not the same as our ways in exactly the same way at the same time? (The answer, I think, as it seems you were implying in your questions above, is "no".)
BTW I did a quick search on the guy in the video, apparently he has a book out, sounds like it would be a useful resource/compilation although for many here nothing particularly new:
http://tinyurl.com/2pxvy6
Posted by: emmzee | October 09, 2007 at 08:43 PM
>I have a lot more respect for Christians who will admit that their beliefs are based on faith.
So what you're saying is, you respect Christians who *don't* use logic to come to the conclusion that their beliefs are based on faith?
O.o
Posted by: Agilius | October 09, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Steve is entirely irrational, attempting to deny logic using the tools of logic. One cannot seek to convince another of ones point of view without using logic. Also, Buddhism has not feature that I am aware of by which we may measure its claims. Buddhism insists that we see facial features in a shadow.
Every argument Steve had thus far employed is logic, though mostly fallacious, particularly with the straw man of Christianity he has built.
I cannot convince of that God exists by the rules of logic. And you cannot attempt to deny him without using logic. But we do require some grounding for logic if we are going to press it into service in some universal way, assuming that one can reason.
Yes, everything is within the realm of reason and logic, inasmuch as no conversation gets off the ground without them. Indeed Steve, your question, "Do you honestly think everything is within the realm of logic and reason?" Would you like to me abandon reason to respond, or would you like me to reason based on your objection? If you do not want to allow logic, then my answer to your question is "bananas are funny and bugs walk on some legs next to broken tar."
By the way, that same Doug you have seen in the video is a Biola student, a gentleman, and profound thinker.
Steve, why do you believe Buddhism is an accurate explanation of reality?
Posted by: Patrick | October 10, 2007 at 05:13 AM
Darn, I got caught again. It's true I am trying to tear down logic using logic. But here's the real problem. I think logic doesn't have any business poking its nose into the metaphysical realm and calling itself truth when its really just speculation. It's my belief that we can loosen our stranglehold on logic, embrace the mysteries of the universe instead of trying to solve them, and live by intuition, observation, meditation, and following the moral law. The existence of the moral law is the foundation of the Christian argument for the existence of God. If there's a moral law there has to be a law giver according to Christianity. I agree that there is a moral law, but I think that's as far as we can go. Who knows how it got there? Does it matter? Well, yes, it does matter to you, but to me it doesn't. I just follow the moral law because it feels right, it makes me happy, it makes others happy, etc. I think that's reason enough.
And by the way, to clarify things, the main religion I believe in is what is referred to as Philosophical Taoism, which is primarily based on a text called the Tao Te Ching. It's a very short text, well worth reading, I promise you'll get something out of it even if you color it Christian, which is very easy to do since the language is so similar to the New Testament. I also agree with some parts of Buddhism, mostly Zen, but certainly not everything you find out there with the label "Buddhism" I've never heard of that face thing and have no idea what it means. Eastern religions are like that, you can be Taoist, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, and even a little Christian all at the same time.
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2007 at 06:13 AM
Let me buttress Steve's claim by pointing out one historically relevant philosophical example: Aristotle proposed a "virtue ethics" that is predicated on one's phronetic (practical, skilfull) grasp of the situation that cannot be codified in language, laws, or logic. Yes, it is undeniably (and trivially) true that if one is 'arguing' a position one must use logic. But that is not to say that logic and propositions themselves are not grounded in a non-logical (not illogical) grasp of the world (being virtuous or wise) and how to act within it.
As I understand Buddhism, it is this non-logical ground of existing that is the primary focus, as that from which propositions emerge and from which we can act skillfully and wisely in the world. Thus, the claim is that "logical" and "illogical" are not the only categories nor are they fundamental because they stem from this non-logical grasp of the world.
Posted by: Kevin Winters | October 10, 2007 at 06:32 AM
I think I understand you, Steve. But as you have aptly seen, you cannot escape the logic dilemma. Any time you use "if", "then", "have", "never", "similar",you are using the very tools that Christians use to reach their conclusions about reality and morality.
I do not think you can embrace the ethic that you embrace when you say "I just follow the moral law because it feels right, it makes me happy, it makes others happy, etc. I think that's reason enough." It may indeed feel that way (especially if there is a creator that created to experience joy when we live a moral life), but that says nothing about whether or not it is actually right or wrong. And, different people have different ideas of what happiness is in context to morality. And, how do you know what the moral law is that leads to your happiness? Can you trust your own impulses. Perhaps there are immoral activities that make you or me or others "happy".
Also, you surely act immoral at times - we all do. But if following the moral law makes you happy, then why do you act immorally at times? That would seem irrational, correct? If I think having sex with your wife (stay with the analogy and forgive the seeming harshness of it) not immoral, and if having sex with her her makes me happy, have I acted immorally? Perhaps seeing her enjoy the physical and emotional experience under a moonlit starry sky is tantamount to embracing the mystery of the universe, and I think that limiting our sexual experiences to one person is silly.
I am only trying to bring these thoughts to their "logical conclusion"!
Posted by: Patrick | October 10, 2007 at 06:39 AM
Steve said: "My world view is really just as illogical as the rest of them I'm afraid."
Then why would you want to follow it? Christians don't claim that their worldview is illogical. Just the opposite. (Maybe others think that about Christianity, but that's not the claim Christianity or Christians make.)
Posted by: Mo | October 10, 2007 at 06:51 AM
I really need to stop throwing around the word 'happy' assuming people have the same definition I do. First of all, I believe experiences only make you happy or sad if you let them, how you feel is up to you, not your circumstances. Like Guido in the film Life is Beautiful, or Andy in Shawshank Redemption, or some of the true stories of holocaust survivors who made it through that unimaginable experience with their hope intact. Their lives were horrible, but they chose to be happy. Even if life hands us lemons over and over, we can just keep on making lemonade. Following the moral law by letting go of your ego, your self, serving and loving others, doing what's best for everyone, not just yourself, even if it means sacrificing your life, is what will make you truly happy. You are putting a very narrow definition on the word happiness.
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2007 at 07:02 AM
P.S. Thank you, Steve (and the others involved) for coming here and having a good, decent, polite conversation even though not everyone might agree. It's a rare thing on the internet in general!
I would also highly recommend Nancy Pearcey's book, 'Total Truth'. Don't be intimidated because it's as big as a college textbook. It is written in everyday language, expressing huge concepts in a way that is accessible to even non-scholars like me!
Posted by: Mo | October 10, 2007 at 07:02 AM
Please listen to the School Board audio (audio link by bullet 4) about prayer in the school. Fabulous but yet sad.
http://pearlandisd.org/pisd/board_audio_agenda.htm
Posted by: Michael | October 10, 2007 at 08:49 AM
Actually, Steve, I am applying the definition of happiness employed by Greek philosophers - it is like unto the Jewish Shalom - a sense of fulfillment that corresponds to ones success in living (morally etc) in a manner consistent with what it means to be human - a sort of design feature.
You fool yourself, I fear, if you think you can avoid sadness. On what basis do you conclude that you can choose those responses? Should I be happy at the announcement of someone's death? Would I be right to celebrate that happiness?
And by the way, coming to terms with the reality that we cannot dictate our circumstances is different than choosing to be sad etc. Those with horrible lives may learn to find meaning despite those horrors, but there is no way that immediately happens in a well functioning person. You would be hard pressed to speak to a person that found happiness while in Auschwitz. Furthermore, learning to be happy despite those horrors in no way makes those horrors any less immoral.
Finally, you seem to want a subjective understanding of things and insist on being able to autonomously define "the moral law" all the while suggesting everyone else "ought" to agree. If not, then why bother?
Posted by: Patrick | October 10, 2007 at 09:50 AM
"You fool yourself, I fear, if you think you can avoid sadness."
This is indeed a flaw of mine, I am too idealistic. But it's a flaw I recognize and it's something I'm working on. Working out how the ideals should work in reality is hard, but that doesn't mean the ideals aren't worth believing in. I know I can't avoid sadness, and that trying to avoid it is can even be unhealthy. If a friend dies of course you should mourn, be miserable even, have a desire for revenge even. But you can't feel that way forever, sooner or later you have to accept reality and move on with life. Taoism advocates knowing your limits, similar to the Christian virtue of humility. We can't bring back the dead, change the past or control the actions of others, but that doesn't mean we should not allow ourselves to feel sorrow or anger. However, we shouldn't let that sorrow and anger control us either.
"Finally, you seem to want a subjective understanding of things and insist on being able to autonomously define "the moral law""
How can the moral law be subjective if it's supposed to apply to everyone? And how can we understand it objectively from our human state? I guess that's a pretty good argument for God, he has an objective perspective of the world so he can teach us. My argument, the way many eastern religions see it, is that through meditation, reflection, and contemplation we can reach a more objective state of mind from which to determine the best action.
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Hi Steve,
I have a couple of questions for you in trying to understand Taoism.
- If reality can only be accurately experienced through meditation, is there any way of evaluating these experiences? If logic and reason are inadmissable in the realm of metaphysics (itself a rational proposition), how can we know the difference between delusion and reality? If reasoning only clouds our meditative awareness, how do we know what meditation tells us about reality - if it tells us anything at all? How do we evaluate the knowledge we gain through meditation if not by reason and logic?
Posted by: Steve | October 11, 2007 at 01:58 PM
WHOA - Freudian slip or computer error -
the last post was by Sage S.
Sorry! (any similarity to Steve is purely coincidental)
Posted by: Sage S | October 11, 2007 at 01:59 PM
"how can we know the difference between delusion and reality?"
"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man" -Chuang Tzu
Philosophical Taoism, like Agnosticism, is always skeptical but also always open to new insight. We act on our intuition, or what might be called faith. In Mormonism (the religion I grew up with) it is taught that every action is an act of faith. You act a certain way because you believe a certain result will follow. That idea makes sense to me. Well, it basically comes down to where you put your faith, trust and hope. You put it in God, the power of prayer, the church and the Bible. I put it in the power of meditation and the goodness of mankind. Let me just clarify that by "meditation" I'm not talking about something mystical or trance-like, meditation is basically just thinking deeply, thinking with your heart.
Posted by: Steve | October 11, 2007 at 05:41 PM
>>You put it in God, the power of prayer, the church and the Bible. I put it in the power of meditation and the goodness of mankind.
Would you say one of these two ways is better than the other? If so, how do you know? If not, why not?
Posted by: Aaron Snell | October 12, 2007 at 01:01 PM
How do I know? Well, I don't 'know' in your sense of the word. But I know in my heart there is something wrong with most religions. Zero evidence for God's existence, contradictions in the bible, the ineffectiveness of prayer, the lies churches tell, atrocities that have been committed in the name of God... take your pick.
Posted by: Steve | October 13, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Zero evidence for God's existence? Are you absolutely sure of that one?
Posted by: Another Steve | November 07, 2007 at 08:13 PM