For 25 years Richard Morgan was a card-carrying atheist and flaming Richard Dawkins fan. Born in the UK, living in France, he came to Chicago to tell this special story.
Richard had a radical conversion experience in 2008. Not only did it rock his world in an instant, it incited a riot on the Dawkins Internet discussion board. Despite his mannerly approach, he was quickly banished from the forum.
In this video, Richard tells you his strange yet wonderful story. (It’s featured in the book “The Dawkins Letters” by David Robertson, 2nd edition.)
Press Arrow to Play:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
>>If you believe there’s a God, then there is. If you don’t believe then there isn’t. Only death will tell, and death ain’t talking. So take your pick.<<
I've been an evangelical Christian for 40 years and, strangely enough, I wholeheartedly agree. "Belief" in God is not at all the same thing as belief in "the Higgs particle" or "life on Mars". Ultimately, one believes in God, or disbelieves, as an expression of their own nature or character. Some are called, others are not. It's not at all clear why. My one objection, given this, is that Atheists dogmatically assume that "Unbelief" is rational and "Belief" is irrational. They have dozens of foibles and ulterior motives to attribute to the poor fools who believe in God. That there might be just as many foibles and ulterior motives behind the rejection of God is a thought that never darkens the door of their minds. But… IF, ultimately, both frames of mind are capable of generating logically-consistent lines of reasoning in defence of their chosen belief, then the difference between those who do and don't "believe in God" will not be one of Reason per se. It will be a difference between the Choices (of believing or not believing). The Logic employed to justify the one position or the other will be brought to bear on the problem AFTER the Choice has been made. The logic being invoked is thus be a reflection of that prior choice, and is not at all the basis for making it. So, yes… by all means, "Take your pick!" Grounds for justifying your choice will be found… no matter which choice you make. Choose… and then by your choice be made known.
Joe Mobley says:
“Why don’t you believe in god?
There may very well be a god. If so, he (she? they? them? it?) does not come from Greek, Roman, or Abrahamic mythology. I can find no fact-based evidence to support their claims.”
Hi Joe
I was intrigued by your above argument. Especially the part “I can find no fact-based evidence to support their claims.”
Have you effortlessly worked on trying to find the evidence? Have you been to any other place in the Universe to conclude your position? To say there is no God just because you cannot find the evidence has put God’s existence into the realm of your ability to find him. In other words, you are not being subjective and closed the possibility of other SUPREME BEING (GOD) apart from you.
If someone in Africa said, there is no gold in the such and such island.. how certain that statement is? Has he dug the ground to the other side of the earth to support his conclusion or it is merely to show how human’s ability is limited.
To my opinion, experience is fact as long as it is perceived in accordance to the fact. We may not be able to 100% perceive certain thing but due to the foundational evidences are strong enough then we know what it implies to. Example, I have been having flu and I know based on experience certain medicine is good for it. Thus, with that foundational knowledge I have the medicine.
Why the glory of the Universe is viewed by you as not being one of the evidence of the Existence of its CREATOR? As we know, science effortlessly try to prove the BIG BAG is true, but there is no FINAL CONCLUSION that can be 100% ABSOLUTE about it. While it is not conclusive, scientists through their hypothesis to public causing lots of confusion.
Thanks
PS: sorry English is not my 1st language.
I’ve not yet changed my believe. THE UNIVERS IS GOD AND GOD IS THE UNIVERS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE, GOD, THE UNIVERS. THE UNIVERS IS THE BODY OF GOD. IS GOD.
AND WE ALL LIVING ARE SONS OF GOD, BECAUSE WE ARE IN GOD, AND GOD CREATED HUMANS TO HIS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. EACH OF US IS AN INFINITESIMAL FRACTAL OF GOD. IT IS A MATTER OF SCALE.
GOD CANNOT BE ANYWHERE OUT OF AN INFINITE UNIVERS EVER EXPANDING, NOR CAN STAY WITHIN SOMETHING (A UNIVERS) THAT SCAPES FROM HIM.
LOOK AT http://deusegonsjo.blogspot.com
(God Accordingly to me)
Thank You–greyfox–for nailing THE KEY POINT in these… seemingly endless…
Believers IN GOD
v.
Believers IN Atheism
debates…
Namely–
THEY ARE BOTH “FAITHS”…
…As There IS NO WAY That Atheists Can PROVE That There IS NO WISDOM Behind The Creation of The Universe & Life & All The Discovered & As Yet–Still UN-Discovered–
Laws &
Forces &
Entities That DO Exist.
I guess that “Atheists” BANG THEIR DRUMS SO LOUDLY That “Believers Cannot Prove The Existence of GOD” So As To OBSCURE & OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO SHOUT DOWN THE FACTS That:
#1 Dudes & Dudettes…tho’ One doesn’t find nearly as many Galz in These Ranks…and of the Ones who do join–They don’t usually Re-Enlist year after year as So Many Guyz Do…
ANYWAY–
Dudes & Dudettes–READ THE ARTICLES HERE AT Cosmicfingerprints–The Existence of GOD HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED… Even if You continue to insist that GOD Has To “PROVE HIMSELF” To You–In The Ways & By The Means–That You Expect & Demand… THIS Arrogance is the INVERSE of Superstition.
And #2 GOD-Deniers-That-We-Can-“Know”, in general and Atheists, in particular, function in completely parallel & analogous manners to any of the NUMEROUS Belief Systems Out There…a.k.a. “religions”…
So… Welcome–Atheists/Agnostics–To The Club of Different World Religions Whose Rights To Constitutional Protections Are Guaranteed–ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE OTHER BELIEF-SYSTEMS of THE WORLD… with certain reservations–Particularly IF Your Belief System DEMANDS That You Do Harm (Overtly or Covertly) To Others (IN- &/or OUT-Siders)… Or IF Your Belief System DEMANDS That You & Your World Views Should TRUMP The Others…
THEREFORE–
The Exclusion of Certain Voices From The “Public Square” (or designating them as “hate groups”) Because They Are Stating Opinions That Are Religion-Formed/Informed–
SHOULD BECOME HISTORY–
FROM HERE ON OUT.
“If there is anything that is infinite in this universe it is the human ability to play mind-twisting word games in order to justify a given idea.”
Joe Mobley
“Believers IN GOD
v.
Believers IN Atheism”
You imply a disparity where none exist.
I’m a “believer in atheism?” So are you! Don’t think so? Tell us about your daily study and prayers to Zeus, Apollo, Allah, etc. If you’re like most other ‘non-believers’, it simply is not a part of your day to day life.
Namely–
THEY ARE BOTH “FAITHS”…
Ah yes… faith. The absolute belief in an idea with absolutely no evidence, facts, logic or reason. Doesn’t work in the real world but comes in real handy in woo-woo fantasy belief structures like Law of Attraction, Voodoo, Astrology, tarot, seed-faith giving.
My SUV has started every day since I bought it. Do I have faith that it will start tomorrow? Not really. Evidence suggest that it probably will. It may not, but no big deal. No faith needed, no faith involved.
BANG THEIR DRUMS SO LOUDLY … OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO SHOUT DOWN THE FACTS.
I’m not banging any drum. Perry asked for comments and I left some of mine. As far as the facts go, I am insisting on them.
“The Existence of GOD HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED…”
False!
Sorry, you are going to have to stay with the facts.
Joe Mobley
Well–Joe–At least You STARTED This Post with a statement on which We Both–Agree:
Joe: “If there is anything that is infinite in this universe it is the human ability to play mind-twisting word games in order to justify a given idea.”
mcb: …And THEN YOU Proceed To YOUR “mind-twisting word games in order to justify [Your] given idea[s].” Thanks–Dude–You Make IT–O SO EZ–For Me To Substantiate & Illustrate The Points That I Want To Get Across.
Your posited statement that I…
“imply a disparity [between Theists & Atheists] where none exist. …
IS Ludicrous Enough Already…
BUT THEN–
YOU WENT OVER THE TOP WITH YOUR “REASONING” FOR WHY–Like Yourself–I’M AN ATHEIST–TOO…
Joe: “I’m a “believer in atheism?” So are you! Don’t think so? Tell us about your daily study and prayers to Zeus, Apollo, Allah, etc. If you’re like most other ‘non-believers’, it simply is not a part of your day to day life.”
mcb: So–
In Other Words–
You’ve Asserted That…
IF–A Person Doesn’t Make IT Their Daily Practice To Study & Pray To EACH & EVERY Permutation of ManKind’s Ideas About GOD That…WAS-IS-OR EVER WILL BE…
THEN–They Are An Atheist.
IT IS Atheists–Whose Arguments Employ:
Tampered Evidence…
Cherry-picked Data…
Tortured Logic…AND…
Straitjacketed Reasoning–NOT–
PEOPLE of GOOD FAITH.
You claim that You didn’t BANG A DRUM…And Until Now–You Didn’t…My comments that You’ve jumped on were in response to those statements from greyfox with which I AGREED.
As Far As The Facts Go–Dude–I’m INSISTING ON THEM.
The Existence of GOD HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED–
TRUE !!
I majored in Life Sciences at the U of Illinois…and “Got” The Message back in the early 1970’s that Genetic Codes Are Language & Are The Irrefutable Evidence of A PROFOUNDLY INTELLIGENT AUTHOR…
However–
The Explanations & Explications of THIS Understanding Found Here–At Cosmicfingerprints–Go Far Deeper…while still being very accessible…Than Anything That I’ve Ever Tried To Put Together & Present.
Sorry–Joe–IT IS You (singular & plural) who are going to have to CATCH UP with the facts…
of Life…
The Universe…
and EVERYTHING !!!
Don’t Pout–
It’ll Be Amazing & mebbie even–FUN… 8 D
Everyone have an opinon regarding whether God exist or not, but most don’t seem to know how to define the God they’re having an opinion about.
How can you possibly determine if something exist or not if you don’t even have a clear definition of the subject in question? It might stare you right into your face and you would not recognize it at all (and if you ask me, that’s exactly what God does… 😉
A quote from “Conversations with God 1”:
Q: If there really is a God, and You are It, why do You not reveal Yourself in a way we can all understand?
God: I have done so, over and over. I am doing so again right now [by dictating these books].
Q:No. I mean by a method of revelation that is incontrovertible; that cannot be denied.
God: Such as?
Q: Such as appearing right now before my eyes.
God: I am doing so right now.
Q: Where?
God: Everywhere you look.
Q: No, I mean in an incontrovertible way. In a way no man could deny.
God: What way would that be? In what form or shape would you have Me appear?
Q. In the form or shape that you actually have.
God: That would be impossible, for I have no form or shape you understand. I could adopt a form or shape that you could understand, but then everyone would assume that what they have seen is the one and only form and shape of God, rather than a form or shape of God – one of many.
People believe I am what they see Me as, rather than what they do not see. But I am the Great Unseen, not what I cause Myself to be in any particular moment. In a sense, I am what I am not. It is from the am-notness that I come, and to it I always return.
Yet when I come in one particular form or another – a form in which I think people can understand Me – people assign Me that form forevermore.
And should I come in any other form, to any other people, the first say I did not appear to the second, because I did not look to the second as I did to the first, nor say the same things – so how could it have been Me?
You see, then, it matters not in what form or in what manner I reveal Myself – whatever manner I choose and whatever form I take, none will be incontrovertible.
Q: But if You did something that would evidence the truth of who You are beyond doubt or question…
God: There are still those who would say, it is of the devil, or simply someone’s imagination. Or any cause other than Me.
If I revealed myself as God Almighty, King of Heaven and Earth, and moved mountains to prove it, there are those who would say, “It must have been Satan.”
And such is as it should be. For God does not reveal Godself to Godself from or through outward observation, but through inward experience. And when inward experience has revealed Godself, outward observation is not necessary. And if outward observation is necessary, inward experience is not possible.
If, then, revelation is requested, it cannot be had, for the act of asking is a statement that it is not there; that nothing of God is now being revealed. Such a statement produces the experience. For your thought about something is creative, and your word is productive, and your thought and your word together are magnificently effective in giving birth to your reality. Therefore shall you experience that God is not now revealed, for if God were, you would not ask God to be.
Houston–We Have A Problem…
“And such is as it should be. For God does not reveal Godself to Godself from or through outward observation, but through inward experience. And when inward experience has revealed Godself, outward observation is not necessary. And if outward observation is necessary, inward experience is not possible.”
How inthaheck R U Going To Have ANY Inward Experiences To Reflect Upon–Without Outward Observations & Experiences ??
The Body Feeds The Mind Which Feeds The Body And So On & So Forth From One To Another And From Generation Unto Generation Unto Generation…Reaching Back & Forward…
The most enjoyable element of this forum is that you meet so many people who have talked to, I guess anyone can talk to god, perhaps I should say talked with god, not to god. That sounds like a neat trick and I would sure like to know how to do that. If it’s based on belief I guess I’ll just never know. One might almost think that “god” would want to talk to non believers to convert them. But that would be a bit arrogant on my part.
Some of this reminds me of a Jackie Mason routine. A guy goes to a Psychiatrist and the psychiatrist says “this is not the real you” together we’re going to look for the real you. And the guy says “if this is not the real me how will you know when you find me?
I challenge any christian, muslim, atheist or ‘Big Bang’ theorist scientist, to show how something can come from absolutely nothing. It is impossible to create using absolutely nothing as the basic material seeing that absolutely nothing has never existed nor can ever exist.
Yes–keswick–Not too long ago in another online discussion/debate on a Internet platform located in a different sphere of influence…
The Best “Word(s)/Conception” For GOD That Another Cosmic Physicist Assembled…without really meaning to…Were:
“The Pre-Existent Potential Energy of The Quantum Vacuum”
So…
For Those Who Prefer Acronyms…
We Can Give A New Translation For “GOD”–
GOD = (PE)2(QV)
Of course…
Just Because GOD [(PE)2(QV)] Pre-Existed The Universe–Does NOT Mean That GOD [(PE)2(QV)] Ceased To Operate Once CREATION Came…Online…
Au Contraire–Mes Frères Et Soeurs…
I believe the Bible says that ‘what is seen is made from that which is unseen’. We can’t “see” neutrinos and quarks, etc. But scientists say that all matter is made of these types of unseeable particles.
God.
Mt 11,25
Aquell temps digué Jesús: “Us dono gràcies, Pare, Senyor del cel i de la terra, perquè heu amagat aquestes coses als savis i prudents, i les heu revelades als petits.”
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and have revealed them to little children.”
Look at my entry October 4, 2011 1:45pm
or look at
http://deusegonsjo.blogspot.com
(God Accordingly to me)
As a matter in fact scientists are eye witnessing “Big Bang” today, they are “there” today. You need to learn-refresh knowledge of some basic physics to understand that and than look around you, as you suggested, but preferably through telescope as Edwin Hubble did for example.
You do not need to be an expert in cosmology, there are many popular articles written on that subject that are relatively easy to grasp. This year’s Nobel prize for physics goes to the scientists that work in the field of cosmology. They do not look like desperate people to me !
There is no room for faith where knowledge exists, but if you want a friendly advice, focus your attention to events that preceded “Big Bang” like scientist Roger Penrose did. There is practically no scientific knowledge about that era, only speculation. Maybe faith turns out to be right in that domain?
Zoran
When we examine the intricacies of the single cell and how all the myriad of machinery is needed just to keep that cell going, it’s ludicrous to think that cell spontaneously created itself. Too many interdependencies.
Perry,
I’m a huge fan of your email newsletters. As I’ve deleted other marketing gurus, I’ve kept you and Dan Kennedy as the only ones.
I am extremely grateful that you are taking a public stand on your faith. It’s rare in this day and age for fear of “offending”, but as we are called in the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations, you are fulfilling that command. I’m sadly not, but I hope to use your example to edify my own actions.
May God bless your efforts and multiply them to reach more people.
Ed
I beg to differ. Documented miracles and healings: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
Perry, I listened to all the examples in the link you gave me and am surprised you used this as something to base your differing with me concerning my experience with prayer. There was nothing there that was convincing proof of answers to prayer in the way I was talking about.
Look Perry, as I said it’s not difficult to make the point I’m conveying to you of my experiences. I’ve had 40 years now to find something that convinces me of what you are trying to say. I’ve been seeking and waiting and I have not seen it yet. But what about you?
If what you say is true, I’d think you would have given me plenty of examples of answers to prayer in your life that matches my experiences. Where God is answering without any knowledge of anyone else’s prayers…it’s just between you and God and you get answers that are truly a miracle.
With as many billions of people on earth and millions that believe in prayer, I’d think there would be millions of examples where God is answering prayer the way I am talking about. Simply put, a person prays to God (no one else knows) and God answers, and those answers are just as good as the answers people get when other people know what is prayed for and answer their prayer, because they believe it is their duty to do so (nothing wrong with that).
What we are trying to understand and believe is that God answers prayer and not people through God…It’s God through people or God along. I challenge you to try and find just three examples where God is doing that in your life that you can prove.
Surely you pray and surely God is answering your prayers, check to see how your prayers are being answered. And look for those answers with other people around you and see if they are passing the test of what I’m talking about. I know this is something that is scary because you will find out (I believe) that I am right on.
If you really do want to know the truth, I know you can pray a prayer that will convince you that God specifically answered your prayer and no one else had anything else to do with it and then repeat it over and over again since that shouldn’t be a problem. Talk to other people and see if anyone tells you anything that will pass this test.
I’m satisfied you will not find a single person that will convince you of anything different that what I am saying. I feel that I know that because I am truly serious about finding this out and so far I have not and have not met anyone else who has in forty years.
But I have seen hundreds of prayers answered the usually way, you know people praying and other people answering because of the request that have been made known and other people hearing by way of observation and so forth but I don’t see that as God; I see that as people being good to other people (and there is nothing wrong with that).
It just doesn’t prove prayer in the way I am talking about…and that does matter a whole lot to a believer in God concerning his answering prayer between just him and God. I am not an atheist; I’m simple trying to see if God does do what people claim…I don’t see it yet.
I would think that if it was true, there would be a lot of prayers answered that would be very apparent that it was God and not people. We need to stop deluding ourselves and get serious…it’s easy to make God the hero but He needs to live up to that honor.
His honor is at the level of people and not the great I AM. The things He done way back years ago in the Bible (if those things were true)…now that was God…but what is being credited to him today doesn’t even get close to that…it’s the best of man…it so plain to see.
If I am going to give the credit to God He’s is going to have to prove to me, it was him. And believe me I’ve got plenty of things only God could answer and I know plenty of friends that only God could do what needs to be done, thousands of examples and to date…nothing (on the God level).
I think you know exactly what I am talking about, but it’s too much to admit because your ministry or work will be destroyed if you were to admit that. And I can understand that. But I do not have an agenda as so. I just want to know the truth and my experience shows…we don’t know nothing about God, we just think we do. I don’t doubt there is something out there we don’t understand, but I do not believe it is what main stream religion has defined it as.
But if someone would show me the proof, I could and would change my mind at the snap of a finger, because I would love for that to be true, but in the mean while I am not going to delude myself. Because if God is there, he knows my mind and I can’t fool him…this way I am honest about it and not putting on a show for approval by the world or whoever the recipients are.
I’ve spent a lot of time on prayer, but there are so many other ways that can prove things that people claim God had something to do with and I don’t see any proof there either. I think that is why I’m so concerned about your and many other people’s interpretation of God and how his works.
It’s amazing how many people know. I don’t know…and neither so they…they believe and that’s a whole different story. For 25 years I was exactly the same way, I knew, I just knew I knew…I didn’t know…I believed.
It took years of not wanting to accept what I was learning, but I simple just started testing things and found out that what I knew was not panning out. I continued and still continue with an open mind waiting to connect with someone who can say something, anything that gets close proving the supernatural.
I’d like for you to give me something that is profound and not the usual stuff that has no impact to a truth seeking person. I’m not here just for conversation; I want to learn something of significance.
I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m quite understanding you. It sounds like you’re asking for God to meet you in a way such that He responds to something you never told anybody else about, in a very specific way?
I have had conversations with atheists off and on over the past few years. Some have been earnest, even saying, “I wish I could believe, but I can’t.” The sticking point comes back to reason and logic.
I am a believer. And one day, while thinking about this situation, I suddenly had this thought: A supernatural God, one who is invisible would (in my mind, logically) use supernatural, invisible methods in order to make His presence known.
As big as God is, His omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence — is too big to be fully defined and understood by the constructs of logic we have from Socrates and Plato to today.
This is why Christians are so often mocked by atheists because the endless debate is “I believe God exists” and the atheists response is “You cannot prove it by science and logic so no, he doesn’t.” But what if there is a third dimension that is unknown and mysterious? What if it is within this third dimension that God resides? And what if the way to enter this area is to simply be open that it may exist?
“endless debate”
You are right, it is endless and, unfortunately, it will stay that way as long as difference between faith and knowledge is ignored. Of course we all know, it is quite different when you say “I believe God created human” or “I know God created human”. First expression do not need proof , but second is invalid without the proof. Confusion starts when you just say “God created human” and anyone assume meaning to his convenience. Than debate begins around proof that believers rightfully do not need and knowledge which is stretched beyond its limits.
It seems there are problems on both sides. Religious faith tends to misrepresent its believes with knowledge, on the other side scientists tends to generalize knowledge beyond its validity.
For example, Newton’s universal law of gravitation that scientists are so proud of turns out to be so limited that even with Einstein’s upgrade 95% of the universe’s mass-energy content is missing. Attribute “universal” associated to 5% is definitely misplaced!
On the other side, this forum as it grows larger is diverging from conclusion because members are, as I said, ignoring difference between faith and knowledge, meaning, when something what is believed is regarded as truth but without evidence. Of course, you can confront epistemology and scientific method and expand this discussion but be careful not to expand until it explodes.
Zoran
Why God choose the faith to be the great thing to separate wheat from tares? I can’t understand the mind of God so well to answer this question (Try read Isaiah 55:8-9). A priori, faith is a decision (also a gift from God), everybody could choose to trust and be faithful to Jesus. But it don’t ends here, Jesus told that for those who (really) believe and follow Him, He will manifest himself (John 14:21). These words are true and faithful. I’m a witness of Jesus.
For the world that is waiting for a light in this darkness, we have to do our best, cast out our fears, live in freedom through the Spirit of God, to live in complete unity with other brothers and sisters, so the world will know that the Father sent His Son and He loved us even as He loved His Son (John 17:23).
Another potential Science fiction writer. What if there wasn’t a third dimension? What if god didn’t reside in this dimension?
What if there was no way to enter this dimension….give me a break.
What if the atheists are right?
What if there are more dimensions like string theorists are dreaming of (up to 26).
Do not forget that Einstein’s space-time counts them four (4) and has rather solid evidence for all of them. For example your GPS device or car navigation wouldn’t work if Einstein was wrong.
Zoran
“I am a believer. And one day, while thinking about this situation, I suddenly had this thought: A supernatural God, one who is invisible would (in my mind, logically) use supernatural, invisible methods in order to make His presence known. ”
The mind is capable of presenting many theories about God. But this one is the neatest trick of all. Supernatural, invisible methods to make his presence known. Ureka! you have just discovered FAITH.
Ref: I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m quite understanding you. It sounds like you’re asking for God to meet you in a way such that He responds to something you never told anybody else about, in a very specific way?
Perry…Let me try to make myself more clearly to you. The subject is how can we know God answers our prayers instead of people doing good things for people because that’s the right thing to do? I believe that people hear other people’s prayer requests and answer them (and there is nothing wrong with that; it just doesn’t prove that God is answering the prayer. To me if one wants proof that God answers prayer, the prayer request would be just between the person and God (without other people knowing about it). When the prayer is answered, it separate the confusion of who really is answering the prayer and also puts more credibility to God answering prayer and not just people playing the part of God. That doesn’t mean people would not be involved in answering the prayer. Here’s an example just for demonstration purposes. A person goes to church and make his prayer request known for needing a car for transportation; he does not have any money to get the car. People hear the request and someone answers by any of various ways, collection, maybe someone just gives him a car etc. That is people answering prayer. Compared to: A person needs a car for transportation, he doesn’t have the money and prays to God for an answer and no one else knows or hears about his need; within a short period of time someone goes to the person and tells him that God told him or put it on his heart or mind to give him or buy him a car. The person who is being generous doesn’t even know the person who needed the car; he just knows God put it on his heart and led him to the person to answer this person’s prayer. I don’t think one could just ignore that this is a better example of God answering prayer because it come directly from God and in this case through people to the recipient. For a person who doesn’t believe God answers prayer, this would be proof that would be hard to ignore. I’m simply saying in 40 years of observation, I’ve experience the first example but I’m supposed to believe the second example as the normal for God. I don’t see it. Which bring me to my question to you? What do you know, not believe? Prayer being answered through people like the first example or prayer being answered by God the second example. If you know the second example, I’d like to know how, because those examples you gave me didn’t prove the point. If you have examples, you would have the proof also that would be very clear. I hope this is clear enough for you.
I have experienced answered prayer in my life on multiple occasions. Occasions when people did not know what was on my heart.
Funny you talk about needing a car! I work at a scrap yard. I was in dire need of a car. I could not afford a car payment. People did know of my predicament, but help was not forthcoming, because no one in family, or circle of friends had any way to help. Now, if you know anything about scrap yards…lol..and I don’t mean salvage yards where cars are fixed or parted. I mean literally scrap. Cut up, crush, ship to steel mill…do not collect $200. The odds of someone bringing in a car with nothing wrong with it for scrap, are so slim, I would be more likely to find Atlantis, and win the mega millions twice in a week. I have worked there NINE years, and have only seen a handful of cars come in that were even WORTH fixing. Def…not pristine…with NO mechanical problems whatsoever. In came a man who wanted to get rid of his son’s car…and he gave it me, and handed me a clear, notarized title. He was not local, and nor had I ever laid eyes on him. He knew none of my co-workers. I can only attribute this to answered prayer. The odds of this happening are so ridiculously outlandish, and even if it did happen, for it to be at that specific time is beyond incredible. I have other examples as well. Some just minor, but known only to me and my Lord. When these things happen in my life it is confirmation of His love for me, and our personal relationship.
Skeptics are welcome to chalk these things up to rare coincidence, or some mind over matter mantra …whatever they need to explain it away, or feel like they need to convince themselves of.
I claim no greatness or special insight in any way that allows me to tap into God. I am just a humble sinner saved by amazing grace. All I know is He has made Himself evident to me. When it has happened there is no doubt it is His handiwork. I had it happen once in regards to something bothering me very deeply about my son. When God moves this way in my life it is the coolest thing ever. I can barely hold back the tears as I type it. It’s like suprised laughter, and thinking WOW God how did you know? Then…duh to self…He’s God stupid Shell! Then the joy explodes in my heart, and an overwhelming gratefulness and tears replace the suprise…and its like WOW God..I can’t undestand why you care about little, insignificant, me so much, but you prove it over and over again that you do, and I will praise you all the days of my life for it.
So, anyways, it’s kinda like that with me and God. Hope his helps.
“Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know”
So I take it then that Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t know anything.
It must be obvious that far too many people post on this forum without thinking. Platitudes, “Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know”.
What a stupid platitude. I would have to guess that methos is just too intelligent to bother speaking. Don’t you just love it?
As terrible as his experience might have been with RichardDawkins.net, it hardly reflects on all atheists any more than a forum of terribly obnoxious theists reflects on all theists.
And his experience seems to be little more than a pseudo mystical experience based on his cognitive dissonance and subsequent inability to resolve it. The only way he was able to was the psychological response of seeing a pattern and insisting it must be the case everywhere else in dismissal of contrasting evidence.
As much as this is somehow evidence, it’s anecdotal and therefore only serves as rhetoric, not logic.
Hi Richard,
I’m not a conventional Christian – neither am I an atheist (so I don’t need convincing)
I enjoyed your talk immensely. Generally I find the whole theism/atheism debate very tedious & ultimately self defeating – regardless of which position you take. But what sparked my interest was your story – in particular when you were answered the 2nd question in the email you received from David Robertson. “What would make you believe in God?” – Your answer “Certainly not logic, reason or proof” seemed to have precipitated the epiphany you experienced. It seems familiar to the Eureka “Ah-Ha!” experience when major technological/scientific/philosophical discoveries are made. I have a theory on this, that enlightenment (or awakening to truth) comes of it’s own accord when the mind is ready – or in a state of willingness – to accept it. It initially requires a willingness to question and let go of some of your own consciously and unconsciously held values and beliefs.
Would you concur?
BTW I really enjoyed your talk. Your self-effacing humor is very appealing 🙂 (So English!)
Cheers
Bernard
Bernard – thank you for your comment. You say, “I have a theory on this, that enlightenment (or awakening to truth) comes of it’s own accord when the mind is ready – or in a state of willingness – to accept it. It initially requires a willingness to question and let go of some of your own consciously and unconsciously held values and beliefs.”
Then you ask:
“Would you concur?”
Very simply – Yes. That is the way it seems to happen. The Bible talks about a “renewing of the mind” and this fits well with what you say.
The whole problem seems to be the difficulty in arriving at this point of “preparedness”. Can one do it consciously, just by so choosing? I certainly didn’t. As others have said, less pleasantly, it could be a collapsing of a prior belief structure. Perhaps this is why so many conversions happen at a point of despair. There are many valid, possible explanations and I accept most of them. The main issue then becomes – What do I do about it?
Aye, there’s the rub.
Yes, it seems that the truth appears when all other avenues have been exhausted!
Ironic that some of our conscious/unconscious values are alleged to be theistic in nature. So is it enlightenment to be willing to let go of those ideas and become an atheist? Some Buddhists would argue that and the term enlightenment is at least more commonly used in relation to the experiences that take place in meditation.
That’s the only slight bridge of Buddhism and Christianity, the mystical quality they both attribute to themselves in part or in whole.
@muichimotsu you asked: “So is it enlightenment to be willing to let go of those ideas and become an atheist?” – I personally don’t know whether becoming an atheist is a necessary part of the process, but I wouldn’t rule it out! I think what is necessary is to question ALL beliefs, values & assumptions – be they religious, scientific or philosophic. I think the truth lies beyond our beliefs, and it is more likely to be experienced rather than just rationally understood. (though these states are not mutually exclusive).
I don’t think that meditation or prayer as the terms are normally used or as they are practised are the only requirements or avenues for enlightenment.
If we question all beliefs, values and assumptions, you become little more than a radical skeptic, a pyrrhonist who doesn’t make any claims about anything. What would you stand for period and how could you even justify your principle of withholding all assertions? Socrates tore them apart centuries ago, and any form of skepticism today leans more towards unfalsifiable claims than simply our ability to know things in general, though they both have validity in moderation.
But I feel it’s more justified to be skeptical and even reject persistently unfalsifiable claims as not worth considering even if they happened to be true, because they hold no practical value.
Truth as an experience should also be able to be explained rationally within reason. I can understand in part that our experiences are phenomenological to a point and thus can only be communicated with basic language and not necessarily communicate everything. If we take Zen practice, sometimes communicating satori and the like is done through generalized vocalizations or physical actions, neither of which communicate anything intelligible, but simply something that can change someone’s perspective.
The katsu is not meant to show you things in a point by point explanation, but merely shock you out of a purely rational paradigm where you can’t accept anything that isn’t able to be explained to a conclusion.
muichimotsu you asked “What would you stand for period and how could you even justify your principle of withholding all assertions?”
I don’t really claim to stand for anything except maybe a peaceful and open state of mind – ready and willing to observe and learn without any agenda – apart from experiencing (and expressing) a greater sense of peace. I find that whenever I am tempted to take a strong, or rigid stand (or position) on anything there is often an opposing position that undermines my own. In letting go of the attachment to my own position, in giving up my need to be right – or to appear to be consistent, I am open to new perspectives and am therefore open to learning something I hadn’t previously considered.
You can call it radical skepticism, pyrrhonism or any other label. I don’t personally care. All I know is that I’m no longer willing to fight for my beliefs. How do I know whether my beliefs are right? How do I know if my beliefs are worth defending? I just don’t know – and have given up caring. I can do without the fight though. It’s not how I like to live my life anymore. It’s just not worth the effort. I would either make myself or someone else miserable.
bernardh : I must confess that I appreciate and admire the ideas and attitudes you express in in this forum.
My attention was drawn to the word “anymore” in your admission, ” It’s not how I like to live my life anymore. ”
That means you once used to fight for your beliefs. It would be most interesting if you would be good enough to expand on that.
However, I deduce that your openness has its limits, since you are apparently no longer open to the possibility that there are beliefs worth fighting for, or that there may be some kind of ultimate Truth somewhere. You have chosen to close yourself to those possibilities, right? Please correct me if I am reading you wrongly.
Thank you Richard. Yes I did once fight for my beliefs (political, philosophical, religious, spiritual) however it eventually became clear to me that the truth doesn’t need my defence. It is either true or not true. As it says in the bible “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. Being caught up in a fight is not a very liberating experience! So I use that as a guide to help me find the truth. My journey to the truth is one of liberation, the more I feel free the closer I am to it. Having a conflicted state of mind means that I am off-course, I am not interpreting things truthfully – there is an illusion that has my attention somewhere. All I need do is bring the conflict to the truth and the light of truth will dispell the shadow of illusion. A peaceful state of mind is the means for finding the truth.
The way I see it beliefs are merely mental tools, or maps if you will. A map represents the territory – it is not the territory itself. Beliefs either point to the truth or away from the truth. A belief is not the truth in and of itself. Everyone is right according to their own context and perspective, the point is not to get stuck in any particular context/perspective. We are all in this journey together, and we can all help each other on the journey. So fighting for my beliefs does not help me or anyone else on the journey. All it does is make it less peaceful and thus more difficult.
I hope this helps 🙂
Mon cher Bernard,
Unlike muichimotso, I do not sense you as lazy. Rather, I would say, battle-weary and rejecting futility. Your philosophy seems to be taking you on a pain-avoidance route. This is logical and normal. For those who don’t like it – blame evolution. Pain avoidance is what living things do.
Let’s try to look at those things which you hold to be true, (just referring to your previous post) then ask you if you would be prepared to fight to defend them.
1) Truth exists;
2) It doesn’t need to be defended;
3) Being caught up in a fight is not a very liberating experience;
4) There is a journey to truth;
5) Your criteria for determining your progress on this journey is an increasing feeling of freedom; (From what?)
6) Cognitive dissonance means that you are off course on your journey;
7) A peaceful state of mind is the means for finding the truth; (This statement being an affirmation of truth of which you are sure?)
8) Beliefs are mental tools or maps,
9) Everyone is right according to their own context and perspective, (Wow!)
10) We are all in this journey together;
11) we can all help each other on the journey.
Bingo! Item 2 would seem to answer the question. But only because we are succumbing to the tendency to be sloppy and jingoistic in our use of language. When we say, “Truth must be defended”, what we are really saying is, “If truth represents reality and our RELATIONSHIP to reality, and if this right relationship impacts our well-being and/or survival, then a person’s right to have access to that “right relationship” needs to be defended AGAINST any forces that would impede that access.”
Could we agree on that?
If we do, then we are up for battle if a threat is imminent.
It would seem to me, that your previous “fights” did not contribute to your “well-being” or the well-being of those around you, so you sensibly threw the towel in.
So that leaves us with at least one question – what would YOU fight for?
Would you agree with Voltaire when he (apparently) said, “”I disagree with what you have to say but I would fight to the death to protect your right to say it.”
(I will write more if you feel that this line of discussion is worth it.)
OOps. No idea where that smiley came from in the place of Item number 8.
Richard – you found me out! (Well, not really) The point I was trying to make is that the TRUTH does not need MY defence – for it to be true. However, I need IT. I need to protect myself (and others) against illusion by bringing the illusions to the light of truth. There is an old adage used by war correspondents “The first casualty of war is the truth” – and that’s my perspective when “fighting for what I believe”. Why fight in the first place? The truth is obscured by the fight itself. You quote Voltaire – he was talking about the RIGHT to free speech – not the truth. To elucidate, if I was under physical threat, or I was in the presence of an oppressed group of people who were under physical threat – and there was no other alternative – yes I would take up arms if it was viable – as a last resort (Hopefully). However, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and others demonstrated very poignantly the effectiveness of non-violent action.
I am a student of A Course in Miracles – it is a spiritual development program that consists of a text, a workbook and a teacher’s manual. It’s not a philosophy but a metaphysical thought system. The workbook consists of 365 excercises (one for each day of the year). It is a path to truth. It doesn’t claim to be the ONLY path to truth, it says of itself that it “is one of many” systems. The exercises are highly introspective. They consist of meditations and prayers. One of the prayers I find inspiring is: “I am here only to be truly helpful.
I am here to represent Him Who sent me.
I do not have to worry about what to say or what to do,
because He Who sent me will direct me.
I am content to be wherever He wishes, knowing He goes there with me.
I will be healed as I let Him teach me to heal.”
The purpose of anything – when I allow the Holy Spirit (Or the Truth) to act through me is to be helpful to all my brothers and sisters. Healing is seen as a process of restoring the mind to the truth – a state of peaceful acceptance. It is not necessarily a passive act. Sometimes it requires vigourous action like when Jesus chased the money-lenders out of the temple.
The mere fact that I am participating in this discussion shows I care for the truth and am willing to debate, challenge and clarify my views. I welcome such challenges from you and others because it helps me clarify my own thinking & beliefs. You point out my blind spots that I have overlooked. I wouldn’t call it a fight though. In fact I enjoy the process! So thank you for challenging me! Hopefully we are all being healed as a result!
Bernard : you say “Hopefully we are all being healed as a result!”
But you don’t say from what we are being healed.
(I imagine your answer will include references to “well-being” something that seems to be preoccupying our friend Sam Harris.)
Richard, According to ACIM healing is a release from fear. There are only 2 emotions when you boil it all down – Love & Fear and as Paul said “Perfect Love casts out all fear”. All other emotions are a variation of either one or the other. Each emotion drives an entirely different thought/belief system. What is also significant is the nature of these different thought systems. A thought system driven by fear (the Ego) is characterised by fragmentation, division, reductionism, dogmatism, rigidity, confusion, chaos, incoherence, conflict etc. The thought system of Love (or God, or Spirit) is charecterised by cohesion, flexibility, coherence, inclusiveness, holism (holiness?), peace, harmony etc. Both thought systems are consistent, logical and rational according to their foundations. Yet the outcomes are obvious when applied to our lives, our relationships and our world. They serve as the context and perspective by how we percieve the world. Choosing one over the other is not only possible, but necessary. It becomes a matter of practice and discipline. We always have that choice, and there is no situation where we can’t. The psychologist Viktor Frankl illustrated this beautifuly when telling his story about his experience in a Nazi concentration camp in his book “Man’s Search for Meaning” – a brilliant read.
Bernard : You have made me quite nostalgic for those New-Age days of the ’70s. I remember ACIM very well. Been there, done that. I didn’t know it was still up and kicking. God bless the USA!
“Helen Schucman (July 14, 1909 – February 9, 1981) was an American clinical and research psychologist, from New York City. From 1958, she was a professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in New York, till her retirement in 1976 . She is best known for having “scribed” the book A Course in Miracles (1975), the contents of which were said have been given by a Voice identified by Schucman as Jesus. However, her role as its “writer” was not revealed, as per her request until her death.”
However, after that gentle attack, may I agree that our fundamental source of suffering and pain is fear. But fear of what?
Richard, I have re-read your response. And there are a couple of things that still niggle me.
1) “Your philosophy seems to be taking you on a pain-avoidance route.”
It sounds like I live a strategy of avoidance of pain. If this is your assessment I would have to disagree. My “philosophy” – as you call it – is not to AVOID pain – but to look squarely at the pain and question why I experience pain in the first place. Any experience of pain is an indication that something is wrong. It’s usually just an intense experience that I have JUDGED (or interpreted) as pain. It’s like public speaking, to some people it is painful to get up in front of a crowd and speak, to others it’s a form of validation. When I question it – in the light of truth – it is an opportunity for healing. So in a way I welcome pain – or discomfort – as an opportuinty for growth.
2) “Everyone is right according to their own context and perspective, (Wow!)” – this doesn’t mean that I agree that their context or perspective is based on truth. It only means that they have decided on the context & perspective that has given ries to their experience. And to be truly he truly helpful to them – to alleviate them from the fear that gives rise to their experience – I really need to understand and appreciate “where they are coming from”. How else can I choose the language in order to communicate effectively with them in a manner that is most helpful – and healing – for them? I first need to validate them as a person – a person (or child of God) who has the ability/power to choose or re-decide the framework of their understanding.
Bernard – points taken. 3
“Avoidance” was not a good choice of word on my part. “Pain removal” would have been better.
However, I am unable to understand: “It only means that they have decided on the context & perspective that has given rise to their experience.”
Do you believe, then, that we are free to choose and decide upon “contexts and perspectives”? I would have thought the inverse was true – that experiences fashion the context in which they occur and subsequently modify our perspectives.
No?
Richard you asked “I agree that our fundamental source of suffering and pain is fear. But fear of what?”
Ultimately it is a fear of God (Love, Truth, Joy, Peace – or any other suitable synonym to God). However, this fear is so primal, pervasive & terrifying, we have constructed an elaborate defense mechanism to keep it hidden from our awareness. So we mask it under multitudes of fears, (of separation, death, annihilation etc) and then compensate for those fears with other compensatory defenses. It just propagates into a multitude of attack/defense mechanisms. However, we can heal and be healed by denying the illusion of fear in our minds – incrementally on a moment-by-moment basis. We don’t have to tackle the whole problem all at once.
BTW interested to know more re your experience with ACIM. Did you follow through on all the lessons in the workbook? It took me 2 years to go through all the workbook lessons. I’ve been studying it fairly consistently for over 20 years now. It wasn’t my first step on my spiritual path.
You can’t please everyone, so either you’re focusing too much on getting satisfaction from outside yourself, or you’ve abandoned virtually any motivation to seek out truth but just live day to day based on gut feelings, which don’t necessarily correspond with anything like the truth.
We all have certain presuppositions, so you can’t avoid that in part, but agendas are a stronger word. An agenda for seeking out truth wherever the evidence leads objectively is hardly the same thing as trying outright to prove people wrong as a sophist would.
No one’s asking you to take a rigid position in terms of skepticism epistemologically or methodologically. There are certain things we take for granted, but we shouldn’t take them as the pure basis for truth without considering alternatives. If you abandon both your need to be right and consistent, you’ve missed the point of philosophy and truth seeking. You need to be right because you don’t want to wrong, do you? And consistency is a value as well, since it demonstrates you are not willing to bend due to outside pressure if the evidence or arguments do not hold water.
If you’re no longer willing to fight for your beliefs, then why hold them at all? You’d just be conforming to whatever someone told you and that’s little different than a cult follower mindset. Perhaps you’ll disagree with both me and Richard and Perry’s positions, but you don’t hurt our feelings unless you personally insult us as people. Disagreements about philosophy are another area entirely.
Not knowing absolutely doesn’t mean you can’t have some conclusive reasons for believing certain things are correct or false. I hate to call you lazy, but that’s the vibe you’re giving me.
muichimotsu: Lazy? Yep – you’re probably right – I’ve been accused of worse. However, I wouldn’t necessarily say that the path to truth is an easy path – it is simple but not easy. I do make an effort to be mindful of my own foibles and mistakes. I try to be disciplined in directing myself to maintain a peaceful state of mind and extending that through kindness & respect to others in my relationships.
Yes, I am willing to bend and be flexible when others have different points of view than mine. This doesn’t mean I give them power or undue influence over me, in fact I think it is empowering. My goal is the truth. No one can claim a monopoly of the truth. I share this goal with everyone else on the planet (whether they are conscious of it or not). Everyone has their own take on the truth, some of it is valid and relevant to me, sometimes it’s merely a distraction. I can be right AND I can be wrong. However my “rightness” doesn’t depend on having other people agreeing with me, so there’s no need to fight for that. My “rightness” isn’t righteousness. If there is a difference of opinion – and it’s important to resolve it – I will seek resolution – both internally within myself and externally with the other person. The resolution often involves one or both of us adopting a new perspective that transcends the level where there was once conflict. As far as consistency is concerned, I would say that consistency is an attribute of truth. My statement was about the “appearance” of consistency. I try not to make the appearance of consistency more important than consistency itself. I am quite prepared to appear inconsistent. My goal is the truth – not consistency.
Then you appear to care very much and claim that there are standards by which we can determine if something is true.
I could agree in part, but respecting people all the time even when they have demonstrably false or mistaken beliefs about things is not helping them in any way, it’s just reinforcing bad habits of thought with the illusion of civil respect. I can respect you and be civil without simply agreeing that you have your beliefs and I have mine. That’s the kind of hard relativism I despise, contrary to what many would think with me being an atheist from the generation born in the late 80s. Perhaps people born even later are thought to be more susceptible to that tendency to claim truth is relative.
There is a need to fight against those who think they have the truth and force it upon others. Utilizing force to advance peace is not contradictory any more than being polemical is contradictory to being a civil and respectful philosopher. And there is indeed a sense of relativity that exists without claiming that all truth is relative by nature.
muichimotsu: You claim “There is a need to fight against those who think they have the truth and force it upon others.” – really? Who says “there is a need”? How do you know there is such a need? When you “fight against those who think they have the truth” are you not then doing exactly the same thing as they are? The only thing that convinces people in the end is being an example. It’s not what you say, or how you say it, but how you behave and the results of your beingness and behaviour. “By their fruits you shall know them”. I try to respect people – even when they are obviously not expressing the truth – simply because they have as much right and access to it as I do. Everyone is an essential part of the truth. I try to resist the temptation to tell them they are wrong, because everyone is always right according to their perspective. My job is to discover and appreciate their perspective. It’s about being empathetic, patient, respectful and compassionate. I don’t have to agree with them.
I don’t believe truth is relative, but perception of it is highly relative. Truth is not a concept that can be defined by the human mind because the human mind did not conceive of the truth in the first place. It is beyond human conception but not beyond our experience.
“Utilizing force to advance peace” is like what the comedian George Carlin once crudely put it “Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity” I’ve found that the journey to truth is purely volitional – it’s not an imperative, there is no compulsion, duty, obligation or requirement. I’d say it has to be like this. It has it’s own rewards along the way.
I’m not saying I want to force people. Perhaps I didn’t communicate it well enough. Truth ought to be something that is not just taken for granted, but defended in the face of mistaken beliefs. If someone tells me they genuinely believe that the earth is 6000 years old, it is my obligation to point out that this is not the case, if only because it is preferable to believe things that are true than to believe misguided things that could be discarded and replaced with superior beliefs that are demonstrably true.
Truth is conceived of by the human mind, but it can’t be appropriated as something tangible or absolutely rigid and inflexible in its iteration.
Just because someone believes something is right according to their perspective doesn’t make it right and to just accept that borders on a kind of truth relativism where you just let people believe things you could show to be false through Socratic method, let alone other methods.
Making peace admittedly shouldn’t have to use force, but it isn’t always a matter of choice. Sometimes you are compelled by people’s blatant ignorance of constitutional principles in the U.S., for instance and must fight against their ignorance, if only through legal force, not through physical force at all. People might still persist in believing their nonsense, but they have to understand they cannot and will not force me or other nonbelievers of their faith to let them exist in a privileged state. That is where my activism stems from: we all deserve to seek out truth without any extension of a government favoring or endorsing any religion of any form, majority or otherwise.
I find it refreshing to read your point of view, bernard. I hold a simmilar stance when it comes to truth seeking.
All our efforts at debating will always ammount to pure vanity. We cannot change truth… we can only explore it. Truth trumps all our logic and rhetoric.
muichimotsu,
If he indeed shares my view of truth…
This is not relativism. Truth is absolute. (Sure.. things always have a relative significance to other things… but raw truth itself is not relative)
Truth will be truth inspite of what I believe and inspite of the outcome of our debates.
To give a more concrete example..
If the truth is that God does not exist, it doesnt matter wether I am capable of proving His existance or not… God will continue NOT to exist. It doesnt matter wether I convince you He does or not. All our debate is essencially pointless because if God indeed does not exist, He will continue NOT to exist! Truth doesnt need defending.
All we can do is seek truth, and the only reasonable posture when you are trying to seek truth is to have an open mind; because if you don’t have an open mind you’re not really seeking truth AT ALL! You are seeking to be right.
Another thing we have to factor in to the equation is our huge potential for failure. We always have the potential for being wrong.
Couple the fact that truth doesnt need defending with the fact that we are capable of error and what you get from that is an imperative need for mutual respect, open-mindedness, and honesty.
And again, this open-mindedness is not relativism. What open-mindedness is is simply lossening your grip from your beliefs.
Just a quick clarification, I distinguish between hard and soft relativism. The former is simply a recognition that we’re all limited in our knowledge and ability to approach things. Hard relativism would be a more metaphysical or claim about truth that things are relative regardless of belief to the contrary, which is not what I believe at all. The methodological stance is what anthropologists use, not to mention myself in a sense. I might personally disagree with Martin Luther or Augustine of Hippo, but I can read without my brackets for a time in order to understand their beliefs as a student of religious studies.
I’d consider myself a contextualist of sorts, perhaps. Or there’s perspectivism. If nothing else, I don’t consider myself a moral relativist either, except in the soft sense that we all come with preconceptions about morality. Maybe I’m a moral perspectivist or contextualist a bit.
The difference between open minded relativism and open minded skepticism is gullibility.
muichimotsu,
You know what?
I think in the end we all share a simmilar stance. The difference reallies only on emphasis.
When I engage on a discussion, I dont mean to simply accept the other person’s opinion (maybe I differ slightly from bernard in this respect?), but the thing is, I can’t just throw off the other person’s opinion either.
I believe I share bernard’s emphasis on our relation to truth. We all know we can’t know everything, but I put a greater emphasis on that. Ofcourse we use arguments and we want to get somewhere, but getting somewhere is not important if that somewhere is not truth.. so we have to be careful how we proceed on our quest.
Gabriel : Like many others, you have inadvertently fallen into the trap that you set yourself.
You talk about loosening your grip on your beliefs, but are you open to the possibility of loosening YOUR belief in “an imperative need for mutual respect, open-mindedness, and honesty.”?
Or your belief that: “All we can do is seek truth, and the only reasonable posture when you are trying to seek truth is to have an open mind”?
Even Richard Dawkins recognised the importance of be able to distinguish between an open mind and an empty head.
We all have beliefs which are “sticky”, which we would not be prepared to loosen our grips on.
In your post you are declaring your “articles of faith” as resolutely as any theist. I believe you are right to do so, but it does make a discussion with you rather like a bout of shadow-boxing!
Richard,
This is not really a trap.
I am willing to loosen my grip on these beliefs, but by loosening my grip on these beliefs I am essencially condining with them. You see? By letting go of something I am letting go of something.
If I say “Maybe I’m wrong” there’s no way I could say “Maybe I’m wrong of being wrong” because that would be saying Exactly the same thing.
The key word here is the MAYBE.
You can think of it this way:
If I said “There’s no absolute truth” Then I would have to apply that statement to that very statement and by doing so I would be contradicting the very statement.
But If I say “I could be wrong” Then I would have to apply this statement to that very statement but that would not be contradicting the statement, that would be simply reaffirming the statement.
Because:
1)If there is no absolute truth
2)And This statement is not absolute
_____________________________
Then there MIGHT be an absolute truth!
BUUTTTT
1)If I could be wrong
2)And If I could be wrong about being wrong…
_____________________________
3)Then I could be wrong!
You see?
And here’s the thing: Im not saying we cannot know truth.
I don’t mean to say we should not argue.. I argue all the time!
We should use logic.
What I mean to say is: we should not defend anything. Maybe we will argue “in defense” of something, but by arguing in defense of something my purpose should not be defending this something, it should be SOLELY the seeking of truth (presuming my objective is to know truth and not to create an illusion for myself).
So to put it in a more roughly sylogistic form:
1) I want to know truth
2) There is the POSSIBILITY of me lacking important information concerning truth
3) Even if I have the correct information, there is the POSSIBILITY of me making incorect inferences from the information I hold
4) Truth will continue to be truth inspite of my opinions or the opinions of others. Our rhetoric can never ever change truth.
____________________________
Therefore, I have to be:
1) FULLY HONEST
2) Respectful (By being respectful I am recognizing my condition of limitness; by recognizing my condition of limitness I am enhancing my chances of finding truth)
3) Be willing to evaluate everything equaly (this is what I mean by open-mindedness)
* * * * *
* * * * *
Its alo important to note that the possibility of being wrong can only be used when we are discussing the act of discussion or when we are discussing epistemology or something related to these things… You can never use the “You might be wrong” in an argument about anything else because that would eventually lead to a non-sequitor.
* * * *
I AM a Theist by the way… But I cannot defend God.
If God exists, then I should let go of my belief in Him and defend TRUTH, if He exists, my defense of TRUTH will be a defense of him.
If God does not exist, then I should also let go of my belief in Him and defend TRUTH, because if He does not exist then I should not defend his belief in the first place because its false.
One way or the other, I have to loosen my grip of my belief and defend truth.
When I use CAPITAL LETTERS I really mean to use ITALICS or BOLD but there is no italics here…
I don’t mean to give the sensation of shouting, I just want to give emphasis =/
Everyone here who has not lost a physical limb or your head …
God does not restore you to your original condition. He restores you to his original intention.
Two notes for Fred:
One, the earliest Christian writings were not 50 years after Christ. A.D. means “in the year of our Lord” The earliest Christian writings were written about 50 A.D. That would put their writing about 20 after Jesus’ ascension. True, that is a long time, but less than half of what you are suggesting.
Secondly, Christian scriptures of Jesus’ teachings tell us that Satan will indeed be punished. Jesus said that the “everlasting fire” is prepared for the devil and his angels. Also in the book of Revelation, it says, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
“Two notes for Fred:
One, the earliest Christian writings were not 50 years after Christ. A.D. means “in the year of our Lord” The earliest Christian writings were written about 50 A.D. That would put their writing about 20 after Jesus’ ascension. True, that is a long time, but less than half of what you are suggesting.”
It is a long time. 20 years goes by and no one writes a thing about the son of god. More people wrote about Ronald Reagan that Jesus after they both died.
“Secondly, Christian scriptures of Jesus’ teachings tell us that Satan will indeed be punished. Jesus said that the “everlasting fire” is prepared for the devil and his angels. Also in the book of Revelation, it says, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Why doesn’t god forgive satan?
Why did god punish the serpent?
Why did god punish Eve when we all know that satan is powerful enough to make anything do his bidding if that is what he wishes?
The Fall story would have been FAR more compelling if they’d have left Satan out of it.
Uh huh…
Dr Marco Biagini scientist indicates the immaterial activities we possess such as thinking, defining can be shown to be activities impossible to derive from our material body.
He claims mathmatic formulas back his conclusion. He concludes this immaterial activity is accomplished by an immaterial or spiritual entity called the soul. He concludes since the soul is found by examining immaterial functions of humans that science can prove mathmatically the impossiblity of the material body being capable of immaterial activities so the soul
comes from an immatrial or spiritual source namely God.
So by examining ourselves we can prove we have a soul and conclude a spiritual entity God
created the soul.This conclusion can be backed by scientific mathematical analysis. The material body is incapable of immaterial activities such as thinking, having ideas etc.
I am glad to see another testimonial (I have my own testimonial too). Truly, you cannot love if you didn’t receive love before. It is a psychological issue (You can prove it in a scientific manner also!!!). “We love because he first loved us”. So, the world truly felt love just 2,000 years ago (It’s totally undeniable).
Jesus have so many witnesses in this world! It is wonderful! For Him all the Glory forever! Amem!