Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Faith.... We have nothing but "faith" to believe in anything. Why? Because if we assume there is an objective reality, there is only one way in which we can pretend to know anything about it, and do so subjectively.

Because of this dualistic nature of reality, we should no longer think of things in linear terms, but instead come to realize that dynamic terms are the better description of how reality works.. even by it's own nature. Life does not occur in the vacuum of intellectualism.

Anyway, all we have is faith. I have faith, for example, that the Earth's gravity is holding me to this planet. While there is a great deal of evidence that the theory of gravity is true, at the end of the day, I can only be reasonably certain (have faith) that it is gravity holding me down and not something else. Gravity may or may not exist in objective reality. I can never know for sure.

 

[Brewtus]

Faith....
Anyway, all we have is faith. I have faith, for example, that the Earth's gravity is holding me to this planet. While there is a great deal of evidence that the theory of gravity is true, at the end of the day, I can only be reasonably certain (have faith) that it is gravity holding me down and not something else. Gravity may or may not exist in objective reality. I can never know for sure.

The issue of faith has been discussed elsewhere on this board and I have argued that what you're describing is "belief", not "faith". You believe in gravity because there is evidence that it exists the way you described. When knowledge, facts and evidence have been gathered you then believe something to be true, you don't have faith that it is.

Faith is strong belief in something without evidence or reason (in accordance with rationality and logic). Faith in something (i.e. God) is not dependent on science or facts. There is no amount of evidence that could be provided to a fundamentalist Christian who has faith that the universe is 6,000 years old that would make them think otherwise.

Beliefs can sometimes be wrong or modified when new evidence emerges. But faith in something can never be determined with any kind of certainty.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The issue of faith has been discussed elsewhere on this board and I have argued that what you're describing is "belief", not "faith". You believe in gravity because there is evidence that it exists the way you described. When knowledge, facts and evidence have been gathered you then believe something to be true, you don't have faith that it is.

Faith is strong belief in something without evidence or reason (in accordance with rationality and logic). Faith in something (i.e. God) is not dependent on science or facts. There is no amount of evidence that could be provided to a fundamentalist Christian who has faith that the universe is 6,000 years old that would make them think otherwise.

Beliefs can sometimes be wrong or modified when new evidence emerges. But faith in something can never be determined with any kind of certainty.

I understand the distinction you're making here as between Faith and Belief. So, I guess you may substitute 'belief' for what I called faith earlier. In the case that Gator was talking about Faith as you've defined it (which seems a perfectly acceptable defintion) then I would say also it's a pretty piss-poor reason to believe anything.

 

[Gatorubet]

Faith.... We have nothing but "faith" to believe in anything. Why? Because if we assume there is an objective reality, there is only one way in which we can pretend to know anything about it, and do so subjectively.

Because of this dualistic nature of reality, we should no longer think of things in linear terms, but instead come to realize that dynamic terms are the better description of how reality works.. even by it's own nature. Life does not occur in the vacuum of intellectualism.

Anyway, all we have is faith. I have faith, for example, that the Earth's gravity is holding me to this planet. While there is a great deal of evidence that the theory of gravity is true, at the end of the day, I can only be reasonably certain (have faith) that it is gravity holding me down and not something else. Gravity may or may not exist in objective reality. I can never know for sure.

Well, define faith....NO WAIT!!!!!

BK, what I mean is, I could say that I am the only one to believe, I am the spiritual leader that all men have been waiting for. That alone is not sufficient to put your faith in me. If I had ten prior bunko convictions, it would be less likely. If I based my ministry on the fact that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the earth, you could determine the falicy of that principle, and so disregard my other claims.

So there is some level of intellectual discernment that comes into play. As to the ultimate questions of who created the universe and why are we here, well pure fact checking is impossible, and human intellect is ill-suited to prove an iron clad answer. But saying "I believe X" in the face of evidence to the contrary, because one relies on "faith", seems to be the least satisfactory response.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yeah, I would agree with that. Once Brew corrected my use of faith to belief, I figured it'd be clear I was agreeing with you to the extent that Faith is a pretty lousy reason to believe anything.

Might as well believe David Blaine is really able to perform honest to God magic and not just illusions.

 

[Brewtus]

Yeah, I would agree with that. Once Brew corrected my use of faith to belief, I figured it'd be clear I was agreeing with you to the extent that Faith is a pretty lousy reason to believe anything.

Might as well believe David Blaine is really able to perform honest to God magic and not just illusions.

Which is the reason why there are hundreds of religions around the world, each having equal faith that their god(s) is the one, true divine being of the universe. There is no corrective mechanism inherent in faith that can help one determine reality from self-delusion.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Yeah, I would agree with that. Once Brew corrected my use of faith to belief, I figured it'd be clear I was agreeing with you to the extent that Faith is a pretty lousy reason to believe anything.

Yet it is all we have.

Ultimately, Brewtus' distinction between belief and faith is meaningless--even though I agree with him that you believe in gravity rather than having faith in it.

Every faith uses the things which Brewtus claims only belong to belief. Things like knowledge, facts, evidence, rationality, and logic are not the sole position of any particular view. Nor do they provide a specific point of view in themselves. Interpretation of knowledge, facts, and evidence is all we have, and that is faith. Rationality and logic is determined by the interal consistency of a particular faith, there is no definitive statement of them as asserted by Brewtus' distiction.

For example, in his claim that it is faith alone by which a person like myself accepts that the world is only 6000 years old. That is not correct, because it is a belief (i.e. thing held to be true) based upon my faith (i.e. interpretation of reality).

Furthermore, the unspoken, but implied statement of his example is that the world being billions of years old is not faith, but belief. This would be incorrect for it is based upon a faith equal to my own. We both have facts, knowledge, and evidence to support our faiths--in fact they are the exact same set of facts, knoweldege, and evidence. We simply have different interepretations (i.e. faiths) of them. As for rationality and logic, they can serve either interpretation. To claim they only exist for one interpretation is merely a failure to look outside of one's own cultural paradigm.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I suppose that's the reason why I use the terms faith and belief interchangeably (at least in the context I was using it above), Grad.

There is no corrective mechanism inherent in faith that can help one determine reality from self-delusion.

There is likewise no corrective mechanism inherent in belief or even science which would help one determine reality from self-delusion. These, in my view, are the "Drawbacks" of our inability to appreciate objective reality beyond the subjective. That is, at the end of the day, if you really break it down all you can say is "Well, I have a really sensible theory here. Seems to make sense, and I believe it's true. But, is reality this way?" On this final question, we can only hope to be "very sure" but can never be certain.

More reason for me to believe the best way to look at reality is by viewing things dynamically and not linear. It makes sense to me to approach reality on the same terms as which it appears to work, and not on terms which only approximate it (linear). The illustration I use here is sending spacecraft to Jupiter. Some time ago, and I forget the exact craft (Galileo, maybe?) the NASA guys were patting themselves on the back for missing the precise spot they predicted via their linear calculations by some small margin... say 30 miles. That, considering the time and distance involved is indeed quite an accomplishment. But.. lost in the achievement is that we didn't hit EXACTLY where we thought we would... functionally close, for sure.... but not exact. And why not? Well, the math occurred in a "vacuum" It didn't consider the real world (space) variables necessary to obtain an exact 1:1 result. The math wasn't wrong, it just wasn't the right math, in that it didn't account for reality correctly - only approximately.

Things like Logic, Mathematics.... these things work in intellectual vacuums, and do not describe reality in a 1:1 manner. And, I should note, even when they do elicit a 1:1 description, it's still dynamic, since a 1:1 correlation would simply be a result in the dynamic view of reality, where as anything but a 1:1 correlation is either "Right" or "Wrong" in a linear view... In my view there are degrees of right.. or, better said, there is only probability (a 1:1 probability is simply a certain kind of probability which happens to be 1:1... make sense?). At least as far as this particular universe is concerned... in the metaverse there is nothing but everything. That is, every possible result occurs, and the question "Did event X happen" has no meaning, because it did (in the universes that it happened) and it did not, in those universe that it did not happen in. P = NotP is true because P and NotP are the same statement.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

At the risk of a thread jack, I'm going to elaborate on how P = Not P can be a true statement in the real universe (metaverse), even though it appears by simple logic to be an incorrect (impossible) statement.

This comes from a longer thought I had on Free Will v. Omniscience as I mentioned I've been thinking about a lot recently. Skipping a great deal of stuff not important here....

It comes down to this - is there any support for the thought that we can contain infinity - that is - is it even possible that an exterior observer could evaluate an infinity of events? Answer: Yes

The Koch snowflake (Koch Curve, actually):

The lesser known Koch curve is the same as the snowflake, except it starts with a line segment instead of an equilateral triangle. The Koch curve is a special case of the de Rham curve. One can imagine that it was created by starting with a line segment, then recursively altering each line segment as follows:

1. divide the line segment into three segments of equal length.
2. draw an equilateral triangle that has the middle segment from step 1 as its base.
3. remove the line segment that is the base of the triangle from step 2.

After doing this once the result should be a shape similar to the Star of David.
The Koch curve is the limit approached as the above steps are followed over and over again.

Wiki Link Now, if you do this, having drawn a circle around the original triangle, you will find that you have a line of infinite length that never breeches the walls of the circle drawn around the original triangle.

The preceding does not lead to the conclusion: C - therefore God exists. Just that God remains "possible" in the question of whether an observer could appreciate infinity. The preceding, likewise, is a result of looking at the world in a dynamic rather than linear manner (least in so far as I am intending the terms - which I'm not quite in a position to fully identify yet).

OK, so it's possible.... Is there any support in reality for the existence of a metaverse where every possible universe, having every possible event occur (with respect to choice A and B, I choose A here, and B in some other universe (enter the idea of P = notP)? Answer: Yes. M-Theory.

Thus, if M-Theory is true with respect to the objective nature of reality, then P = not P is true in the metaverse sense as both statements P and Not P are true and are the same statement. Did BKB choose A over B? Yes. Did BKB choose B over A? Yes. Or, if you prefer: Did BKB choose P over NotP? Yes. Did BKB choose NotP over P? Yes.

Again, this does not end in the conclusion: Therefore God exists, and I do not mean it to be taken as such. It does end with the conclusion, God is not rendered impossible. Since I begin with the assertion that God Is (though I hold it's equally as valid to begin "God is Not" (Afterall, it's the same remark)) it's one less step for me... (And on this, I would say "faith" and "belief" become the same thing, in as much as I'm making an assumption (God is possible) and in as much as I have support - reason - to "believe" rather than simply have "faith").

On the "Does God Exist" Question, I must confess, I've not yet been able to do better than say "he's possible" and that I have "faith" that he does. However, if I ever come across a thing which I know to be real - or at least subjectively know to be real - in the objective universe that's existence means God is impossible, I will have some choices to make:
A) Reject reality (something I think a lot of Religions do when faced with the question (ie believe in things like miracles)
B) Reject what I think I know about reality, and refine it consistent with God - if possible.
C) Reject God (Something I think a lot of people do when faced with this question (ie become atheists)
D) Reject what I think I know about God and refine it consistent with reality - if possible

On this, I guess I'm not sure what tact I'd take, but I'm pretty sure I'd do B to the extent it is possible. But, if after several trials I'm left with the result Either Reality is impossible or God is, I have to discard God, because I can see reality, I know it's here.... even if I'm just a brain in a vat. The way I see it, I must accept reality... but, not everyone sees it that way, I guess.

Incidentally, if it's not obvious by the above - if there is an observer (God) I can choose A here, of my own free will, and God can be omniscient because he knows I actually chose both. True it's only the illusion of free will in the metaverse sense... but, so what? I can only ever be aware of this universe and the illusion sure does "act" like pure free will.... and.... whoever said we have free will anyway? Even if I only have the illusion of free will, my reality doesn't change in the least.

 

[buckeyegrad]

What is this fantasy world(s) you call a metaverse? Can you physically show me such a place? Do elves and hobbits live there? Is it like Narnia? :tongue2:

On a more serious note BKB, it seems to me that the idea of a metaverse is merely a construction of the human mind to deal with what we don't yet know. Unless it is something else, why do you place so much faith in the existence of parallel universes (wow, is it just me or is that an oxymoron?)? After all, you can't provide any evidence of its existence other than mathematical equations, can you? How do you reconcile belief in the metaverse as more justifiable or acceptable than belief in the resurrection of an individual?


Another question I have for you is how does your faith address the idea of human responsibility for one's actions. I guess what I mean by this is that since you see all things as just is, there being no difference between good and evil, what is and what is not, etc, then on a day-by-day basis how due to operationally live this faith? I assume you agree there should be some restrictions on human behavior, for example, I shouldn't be allowed to bust your knee caps with a bat without being punished for doing so. Yet, in your faith as I understand it, it really doesn't matter if I physically harm you since in another world I have not done so. I don't know if I am asking this right, so maybe the most blunt way of asking my question would be the best: how do you operationally live your faith each day without being a hypocrit to it?

 

[Gatorubet]

Incidentally, if it's not obvious by the above - if there is an observer (God) I can choose A here, of my own free will, and God can be omniscient because he knows I actually chose both. True it's only the illusion of free will in the metaverse sense... but, so what? I can only ever be aware of this universe and the illusion sure does "act" like pure free will.... and.... whoever said we have free will anyway? Even if I only have the illusion of free will, my reality doesn't change in the least.

Dangerously close to Double Election

The TULIP of Calvinism

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What is this fantasy world(s) you call a metaverse? Can you physically show me such a place? Do elves and hobbits live there? Is it like Narnia? :tongue2:

On a more serious note BKB, it seems to me that the idea of a metaverse is merely a construction of the human mind to deal with what we don't yet know. Unless it is something else, why do you place so much faith in the existence of parallel universes (wow, is it just me or is that an oxymoron?)? After all, you can't provide any evidence of its existence other than mathematical equations, can you? How do you reconcile belief in the metaverse as more justifiable or acceptable than belief in the resurrection of an individual?

By keeping as current as I can on what physicists say is how the universe began. It's true I can't provide anything other than mathematical equations (actually, being a math idiot, I can't even provide those). But, in as much as those theories are how science is establishing how the universe began from a "scientific method" perspective, and in as much as it is my "fall back" to trust people who have devoted their lives to uncovering what I'll loosely call "truths" about the universe (to the extent they are consistent - that is, I don't blindly trust - or try not to), I defer to them on these issue which I am not educated enough in the discipline to truly reject. So... if the current mode of thought is that universes are created when Membranes of some kind smash in to eachother.. if this "theory of everything" as they like to call it - explains how we have quarks and other building blocks for larger things like Atoms, and elements and so on.. then... I say "OK... But.. is God still possible?" And, as I have attempted to show above, the answer is yes. So, I am keeping my religious faith consistent with reality (or trying to)

I reconcile the belief in a metaverse against a resurrection quite easily. A) I have been shown to my satisfaction that the metaverse is "real" in that the existence of it provides for the existence of the reality that I see around me. Yes, it's true it is merely a theory... but one that makes sense to me. Conversely, I have no experience with people being resurrected.. to the contrary, every person I am aware of who has died, has indeed stayed dead. The metaverse makes sense, in that it provides for "reality" to my satisfaction and does not kill God. Resurrection does not make sense in reality to my satisfaction because it provides nothing beyond itself, and I have never had occasion to witness it even being possible. The metaverse IS possible. Resurrection, so far as I can tell with my 36 years of information, is not. It's really just that simple. (edit: there was supposed to be a B, but it left my mind before I got to it... so it seems) Edit, edit: I think "B" was going to be, the metaverse provides for the existence of this universe in a structured way without appeals to any kinds of godmagic. It looks like creation. That is, when I make something and I paint it blue, I can't wave a magic wand and make it green instead. I don't believe God is so inept at molding his creation that he has to rely on things that defy the very rules he created in the first place. It takes "power" away from God to rely on his making miracles, because it means the guy can't figure out how to do it any other way than to defy the very rules he decided where the right ones to get the job done in the first place.

So, I guess I would say, until you can show me - that is for me to physically witness myself - a resurrection, I must continue to believe that reality does not provide for resurrection (in this particular universe, anyway (the irony is, some other universe might well have resurrection (and probably does) leading me to the belief -as I have stated many times before, we're both right for believing whatever we believe, because everything that can happen, does.. at least in my way of thinking. In yours, there is only one way things can happen. Mine - dynamic as it is - provides a better model of reality because reality is in fact dynamic (objective and subjective) not linear.) As I said in parens, though, it doesnt much matter... Jesus -if resurrection is possible - probably was resurrected. But, in my understanding of the universe I know before me (not the 'metaverse') Resurrection does not appear possible.. if it did, it should happen with some regularity. Anyway.... my theory also provides that it might only happen one time in one universe... so it may well have happened here.... but... I'm not required to believe it. Keep in mind, I reject the god described in the Bible as described in the Bible literally, so appeals to the consequences of my decision to not believe this is a universe where Jesus was resurrected via the Bible are at this point on deaf ears. You're of course welcome to your beliefs, all I would ask is that I be welcome to mine.

Another question I have for you is how does your faith address the idea of human responsibility for one's actions. I guess what I mean by this is that since you see all things as just is, there being no difference between good and evil, what is and what is not, etc, then on a day-by-day basis how due to operationally live this faith? I assume you agree there should be some restrictions on human behavior, for example, I shouldn't be allowed to bust your knee caps with a bat without being punished for doing so. Yet, in your faith as I understand it, it really doesn't matter if I physically harm you since in another world I have not done so. I don't know if I am asking this right, so maybe the most blunt way of asking my question would be the best: how do you operationally live your faith each day without being a hypocrit to it?

I make decisions about how I like to be treated and what I think is important or acceptable. I think of how my actions have consequences in the world, and I derive what you'd call my morality from how I feel like acting... what makes me feel good. So, if busting kneecaps made me feel good, it is what I would do. But, what makes me feel good, is not busting knee caps. Happily, I don't get arrested for assault because of this decision. Morality, to me, is the foundation for law and organized society. It is a creation of man to control man.. that's not to be read as a bad thing (I don't believe in bad, remember) just it is what it is. I might use the term "social contract" but I'm not sure if that has quite the same meaning to you as it does me.... but I see Morality as a social contract. So, yes, I agree there should be some restrictions on human behavior... but not because there HAS to be, only because I choose to think that it is "best" for us as a whole, right now. But.. if you busted my knee caps, I wouldn't much care. I mean on a metaphysical level. That doesn't mean I'm not human myself... I'd probably sue the shit out of you But... metaphysically, it doesn't matter what you do to me.

There is no hypocrisy in making a decision of what I want to do, how I want to live life... how I view what is acceptable or not. And, even if it was, I don't have any other choice anyway but to make decisions on how to live my life, so it's a question without consequence. I just feel that I'm a "good" person anyway, and I don't need the fear of hell or any such nonsense to keep me "right" on how I deal with those around me.

I operationally live by this 'faith' because there isn't anything else before me. I can't do anything else but live.. decide... learn... But, I don't need stories of all powerful Gods being pleased to justify what I personally think is how we should live life. I don't need the fire of hell hanging over me to keep me from committing murder. I have simply decided these things (like murder) aren't for me, and actually, I'll take it farther and say I personally thing their stupid to do... in this reality.. under this social contract... but metaphysically... it makes no difference.

Remember... in my way of thinking, I'm also a stone cold killer in some other universe... I choose to do precisely everything I could ever do... and why? Because it is my contention the "meaning of life" is to learn everything you possibly can about God... and in order to do that, we have no choice but to do so subjectively... To know what it feels like to kill, I must kill. But, I only do that in universes where it's acceptable under whatever social contract is there.. here? I don't wanna kill because I don't like the man made consequences..it's not a sensible thing to do here, when I can feel it somewhere else.

Edit: AS I can see on a re-read, I need to do a better job of separating what is my human nature, from what is my metaphysical nature.... I'm not good yet at discerning the two when I talk about this stuff.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I should also say, I'm not real clear on when these things occur.. that is, what is above reads (to me) as if when I choose A here, I choose B somewhere else simultaneously.... and I am not sure that's the case. In fact, I think it's not the case, but I haven't thought it through well enough to state my position, yet.

Likewise, as I said in my edit - I have a hard time keeping my human nature apart from my metaphysical nature since it only recently occurred to me that there was this distinction (in a real sense).

So... still lots of work to do on this particular problem. But, I've got plenty of time. Being that I believe in an afterlife, and all.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Upon some more thinking..... morality provides a bigger hurdle for me than I've given it credit. Gotta think a lot more about it, and the consequences.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I reconcile the belief in a metaverse against a resurrection quite easily. A) I have been shown to my satisfaction that the metaverse is "real" in that the existence of it provides for the existence of the reality that I see around me. Yes, it's true it is merely a theory... but one that makes sense to me. Conversely, I have no experience with people being resurrected.. to the contrary, every person I am aware of who has died, has indeed stayed dead. The metaverse makes sense, in that it provides for "reality" to my satisfaction and does not kill God. Resurrection does not make sense in reality to my satisfaction because it provides nothing beyond itself, and I have never had occasion to witness it even being possible. The metaverse IS possible. Resurrection, so far as I can tell with my 36 years of information, is not. It's really just that simple. (edit: there was supposed to be a B, but it left my mind before I got to it... so it seems)

Interesting. I guess I see things exactly the opposite. For me reality seems to suggest not only that resurrection is possible, but that it should be expected. Having grown up on a farm, I know that life constantly springs from death. The outer shell of the seeds we plant in the ground dies so that new life may come forth. The herbaceous perennials in front of my house die back every autumn only for new life to come forth again in the spring. This is how I conceive of the ressurrection. Our bodies as our outer shells perish, but life remains in the spirit until the day appointed by God when a new physical life will spring forth. To believe that Jesus' (as God incarnate) day of resurrection was different than the rest of humanity is not that great of a stretch as He is part of the first fruits harvest in the spring, whereas the rest of us will be part of the fall harvest. Hence, having never witnessed a human resurrection in my 31 years of existence means little as the timing isn't right.

On the other hand, the existence of other universes only fits into my reality as a construction of human thought. I was joking asking you if Middle Earth or Narnia were other universes, but that is because this is how I classify the idea of a multiverse. For me it is nothing more than part of the mythology of evolutionary naturalism--and I do believe every paradigm holds a mythology, even nontheistic ones. Granted, I conceive all myths to contain a shard of fractured truth, but ultimately they are incomplete and muddied with a lot of human creations (i.e. subjective realities), rather than representative of God's complete creation (true reality). Hence, the only place I have seen in my life or in the study of history that would suggest the existence of other universes as a possibility is in mythology.

Edit, edit: I think "B" was going to be, the metaverse provides for the existence of this universe in a structured way without appeals to any kinds of godmagic. It looks like creation. That is, when I make something and I paint it blue, I can't wave a magic wand and make it green instead. I don't believe God is so inept at molding his creation that he has to rely on things that defy the very rules he created in the first place. It takes "power" away from God to rely on his making miracles, because it means the guy can't figure out how to do it any other way than to defy the very rules he decided where the right ones to get the job done in the first place.

Of course, as you know, what you consider "godmagic" I consider to be the natural workings of the universe. There is no violation of natural laws simply because God either directly wills or indirectly allows something different than our common expectations to occur (at least this is what I would call miracle, you may be using a different definition).

This is where Hume's critique of cause and effect comes into play for me. Hume argued that cause and effect are merely constructions based upon our common experiences with the natural word, and as such proof of X actually causing Y can never be definitively proven for there may be something in reality that no one has ever experienced. For example, most people believe if boiling water is thrown on them it will cause pain. Now granted this is what I would also expect for it is my common experience; however, I have had one non-common experience of having boiling water thrown on me in which zero pain happened, so if it happened again I would not be surprised. This was when my high school chemistry teacher began to vacuum out the air over a beaker of water so as to cause it to boil by changing the air pressure rather than the temperature. He then quickly threw the water on those of us sitting in the front row for a good laugh. From our common experience we all flinched and expected burning pain to pursue even though intellectually we knew and understood what he had done. Anyway, I don't think it is correct to say God is violating his own laws when a miracle occurs. Rather He is simply acting in a natural, though uncommon means.

Tolkien represents this point well in Lord of the Rings through the interaction of hobbits and elves. The hobbits believed the elves practiced magic becaue they were able to do things that were uncommon to the hobbits' experiences. However, the elves do not understand what the hobbits mean by calling it magic, since the acts they perform are part of their natural abilities and are common to their experience.