Religion

[arfurclue]

Likewise.

It was meant to succinctly provide a picture. You may see a different picture than I tried to portray. Maybe that’s a failure on my part. Or, maybe on yours.

Have you considered the idea that faith is just about being open to the possibility that there is something beyond what one currently believes? Or the possibility that what is often called a strong mind is but the flip side of a weak mind - if you try to hold onto one, you get to hold onto the other. And that if ideas such as the doors of perception have any value, then we may see reality/truth through this conflict of strong/weak mind - only when willing to let go of both do we see more clearly. So are you 100% sure that you read, eg, the bible for what it is? Am not so much trying to say what is right or wrong for you, or even in the bible - I am questioning whether there is even the slightest space to discuss whether your conclusions may be entirely true or not.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Have you considered the idea that faith is just about being open to the possibility that there is something beyond what one currently believes? Or the possibility that what is often called a strong mind is but the flip side of a weak mind - if you try to hold onto one, you get to hold onto the other. And that if ideas such as the doors of perception have any value, then we may see reality/truth through this conflict of strong/weak mind - only when willing to let go of both do we see more clearly. So are you 100% sure that you read, eg, the bible for what it is? Am not so much trying to say what is right or wrong for you, or even in the bible - I am questioning whether there is even the slightest space to discuss whether your conclusions may be entirely true or not.

I believe - as I infer does C.Blue - in the scientific method. Things are probably true, or not, based on observed facts and evidence.

As for your "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception" - might I interest you in the being know as "Ceiling Cat"? CC has every bit as much going for him (her?/it?) as does your supreme being(s) so long as you suspend plausibility and appeal instead to "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception."

If you regard CC as fatuous -fair point. But what about Roman/Greek/Aztec/Egyptian/Buddhist and so on and on - religions? All without any basis in observed fact - and each with a supreme being or beings in which to believe. Ceiling Cat is no different than those or yours.

 

[arfurclue]

I believe - as I infer does C.Blue - in the scientific method. Things are probably true, or not, based on observed facts and evidence.

As for your "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception" - might I interest you in the being know as "Ceiling Cat"? CC has every bit as much going for him (her?/it?) as does your supreme being so long as you suspend credence and appeal instead to "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception."

If you regard CC as fatuous - OK. Fair point. But what about Roman/Greek/Aztec/Egyptian/Buddhist and so on and on - beliefs. All without any basis on observed fact and evidence - and each with a supreme being or beings in which to believe. Ceiling Cat is no different than those or yours.

And the question would still remain as to what you are observing through - ie if you are looking through the filter of mind that contains misperceptions, then is what you see really the ultimate truth or would it be more a step along the way? In this way, there is the possibility that as humanity comes to let go of misperceptions, it will come closer to true perceptions in such a way that breakthroughs can occur in the likes of science, medicine, technology but also in societal norms of behaviour. Indeed, might it even be possible that the scientific method itself might evolve?

 

[tonea2003]

I don’t agree with your 2nd paragraph.

It has certainly been used for that, both by the church and kings/queens/governments etc. but this originally started as a small sect or cult following that was a million miles from power and didn’t seek to overthrow the Roman or Jewish authorities.

Regarding timing, Luke states to begin with and is honest that he’s copied from other documents that came well before his. Paul writes in about 50-55AD to a church to follow the “scripture” he’s given them in reference to Jesus. I think there were documents floating around just after the fact.

The thing that makes it hardest to believe is obviously the miracles and supernatural events but also some of the inconsistencies.

the thing that interests me is marks sources as he is the first, oral tradition, pauls letters??
he is not local as his knowledge of the local geography is suspect.

 

[Octavian]

I believe - as I infer does C.Blue - in the scientific method. Things are probably true, or not, based on observed facts and evidence.

As for your "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception" - might I interest you in the being know as "Ceiling Cat"? CC has every bit as much going for him (her?/it?) as does your supreme being(s) so long as you suspend plausibility and appeal instead to "faith" and "open mind" and "doors of perception."

If you regard CC as fatuous -fair point. But what about Roman/Greek/Aztec/Egyptian/Buddhist and so on and on - religions? All without any basis in observed fact - and each with a supreme being or beings in which to believe. Ceiling Cat is no different than those or yours.

Using the scientific method we know that Jesus and Muhammad both almost certainly existed, the latter is more confirmed but the former isn’t even debated now among mainstream scholars.

We know that Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods were used to explain very regular celestial movements that we now can explain via quantum mechanics.

Buddhism isn’t really a theism as such so I don’t think you can put it in the same box as all of the above.

With this in mind, and the verification of the two holy people being so central to Christianity and Islam, I would say that if… and it’s the biggest if in the world… that there is a God and one belief system we have on earth is true (which is a huge if as well on its own), then I would say these two religions are the likeliest to be true, out of the lot you’ve mentioned… and probably many others.

My personal belief is that it’s either no god, one of these two or deism… and I think point 1 and 4 are much more believable on paper.

 

[arfurclue]

Using the scientific method we know that Jesus and Muhammad both almost certainly existed, the latter is more confirmed but the former isn’t even debated now among mainstream scholars.

We know that Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods were used to explain very regular celestial movements that we now can explain via quantum mechanics.

Buddhism isn’t really a theism as such so I don’t think you can put it in the same box as all of the above.

With this in mind, and the verification of the two holy people being so central to Christianity and Islam, I would say that if… and it’s the biggest if in the world… that there is a God and one belief system we have on earth is true (which is a huge if as well on its own), then I would say these two religions are the likeliest to be true, out of the lot you’ve mentioned… and probably many others.

My personal belief is that it’s either no god, one of these two or deism… and I think point 1 and 4 are much more believable on paper.

Maybe ‘God’ is a term used to describe the infinite? We then try to understand life by observing how it works… through the eyes of a body that is finite in nature, thus only sees life as collection of finite objects and callls this truth. Then something comes along that suggest that there may be life beyond the finite and there comes a question of how to know and :or describe that.

 

[Octavian]

the thing that interests me is marks sources as he is the first, oral tradition, pauls letters??
he is not local as his knowledge of the local geography is suspect.

Mark is the first gospel that is ascribed to be around 70AD, mostly because of the destruction of the Jewish Temple during the war. I think Mark is likely before this though and his sources are even earlier.

Some scholars don’t like to put Mark before 70AD because it would mean Jesus predicted the fall of the temple, rather than the author of Mark knowing this fact post war and attributing the prediction to Jesus but to be frank, a war had been brewing for years between Jews and Romans and it wouldn’t have taken mystic meg to predict the romans would sack the temple.

there was obviously scripture relating to Jesus knocking about before 50-55AD as Paul referenced them in his letters telling his congregation to stop squabbling and to go back to the scripture and the letters are pretty solid in their dating to 50-55AD.

Paul’s letters are the oldest Christian manuscripts dated around 50-55AD but I think there is a chance that Mark, or more likely parts of Mark’s sources he copied, were written earlier… we just don’t have archeological evidence of that so cannot confirm.

I think it’s obvious the information was scatter gunned across the region over decades with scripture here and there about Jesus and oral tradition among generations too. I think the Gospels are just the 4 who put it all together with what they could find. Mark was likely much nearer than John, with Luke and Matthew in between.

 

[Octavian]

Maybe ‘God’ is a term used to describe the infinite? We then try to understand life by observing how it works… through the eyes of a body that is finite in nature, thus only sees life as collection of finite objects and callls this truth. Then something comes along that suggest that there may be life beyond the finite and there comes a question of how to know and :or describe that.

I’m a lousy philosopher to be honest

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

And the question would still remain as to what you are observing through - ie if you are looking through the filter of mind that contains misperceptions, then is what you see really the ultimate truth or would it be more a step along the way? In this way, there is the possibility that as humanity comes to let go of misperceptions, it will come closer to true perceptions in such a way that breakthroughs can occur in the likes of science, medicine, technology but also in societal norms of behaviour. Indeed, might it even be possible that the scientific method itself might evolve?

This sort of evidence-free thinking has analogues in science as well.

One of them goes as such...

Quantum mechanics holds that the behavior of particles is governed by wave equations describing the probability of events. Even in a complete vacuum, it's possible - although exceedingly unlikely in any given region of space- that objects might pop into existence. It's possible - for example - that your head might pop into existence on it's own in a vacuum - completely divorced from other matter. And that your head might believe exactly as you do now - having the mistaken belief that things you believe transpired in the past also transpired to this disembodied head. And if space is infinite, however unlikely that this disembodied head might pop into existence might be in a finite region of space- it's virtually certain that such doppelganger heads as described above - believing that they are you or me or anyone else - pop in and out of existence all the time - in the infinitude of space.

In other words, you might be a "Boltzmann brain."


I don't believe that you or I are a "Boltzmann brain" or a simulated brain - these sort of ideas are in the realm of "not even wrong."

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And so is religion.

As for the "misperceptions" and "ultimate truth" and evolution of the "scientific method" - huh? I've been arguing for belief based in fact and provable, reproducible evidence. Whereas you've been arguing for things that are "not even wrong" - to which you continue to cling.

So - I'll offer several alternatives to your religious beliefs - 1) Ceiling cat; 2) You're a Boltzmann Brain; 3) You're a simulated brain; 4) Your current beliefs. Believe in something that's simultaneously unprovable and irrefutable - something that's "not even wrong": religion.

 

[andyhinch]

Maybe ‘God’ is a term used to describe the infinite? We then try to understand life by observing how it works… through the eyes of a body that is finite in nature, thus only sees life as collection of finite objects and callls this truth. Then something comes along that suggest that there may be life beyond the finite and there comes a question of how to know and :or describe that.

You could also describe matter as infinite, which is another concept people struggle with.