On principle, I agree with the notion that descending knowledge (descending from God Himself) is superior. However, the practical question is what, in particular, this descending knowledge is - which set of statements. I raise this question especially in relation to the tendency to dismiss people's doubts about what qualifies as descending knowledge, on the grounds that people are said to be imperfect, make mistakes, wrongly perceive the right thing. Any objection a person may raise, the theist can counter with "You are just not advanced enough, not pure enough to understand this" - and such a counterargument may be true and cannot be defended against. But what are people to do? Go by the principle "If it doesn't seem right to me, if I don't like it, then it must be that it is true and superior, and therefore I should accept it and act accordingly" -? (As a matter of fact, some Christian proselytizers argue from the position "If people counter us, this means we are right".)
Three questions for Lightgigantic: 1. How does LG know that he is not in delusion? 2. How can we trust or know that LG is not in delusion? 3. If there are no definitive answers to the above questions, or if definitive answers would require that we undertake a prohibitively difficult course of action for qualification, and he knows that, then why does he engage in this communication?
Descending or presumptive knowledge. The concept of descending kowledge is pure fiction. If the bible says that Yeshua ben Yosef was born to a virgin, does that make it so? No-one with his/her feet on the ground and mind in reality could believe so. What a crock of nonsense! I understand what Billy means by presumptive knowledge, and he is pretty much on the button there. We all learn stuff as kids that we should all treat with enormous skepticism as we grow older. Religious teachings are high on that list. Where LG and signal fall down is when they are challenged to give good reasons for accepting their version of knowledge. They have no good basis for what they believe. Maybe just a gut feel, or some similar bit of emotional logic. Neither is ancient-ness a reason. African witch doctors dance around their patients, chanting and shaking bones, just as they have done for thousands of years. The long time this has been done does not change the fact that this process is useless. Writings in ancient texts are just as fictional as the day they were written.
I am not presuming to be beyond delusion. In fact, I am coming from the position that I may be less or more in delusion about this or that. However, readily acknowledging that one might be completely wrong doesn't really seem to lead anywhere. How can we know, or at least hope, that these communications at the forums are not a case of "When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" -?
my point is that there are lots of times we do not have empirical proof, we have to take a leap of faith to make decisions.. IE we have all heard about protons and electrons and such science, but most ppl have not seen them, we take it on faith that the ppl who are doing the research are correct..
I find it presumptive to the extreme to hold that one knows what the meaning of the Biblical text is and that therefore can rightly judge whether it is true or not. For example, what does "born of a virgin" mean? To be a woman's first child? To be conceived without intercourse? To be conceived as a first child by a woman within marriage who entered the marriage with no previous sexual relations? I am not sure what the Biblical text means when it speaks of Jesus being "born of a virgin", so I have to withold all judgment about it being "realistic" or not. Secondly, the definition of Jesus is that he was not an ordinary man to begin with. So why hold him to standards that go for ordinary men? Why couldn't someone who is, by definition extraordinary, do extraordinary things? These things are simply a matter of definition, not of empirical proof. Why limit this enormous skepticism only to things we learn as children? Why not extend it to things we learn as adults? Where we may be falling down is that we are engaging in discussion with people who are inimical to the topics we talk about. I suppose that on principle, holding on to something because it offers some viable respite from the problems of birth, aging, illness and death is "emotional logic" ...
Two points. 1. Belief in protons etc is not a leap of faith, since the indirect evidence is so overwhelming. 2. If something is not known, we do not need to take a leap of faith. It is more rational to simply accept a state of ignorance, in the hope that we may learn more in the future. I do not know what dark matter is (or even if it truly exists), and I simply wait till more is known. no leap of faith required. To signal who said : Why limit this enormous skepticism only to things we learn as children? Why not extend it to things we learn as adults? Now you are getting it! Wow, yes. Be skeptical about everything. From adulthood or childhood - both. Look for genuine credible evidence before you accept something into your personal belief system. Then the truth is no longer 'out there' but a part of you.
Apparently you are not skeptical about what you are saying above ... so you are not skeptical about everything, and are thereby transgressing your own instruction. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, and for mental problems like depression, paranoia, etc. (not physical ones), they have a higher success rate than modern "talk therapy" psychiatrists do and in less than two hours, not months or years. Furthermore, their fee is typically a nice fish or a chicken, not $250/ hour. Most of the success of modern psychiatric therapy is the drugs they give.
i believe all the science that says this is what a proton is.. i personally have not seen one..so to be responsible for my thought processes ,i have to acknowledge that it is not empirical to me, as the info comes from someone else.not from personal experience (i have not seen one).. I do believe the chances of actually seeing a proton/etc described as was told is likely..my faith in this is pretty secured, but it is still faith as i have not seen one.. yes rational to accept.. ppl fear the unknown..that fear influences their decisions and their questions bold can be subjective.. it depends on what you consider a genuine credible source..
Most scholars are of the view that the word ment "young girl" as there are 100s of other translated texts where that is the only reasonable meaning. Things like: "He was 9 years old when the last born child, a virgin, learned to walk." or "It is too soon for her to leave home, she is only a virgin." etc. Words change their meaning - For example "lady" no loner is only a Lord's wife. I do not know when "virgin" started to mean "female who has not yet had sexual intercourse." Perhaps Fraggle can tell us. Slowly it is expanding to include men without first intercourse too. In a 100 or so years, the idea that virgins are females will probably have been wiped out.
More correct to say their success rate is roughly the same as modern psychologists. That is, roughly zero.
even to run with your presumptive knowledge that its all presumptive knowledge ingrained in my childhood (which is off the mark since my family only ever went to places of worship to attend weddings and I only really developed any degree of theistic knowledge around my early twenties) you are still playing the values game with your innuendo that it renders me inferior. :shrug:
I don't disagree that presumptive and scientific knowledge can conflict. What I am saying is that there is no essential epistemological difference between them in that in both scenarios you have an individual attempting to solve an issue by dint of their own powers. IOW if one encounters a problem that is essentially beyond an individuals powers, obviously it is a problem that is essentially beyond them (hence one usually approaches a professional in such cases ... provided one has faith in their authority of course). IOW the mind (presumptive knowledge) and senses (empirical knowledge) have clear epistemological boundaries that make them limited (but nonetheless well suited for specific scenarios) I tend to draw from the vedic position ... and it tends to solidify when practically applied (as opposed to speculating about it) I didn't make up my point of view any more than I would have made up a solution to a medical problem by following a (legitimate) doctor's advice. Take the example of medicine. I can speculate about what it is and how it works and the benefits and all (or even listen to my doctor inform me about it) but until I actually take it, I don't perceive any benefit. Along the same lines, one doesn't actually benefit from theism until one practically applies it (as opposed to speculating about it) if I modified it, it would be ascending, much like if I modified the advice of a car mechanic, lawyer , doctor or whatever errr ... no and no
if one was working with the assumption that god is a mundane creature (ie a full ten yards short of omnipotency etc) and his pure representatives also suffer similarly, then yes ... but then one can corrupt the terms of any argument in order to drive home absolutely any ideology under the sun don't be daft. Every (successful) pedagogical model has "presumptive" knowledge at its base. Even to be a successful gross materialist in the field of science one has to spend a few years studying theory before one takes a step in the laboratory. at this point I am simply pointing out how the type of knowledge you deem as inherently inferior makes empiricism look like window dressing. IOW value based knowledge is what makes it possible for empiricism to flourish and take direction in the first place and forms the basis of what one begins to deem as real in the first place The basis of it is a field of professionalism that conflicts with your values. For instance a person similarly wary of doctors could also argue along similar lines against the medical profession lol and African witch doctors represent the pinnacle of theistic discipline? Just like god sending a bear to dismember some antagonistic persons is the key teaching of Christianity? Just like casual sex is the essential narrative climax of Rapunzel? ..... its clear there are some fatal comprehension flaws in your arguments ... .... what to speak of the conclusion you draw from such flawed premises ....
overwhelming to a person who accepts the belief, yes ..... I mean if a person said that the indirect evidence for accepting god is overwhelming you would be dragging their ass through the coals along teh same lines ... but at the same time, a survey of the epistemological framework being utilized gives a pretty good picture of what it can and cannot accomplish. I mean its hardly rational for a carpenter to live in hope of building a wooden staircase to moon. why talk of dark matter? Most people who rant about protons and the like haven't even seen them IRL, what to speak of the higher issues within advanced physics, yet they still remain confident that these things are sufficient to compliment a reductionist view of the world. Clearly they are also working with faith, so go figure ....
actually I think he is doing a remarkable job at running close to the diametric opposite of blind faith - namely, blind doubt. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
