Why believe?

[Infinite Grey]

I put a lot of thought into where to place this thread, it could belong in non-theistic path forum or theology and philosophy; but since this is a predominately a pagan site and I seek an advanced answer this seems like the place to stick it.

So without further ado...

Why believe?

What do I mean by believe? Well I am referring to faith, magic, spirituality, religion, what ever. Believe in things that can not be empirically tested, or that can not be falsified by mathematics or repeatable testings.

I understand that that as a species we as hardwired to believe in thing we can not see; a useful evolutionary instinct in the instance of threat, but for modern man (modern man being a general term for the last 5 thousand years [a conservative number] or so) with no natural predators, not so much.

So why believe? Is there are logical reason to, or does it all boil down to dumbo's feather? http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:PY162II4ldlRtM:http://gilles.mathevet.free.fr/images/dumbo.jpg


Answers such as; "you just know" or "you have to believe first to see it" or not answers as all. Similar "I can't prove it, so I won't try" or "you won't believe it if you saw it because you're closed minded". They are cop out answers in these context. OR at least I was not satisfied with these answers.

Those whom have known me since me start on MW will know that I went through many stages, I started out a fledgling pagan still struggling with my Christian upbringing - then came the Demonology period (or Christian magic) - then Chaos magic - then uncertainty (pure agnosticism) - then honesty (Atheism).

Honesty in the sense that I could not be true to myself and coincide my beliefs with reality.

So, Advance Pagans. Why believe?

[Lunacie]

Hm, I really thought Paganism differed in that it doesn't ask for blind faith or belief just for the sake of believing.

For myself, I only believe, truly believe, in things I have experienced myself. Although if the evidence is convincing enough I will certainly consider that something is very probable even though I haven't experienced it myself... at least not yet.

[RainInanna]

Because it's useful, for my purposes. And an even less liked answer, because it feels good.

[Tanya]

I believe in the magic and mystery of the world because I am a scientist and i can see clearly how beautiful, complex and absolutely asstounding the world is.

I am in awe of creation... and so I do bow before it.

further... seeing the rich web of living and non living in this mystical dance, I find meaning.. for myself and in the unfolding of the universe.. my belief helps me see myself in the pattern and recognize that all things (even my small self) are meaningful.

[Infinite Grey]

Hm, I really thought Paganism differed in that it doesn't ask for blind faith or belief just for the sake of believing.

In my experience paganism isn't all that diffenerent. How many times have you heard (read) on this very site; "I've been told...". That is apeal to Authority, about the same (actually worse than) saying "my Reverend told me...".

Or anothe example would be: "You can't prove or disprove me belief". Again...



For myself, I only believe, truly believe, in things I have experienced myself. Although if the evidence is convincing enough I will certainly consider that something is very probable even though I haven't experienced it myself... at least not yet.

What evidence? Unless it is repeatable, observable, and/or testable it isn't evidence, personal experience is not enough for me, and I can't imaginer why it would be enough for anyone else.

[Jolixte]

I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to get an answer that you like and/or understand. That seems to be the problem between those that do believe and those that do not.

[Infinite Grey]

I believe in the magic and mystery of the world because I am a scientist and i can see clearly how beautiful, complex and absolutely asstounding the world is.

I am in awe of creation... and so I do bow before it.

further... seeing the rich web of living and non living in this mystical dance, I find meaning.. for myself and in the unfolding of the universe.. my belief helps me see myself in the pattern and recognize that all things (even my small self) are meaningful.

A nice metaphoric, but is still just a feeling; again, dumbo's feather. It fail in the face of unemotional logic.

[Lunacie]

I try to be balanced between the mental/logical and the emotional/feelings.
I just don't understand why people want to deny that their emotions are a part of them and that they can help up to experience life in all it's richness.

[Infinite Grey]

I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to get an answer that you like and/or understand. That seems to be the problem between those that do believe and those that do not.

It's not a matter of liking the answer, I will accept a logical, testable, observable answer despite whether I like it or not. As to understanding the answer, I've been on the journey of self discovery, I am not arguing from a position or bitterness or ignorance. At one point or another I have believed - but reality never matched up.

But again, this relates to my inclusion of the rhetoric about viewing this question and me for a believer's mentality.

[Infinite Grey]

I try to be balanced between the mental/logical and the emotional/feelings.
I just don't understand why people want to deny that their emotions are a part of them and that they can help up to experience life in all it's richness.

I do not need to believe in things that can not be tested to deny my emotions. I feel just as strongly as anyone else - well maybe not, but relative to when I was a believer, my emotional range has actually increased. So I sorry to say, your statement is based on a false assumption.

[Jolixte]

It's not a matter of liking the answer, I will accept a logical, testable, observable answer despite whether I like it or not. As to understanding the answer, I've been on the journey of self discovery, I am not arguing from a position or bitterness or ignorance. At one point or another I have believed - but reality never matched up.

But again, this relates to my inclusion of the rhetoric about viewing this question and me for a believer's mentality.

But you are not going to get a logical, testable, observable answer because if you did then so would the rest of the people that don't believe, and then most of them would believe.

[Infinite Grey]

But you are not going to get a logical, testable, observable answer because if you did then so would the rest of the people that don't believe, and then most of them would believe.

That's why I'm asking.

[Tanya]

I was having this conversation with a herpetologist a few days ago...

its an essential falicity to think scientific desriptve methods CAN really be used to describe intangible things like 'feelings.'

wether it is in terms of questions like 'do dogs feel guilt' to questions like this...

as both a scientists and an artist, I find neither can really describe the world we experience adequately alone, and this may be why we have both concrete and metaphical approaches to describing it... since both take us together were neither can alone.

both are valid, but they do not really lash up with each other...and this is deeply frustration if you are trying to....

to quote the wonderful Iris Dement

"Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour if in sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be."

[LadyWinter]

Do you believe in love?

Winter

[punxzen]

I believe in a thing called love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-4VOLeKBOw)

Do you believe in yourself?

Rain said it best, so I'll just quote her for truth:

Because it's useful, for my purposes. And an even less liked answer, because it feels good.

[Xander67]

why believe? well, gee. first Kudos for the thread.

I think it is because there is a part of us, be it our spirit, our essense, or whatever you may call it, yearns to have something to hope for. Everyone seems to have a desire to know the truth.

This of course opens up the floodgates of opportunity for the many men and women past and present who seek to exploit this part of us and have used it to gain control of entire nations and societies of people which allowed them to amass great quantities of wealth from donations etc..

Science has a method of either prooving or disprooving something, so we tend to base what we believe to be true on whatever science says is fact or not..

How can we TRULY seperate Belief from Knowledge... Knowledge is something we experience through one or more of the 5 senses...

Science says that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from earth. I do not know this for certain because I have no way of testing this "fact" so I consider it to be what science says it is.
I do not Believe it is accurate, It may well could be but because science is not always infallable and new discoveries are changeing things previously held as fact, I accept it as likely.

Belief is the hope of things not yet seen but longed for based on data passed down from another source.

So why do we Believe? I think we believe because it is in our nature to do so because without something to believe in, Life is meaningless for some.

Even Athiests, although they may not believe in God, they hold a belief in that there is no God..

Everyone believes in something, the sun rises in the morning... we believe it will rise the next day because we hope the hell it will or we are all in trouble lol..

so yeah, My thoughts are, We believe because it is our nature.

[Toby Stimpson]

I think that for me... and I appologize if this becomes a ramble...

It allows me to explore and learn about things that *might* be there... thus tying into my need to explore.

As a species, we cannot yet leave our homeworld and home system to explore new worlds. We cannot meet new races and learnm about what is in the universe... yet.

I think that in some ways, because we are the dominant species on this planet and have to all accounts explored and know the big questions oin our backyard... having magic or something there that is not provable by scientific means, it means that we can still explore (while sitting comfortably in our chairs at home) and fulfill a need inside.

I think Humans, as a race NEED to look at something bigger than ourselves. But becasue we cannot actively, and personally go outside our solar system... religion fills that void of there something being there thats bigger than us and that we can explore.

I think it is a very scary thing to think of us as being the most powerful species on this planet alone. Very scary.

[Wolf O Volos]

So, Advance Pagans. Why believe?

How about... Why NOT believe?
Thats the definition of the word "faith". To believe in something that you have no rational reason for belief in.

You cannot *see* the wind. Yet it exists. You cannot actually *see* quantum particles that are the building blocks of all things material, yet, mathmatics and scientific method have proven their existance.

Somehow, we all ended up here, and were given the minds that are able to even ponder such things as "How did we get here?" / "Why do we exist?" / or "What does it all mean?"

That fact alone should tell you that on a natural sense, we are born and are instinctively driven to seek the answers. If the answers were not out there to find, then humanity as a whole would not be bothered by these questions. Something greater than us gave us life, gave us thoughts, and has implaned within us the need to seek this knowledge, and higher sense of being.

So, maybe instead of asking repeatedly why you should even bother looking... it would be better yet to re evaluate what it is that you are looking for, and deciding to figure out why exactly you are born seeking faith and spiritual understanding in the first place.

Why believe? Why not?

[thought_on_a_wind]

To me, there is hardly a difference between what is and what isn't. Theories are always changing, subsequently so does our understanding of the world around us. There are very few beliefs scientific or otherwise that don't go under scrutiny at some point... change, or get proven completely wrong.

Thusly, given our supremely specualtive nature, some things we currently think of as truth are sincerely unknowns. We simply don't have the capacity to account for universal principles save what we have at hand, which though it might be similar to other parts of this vast ocean of stars is still extremely limited.

Belief is one of the primal reasons we strive to explore, categorize. The scientific method is nothing more than a compilation of those beliefs in the form of "accurate tests". Though there is always some thought-invoking scientific research underway, it's a sad world when science loses its ability to wonder, to feel.

Furthermore, those who claim to believe in nothing, still in effect believe in something, some ideal or the concept of nothingness. It goes against our principles to try and think otherwise (save certain meditations).

Inspiration that leads to discovery is the result of: an over-active imagination/inquistive mind, a series of rather abstract thoughts and coincedences sparking that random neuron into action (Newton and his apple proverbially speaking), or both, but have to be solidified by belief in order to be valid.

What I believe is that this world we live in is a complex, concrete illusion. (I will admit that at present I've been ironing out a some major contradictions and errors in logic, but the center of the belief is there- stemmed by personal experiences and further refined by those that have decidedly not happened; not to mention hours upon hours etc. of thinking devoted to the such).

The reason for this? For starters I have a hard time defining the word present, because it seems to narrow like a mathematical line into infinite thinness. Our sensory receptors are ill-equipped to pick up what is commonly thought of as the present.

There is a minute delay that happens between the percieved feeling/action, and our reaction. In short, we react to things that have happened with actions based upon prediction. It's a small thing, one so seemingly tiny as to not be of any significance, but (at least to me) it belies vast implications.

As far as my illogical reasoning is concerned the present is a nice cozy illusion, or a composite of the past and the future. We know there is a past, we know there is a future, but do we truthfully know there is a present?


present- of or at this time; existing or happening now; in progress

That's one of the multiple definitions that Webster's provides. Yet it is lack of specifically defining it's place as a measurement of time. Point being, we believe in this comfortable illusion, base our lives off it, go as far as to embrace it as a command ("Get over here right now!") and derive many different facts and quips of wisdom from it. In itself, the present is a Dumbo feather, one that's right in front of us. I am of the personal belief that you'd be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't believe in it... it makes things to hard to process... it goes against what society has ingrained in us... our very being... birth to death, death to birth, when we're here we believe in it.

To summarize, I believe in the nothing and the everything. Analyzing those personal and societal illusions, and either accpeting them or dismissing them. If this line of reasoning isn't purely logical, then so be it, I personally don't know how anyone could live without feeling or beliefs of some sort that didn't partially go off intuition or cognitive reasoning.

[TygerTyger]

Perhaps it was due to the influence of my Christian upbringing but I have always believed in God. When I became disillusioned with Christianity in my teens I tried not believing but I went into a spiral of angst that almost led to depression.

The church offered me no tangible answers and I had many questions so I started reading Philosophy. This led me to Baruch Spinoza and Pantheism. Perhaps it was because Spinoza believed in God so strongly that I identified with his work Ethics when everyone else on the course couldn’t get past the system of logic that he used, or perhaps it was because he introduced me to Pantheism?

Pantheism has given me answers that Christianity could not, or at least those members of the Church of England that I knew could not. I found that it coincided with many of the things that I held to be true, such as evolution for example, without compromise. It gave me an explanation for my disabilities that was logical and not personal. It gave me a sense of a greater belonging than I had previously known.

Perhaps the most important thing that believing in Pantheism has given me is a personal happiness almost to the point of contentment; almost but not quite. Neither Christianity nor not believing in anything ever gave me that.

Is happiness a justifiable reason to believe in something that cannot be measured or examined or made subject to rational testing?

As it helps me to survive each day I would say yes.

As it not only helps me survive each day but to live a life also, that is I get up each day to live through experience and not merely exist, then I would say most definitely yes.

[Garm]

Why believe?

Cause Littlewoods law is as pathetically contrived as any religious doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood%27s_law

Defining every waking second as an event in order to explain the one in a million type of event is desperation verging on intellectual bankruptcy

[patch]

Because I notice a correlation between things and after a while you cannot dissmiss it as coincidence.

I ask hermes for a sign, he is the god of bird omens and suddeny 20 birds of 4 different specied swoop into my garden.

I ask zeus fr a sign and there isa rumble of thunder.

I approach the gods with offerings, ask for something and it happens.

If I ask for a sign, I always ask for clarification after I recieve it to ensure it's not just freak coincidence. Twice is a fluke. But three or four times?

[cheddarsox]

I believe (lots of things) without testing them empirically, because honestly I don't have the energy to test everything, so lots of times I fly by the seat of my pants.

Life is pretty exhausting as it is, and I literally can't test everything. I just can't, don't have the time, the energy or even the will to. And really, what would I gain by approaching life that way? Maybe some sense of intellectual superiority, but my IQ is pretty high, and I already know that isn't the key to happiness.

I have no vested interest in whether you believe or not, so not a lot of motivation (besides my own curiousity on the subject) to try to find evidence that would be empirical enough for you.

I mean, that is my task for my own life...to fit the pieces together in a way that makes sense for me, and gets me what I need to live. And I don't see a point in trying to make sense of my life, your life, or anyone else's life for them.

That being said...I'm a pantheist, so I believe what I see and experience. I'm not "reading between the lines" a whole lot, but even so, I take lots of things on faith. Why not? Even if I knew what the Ultimate Truth of everything is, what difference would it make? I expect not a whole lot, because I'm pretty limited in my options.

As a human, my agenda is pretty small. I have to get my physical needs met, etc, and take care of my family. Get some intellectual stimulation, excercise, and social interaction. The basic framework I use to approach life helps me accomplish that...whether it's true on some ultimate level or not...it gets my needs met here and now. That for me, makes logical sense. What would be the point of me spending my life seeking "truth" for truth's sake, rather than getting my needs met?

I'm not going to live that long, and I don't have a lot of power and resources...so knowing the deep down solid unrefutable truth about everything is pretty low on my list of priorities.

And if you honestly think humans have no predators...you better think again. Besides other humans, we have lots of things capable and willing to kill us in the ecosystem.

Empirical knowledge has it's place, no doubt. (I'm a scientist) but it's not the only way of knowing, or neccesarily the best in every situation.

But if you believe it is...more power to ya.

[RainInanna]

I believe (lots of things) without testing them empirically, because honestly I don't have the energy to test everything, so lots of times I fly by the seat of my pants.

That's an interesting point. I don't test the existence of Paris, London, New York, and Australia every moment of every day (what if they only exist when I'm observing them?). I don't test whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead! I don't test whether there are other planets, or whether there are whales or giraffes or monkeys.

I just take some truths for granted as it suits my purposes because as you point out, we don't have the energy to test everything.

So as I said, I believe in spirituality because it suits me at the moment.

[Heart of All]

As RainInanna said, I believe because it suits me. It makes me happier, gets rid of the depression and self-confidence issues I've had all my life.

Something that always bothers me about this question is its way of suggesting that personal experience is unimportant. Say, for instance, that my gods are only in my head and I'm imagining them and all religious people in the world just have these experiences in their imaginations. Why is that less legitimate? Those experiences, despite their being imaginary, color the world. Why is imagination not considered a true force of humanity? We spend most of our time imagining, really-- imagining the delicious dinner we'll have tonight, imagining what's under that hot girl's clothes, imagining the face of the person on the other side of the phone, imagining what will happen when we get that job we want. Why are those experiences any less legitimate than the fact that I'm sitting here at this computer? Those imaginative events can have an impact on the outside world, just as an architect's imagination impacts the building he will draw and build, my (arguably imaginary) religious experiences impact the person I am.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I find this to be an interesting question for a number of reasons.

To me the person closet to a faith and belief is actually the person who tries so hard to find out why one believes. I think they are closer for the premis of thier task is to find out everything so they can disprove the ability to believe. Each scientific observation serves to make it less likey but the very process calls for them to place even more energy and focus into the results of what they attempt to disprove.

Sort of like watching a bumblebee. From observation you can see it fly yet scientifically it should not be able to lift its own mass much less fly with the small wings. Yet it does none the less.

One can take the concept of a radio antenna. By right it should not be able to receive a radio signal. Mathamatically, it works to a degree and physically it works based upon size yet why? When one thinks that an antenna is somewhat driven by the wavelength of the signal being collected it makes for one gigantic line.

I think part of the question lies in the realm of unfounded fact. Unfounded for it has not been discovered as to why it occurs or how it happens. We see something that is observable by science and reach a conclusion but the conclusion only holds until a better means of observance is found.

Scientifically, we rule something as gone or invalid only to find the deceased creature later or find our analysis was faulty for we did not understand a given affect / effect or recognize the true catalyst that caused the reaction.

I believe because many of the scientific laws I recognize do not support the concept of a god / goddess figure but they also do not disprove them. Logic dictates that humanity should not be the only life form in the universe even though scientifically it can not be proven that it does. Yet the conditions for creation of such life forces is precevied as being present in long distance observance or mathamatical analysis of unseen forces excerting a force upon the galaxy.

I believe because my scientific knowledge of today is as far advanced above my ancestors as my ancestors are above the ape. Yet in contrast my current knowledge is as insufficinet and all knowing as tommorows knowledge will be far advanced making me seem as an ape to them.

[aranarose]

I have no logical reason for believing. It's just fun to piss off the atheists.

[childofbast]

I simply don't think a forum thread will expose the answers that agnostics and atheists have searched for for thousands of years.

As far as science goes, there's this article on religion and brain scans:

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article623228.ece

It's pretty interesting. Otherwise, I don't think much of what any of us believes can be proven. Well, except for the majesty of the natural world. Anyone who disputes that is just off their rocker. ;)

~Melanie

[Cameron_]

Why do I believe? Because it's cheaper than medicating me. :hehehehe:

There are other reasons, more serious ones, but that's the first one that came to me.

[childofbast]

I have no logical reason for believing. It's just fun to piss off the atheists.


LOL

I know an atheist who converted to Paganism. He'd been an atheist for his entire life until one day... I need to ask him more about how that happened.

~Melanie

[Cake-eating_Moth]

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/buddha122706.html)

^~~He said it best. I've questioned my beliefs, yes - but then.... every day that I step outside, I feel the gods in the wind, the trees' leaves, the dirt, the pond; I can see the sun and moon face off as the summer solstice nears, and it gives me a feeling of peace as they look perfectly balanced to me at sunrise - it causes me to feel more balanced on the inside. Whereas I left Christianity because it was taught "God" was only 'up there' and it was hard for them to hear you, I could feel the Gods everywhere around me - speaking everywhere around me in and through all living things.

I believe what I believe because it makes sense to me. No other reason. I've tried to "Talk myself out of it" and find ways to prove to myself that it isn't real. I have no conclusive evidence to say its unreal; and otherwise, hearing/feeling the voice of The Gods in the wind makes me feel at peace; it helps me reflect deeper on my life. Without it, I'm afraid I would miss that single moment with the breeze, or when a hawk stared directly at me; or a farm of ants create their civilization - these bring peace to me, and there's no reason for me to continuously try to disprove them.

And last but not least.... Some things just are. It is the "I AM, but I AM NOT " paradox. It is the "All-encompassing link between all things" and inside that link is where people find their God(s)/Deity ... :)

[Æthelflæd]

Why believe? Well something started the Big Bang. Even if it was a god passing gas. ;)

Seriously though. In his book The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, talks about the formation of our universe being extremely improbable, based on the laws of nature. Consider these 3 observations (quoted from his book, pp. 71-74):

"1. In the early moments of the universe following the Big Bang, matter and antimatter were created in almost equivalent amounts. At one millisecond of time, the universe cooled enough for quarks and antiquarks to 'condense out.' Any quark encountering an antiquark, which would happen quickly at this high density, resulted in the complete annihilation of both and the release of a photon of energy. But the symmetry between matter and antimatter was not quite precise; for about every billion pair of quarks and antiquarks, there was an extra quark. It is that tiny fraction of the initial potentiality of the entire universe that makes up the mass of the universe as we now know it.
Why did this asymmetry exist? It would seem more 'natural' for there to be no asymmetry. But if there had been complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, the universe would quickly have devolved into pure radiation, and people, planets, stars, and galaxies would never have come into existence.

2. ... Hawking writes: 'Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.'
On the other hand, if the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. ... The existence of a universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

3. The same remarkable circumstance applies to the formation of heavier elements. If the strong nuclear force that holds together protons and neutrons had been even slightly weaker, then only hydrogen could have formed in the universe. If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force had been slightly stronger, all the hydrogen would have been converted to helium, instead of the 25 percent that occurred early in the Big Bang, and thus the fusion furnaces of stars and their ability to generate heavier elements would never have been born.
Adding to this remarkable observation, the nuclear force appears to be tuned just sufficiently for carbon to form, which is critical for life forms on Earth. Had that force been just slightly more attractive, all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen.

Altogether, there are 15 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable."

[Xentor]

That's why I'm asking.

I believe in absence of rational explanation.

[Sequoia]

In sum, our universe is wildly improbable.

That's one reason I add to my stack.


IG, I believe because I believe. If I wanted to, I COULD ignore all the beauty, awe-inspiration, all the improbabilities and unlikelyhoods that still happened. I could ignore all that, chalk it up to "coincidence" and leave it at that. I could take everything for granted, just wipe all the sense of mystery out of the universe.

I COULD ignore all these things, but I choose not to. I LIKE the awe-inspiration of the universe. I LIKE the feeling that there's something bigger out there.

Can I prove it? Nope. Can you prove to me that there's NOT a god/ddess/thing? Nope. We kind of have ourselves a stalemate. Neither of us can prove or disprove the other. Especially considering that I don't believe God works in big obvious Biblical sort of ways.

I believe because it's how my life works right now. Should that change, I'll be sure to let you know. ;)

[Brightshores]

IG, I believe because I believe. If I wanted to, I COULD ignore all the beauty, awe-inspiration, all the improbabilities and unlikelyhoods that still happened. I could ignore all that, chalk it up to "coincidence" and leave it at that. I could take everything for granted, just wipe all the sense of mystery out of the universe.

I COULD ignore all these things, but I choose not to. I LIKE the awe-inspiration of the universe. I LIKE the feeling that there's something bigger out there.

I agree with Sequoia.

To me, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

So, given the fact that there is no "scientifically provable" evidence either way, I choose to go with my intuition, my UPG, and my observations of the improbable wonder and beauty of the universe I see every day. I believe because it works for me, because it resonates with some deep. unknowable part of my spirit, and because it just makes sense in the context of the way I view the universe around me.

[Infinite Grey]

Thank you for the responses; I didn't start this thread to refute people's claims, merely to hear them - so I'm not really going to dig into any of them.

With the exception of two, as they are common among believers and particularly Monotheistic creationists.

The first though is in the spirit of good advice. Æthelflæd, you would do well to avoid name dropping - it weakens your position for the beginning. Why? Because in most cases it is an appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) fallacy and proves nothing more than smart people like Francis S. Collins can be believers. It is very easy to tear someones argument apart due to this fallacy, so avoid it. Quotation is different, you use them to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, or to provide direct information about the work being quoted.

The second is the argument from complexity or improbability: this is a much debunked position and would thought anyone claiming to be advanced in any faith would have done away with it by now. Creationist use it as evidence that the universe had to be created as it is so unlikely to have formed naturally. The problem with this is that infinitely improbable structures have been explained with a naturalistic solution - essentially it is a collection of Post hoc fallacious. An example of this would be to claim that the individual positions of grains of sand are so improbable that beaches are improbable. Clearly beaches are not improbable as they are very common, but their attributes are improbable. Gems are another example, so are stones, clouds, actually everything is improbable. But clearly they exist, and in abundance in many cases. This is due to physics and other causes described by science - the probability becomes irrelevant. It's mathematical mumbo jumbo.

[Rudas Starblaze]

Those whom have known me since me start on MW will know that I went through many stages, I started out a fledgling pagan still struggling with my Christian upbringing - then came the Demonology period (or Christian magic) - then Chaos magic - then uncertainty (pure agnosticism) - then honesty (Atheism).

Honesty in the sense that I could not be true to myself and coincide my beliefs with reality.

So, Advance Pagans. Why believe?

aye my friend, i remember the stages. :thumbsup:
and myself, like you, non-religious in general.

im sure i wont give you a solid answer to your question at all. lol

for "magic" (i hate the bloody word...), i believe it because ive seen it (and a few others including hospital staff), and with no shadow of doubt that I did it. rather it be from stopping death to bringing it or any of the minor crap in between the two.

for gods, goddesses, and religion. i dont follow any of them. do i think they are out there? sure. something has to be. do i care? not really, no!lol i cant buy into evolution either. that, like any other religion out there (not saying it is a religion, just making a comparison(sp) with the religions), even with scientific research (which admits its just educated guessing 75% of the time), doesnt hold enough proof for me to believe either.

so basically, i just believe in myself.:thumbsup:

[Æthelflæd]

Thank you for the responses; I didn't start this thread to refute people's claims, merely to hear them - so I'm not really going to dig into any of them.

With the exception of two, as they are common among believers and particularly Monotheistic creationists.

The first though is in the spirit of good advice. Æthelflæd, you would do well to avoid name dropping - it weakens your position for the beginning. Why? Because in most cases it is an appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) fallacy and proves nothing more than smart people like Francis S. Collins can be believers. It is very easy to tear someones argument apart due to this fallacy, so avoid it. Quotation is different, you use them to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, or to provide direct information about the work being quoted.

I didn't bring up Francis Collins to name drop. I merely quoted him because he made some interesting points and he can explain them a lot more eloquently than I can. Sorry, I didn't know our answers had to be in the format of a college dissertation.

Even if you're right and there is no logical reason for believing, what logical reason is there for NOT believing? I'd really like to hear your answer.

[Infinite Grey]

I didn't bring up Francis Collins to name drop. I merely quoted him because he made some interesting points and he can explain them a lot more eloquently than I can. Sorry, I didn't know our answers had to be in the format of a college dissertation.

Come on!



Seriously though. In his book The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, talks about the formation of our universe being extremely improbable, based on the laws of nature. Consider these 3 observations (quoted from his book, pp. 71-74):

And this is supposed to be Advanced Pagan, the title of the forum implies a higher standard of dicourse than would be found in New Pagan.



Even if you're right and there is no logical reason for believing, what logical reason is there for NOT believing? I'd really like to hear your answer.


You do realise that the burden of proof does not lie on the disbeliever, but on the believer; as it is the believer making the claim. This means I do not need evidence to NOT believe, in fact a lack of evidence of something is a very good reason to be at least skeptical.

For example, there is evidence of Love - through actions, words, moods and emotional response.

There is evidence that the humble bumble bee flies despite at first appearance to not be able to - by the way, this is a myth. Bumbles do not disobey the laws of aerodynamics; It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

There is evidence that there are planets orbiting suns light years away from us.

I do not except dark matter as fact yet as there is no solid evidence for it, only indicators.

Where is the evidence for gods, or nature with a consciousness?

[TygerTyger]

Come on!

Where is the evidence for gods, or nature with a consciousness?

That’s a damn good question!

As I don’t believe in ‘gods’ I feel no compunction to deal with the first part, but the second part does concern me.

However, there is another question that I feel we should ask first, are we equipped to see the evidence?

I ask this question because if we are not able to experience the entirety of existence then obviously we are not able to perceive or even recognise all of the evidence that we might be looking for!

The five human senses are excellent but they are not enough. This is proven by the necessity for scientists to develop equipment that allows us to see beyond the limits of our senses. We now have an understanding of natural phenomena, such as the full spectrum of lights, which was previously beyond our understanding, but what if we still do not have enough?

It logically follows that if we accept the limitations of our abilities to understand the universe then there are occurrences that we might not be capable of perceiving or, even if we can perceive them, of understanding them in their entirety.

Nature with a consciousness may very well be presenting us with the evidence of its’ existence, we just do not have the ability (yet) to recognise what we are seeing!

[Infinite Grey]

That’s a damn good question!

As I don’t believe in ‘gods’ I feel no compunction to deal with the first part, but the second part does concern me.

However, there is another question that I feel we should ask first, are we equipped to see the evidence?

I ask this question because if we are not able to experience the entirety of existence then obviously we are not able to perceive or even recognise all of the evidence that we might be looking for!

The five human senses are excellent but they are not enough. This is proven by the necessity for scientists to develop equipment that allows us to see beyond the limits of our senses. We now have an understanding of natural phenomena, such as the full spectrum of lights, which was previously beyond our understanding, but what if we still do not have enough?

It logically follows that if we accept the limitations of our abilities to understand the universe then there are occurrences that we might not be capable of perceiving or, even if we can perceive them, of understanding them in their entirety.

Nature with a consciousness may very well be presenting us with the evidence of its’ existence, we just do not have the ability (yet) to recognise what we are seeing!



That is an interesting position, but how ever remains pure speculation - as you say, we are limited in our sensory input; but that being said... we can not see x-rays or gamma bursts, yet we can detect and study them indirectly. This would suggest that we would have recorded at least a hint of a universal consciousness, a bit in the same way scientists discovered hints of black holes and dark matter.

[TygerTyger]

It is a theory, I admit, but not necessarily any less valid.

Humans were exposed to cosmic rays but never understood what they were experiencing until we created the technology to study them. It occurs to me that if nature does have a consciousness, and as a Pantheist I am thinking of the universe here, then we may simply be in a situation where we have not yet developed the means of either detecting or understanding any signs of that consciousness that there might be.

Such an intelligence may even beyond our capacity to understand? A consciousness that permeates the fabric of the universe would be ancient by our terms and its’ points of reference would be utterly alien to us, making direct communication by traditional human means probably impossible.

There is one hint that springs to mind; beauty! Wherever you look the natural world is unconditionally beautiful, but to what purpose?

Is the appreciation of beauty an attribute of intelligence?

If so does that not suggest a natural intelligence within the universe?

Philosophical rather than scientific questions but then maybe the only way we could talk with a conscious nature is intuitively?

[Infinite Grey]

It is a theory, I admit, but not necessarily any less valid.

Humans were exposed to cosmic rays but never understood what they were experiencing until we created the technology to study them. It occurs to me that if nature does have a consciousness, and as a Pantheist I am thinking of the universe here, then we may simply be in a situation where we have not yet developed the means of either detecting or understanding any signs of that consciousness that there might be.

Such an intelligence may even beyond our capacity to understand? A consciousness that permeates the fabric of the universe would be ancient by our terms and its’ points of reference would be utterly alien to us, making direct communication by traditional human means probably impossible.

There is one hint that springs to mind; beauty! Wherever you look the natural world is unconditionally beautiful, but to what purpose?

Is the appreciation of beauty an attribute of intelligence?

If so does that not suggest a natural intelligence within the universe?

Philosophical rather than scientific questions but then maybe the only way we could talk with a conscious nature is intuitively?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - how can you assume a universal concept of beauty? Take a look at what attracts other animals to each other. Proboscis Monkey with its very large nose, Star nose moles, barkeeper fish... you're viewing the universe through bias eyes and its supposed beauty is limited to your perception.

So no, your interpretation of a beautiful universe is not proof of intelligence.

[Heart of All]

Where is the evidence for...nature with a consciousness?

Are we nature? Yes
Do we have consciousness? Yes.

Therefore, nature has consciousness. :D

[Infinite Grey]

Are we nature? Yes
Do we have consciousness? Yes.

Therefore, nature has consciousness. :D


:wtf:

[Æthelflæd]

You do realise that the burden of proof does not lie on the disbeliever,

Since when???


but on the believer; as it is the believer making the claim. This means I do not need evidence to NOT believe, in fact a lack of evidence of something is a very good reason to be at least skeptical.

You're still making a claim. "There are no gods" is a claim. "Nature does not have a consciousness" is a claim. So, what's your evidence? Why should we, without a shadow of a doubt, believe there is no higher power? In an "advanced" discussion, this is not an unreasonable question.

[Infinite Grey]

Since when???



You're still making a claim. "There are no gods" is a claim. "Nature does not have a consciousness" is a claim. So, what's your evidence? Why should we, without a shadow of a doubt, believe there is no higher power? In an "advanced" discussion, this is not an unreasonable question.

The believer is making the claim, not the unbeliever. Take for example, you claim someone committed a crime against you; the person is innocent until proven guilty - it is up to you to demonstrate that the person committed the crime. Believers claim their is a god or what not, you need to prove it.

Look up burden of proof... nevermind I'll do it for you.
Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof).
And because I am so nice, here is the fallacy you just fell victim to.
Burden of Proof fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29)

[Caitlin.ann]

Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

[Infinite Grey]

Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out fallacies which should be avoided in general.

I have discussed people's ideas too... I'm sorry that you feel slighted by my high standards, perhaps you should avoid my threads in the advance section in the future.

[Lunacie]

That’s a damn good question!

As I don’t believe in ‘gods’ I feel no compunction to deal with the first part, but the second part does concern me.

However, there is another question that I feel we should ask first, are we equipped to see the evidence?

I ask this question because if we are not able to experience the entirety of existence then obviously we are not able to perceive or even recognise all of the evidence that we might be looking for!

The five human senses are excellent but they are not enough. This is proven by the necessity for scientists to develop equipment that allows us to see beyond the limits of our senses. We now have an understanding of natural phenomena, such as the full spectrum of lights, which was previously beyond our understanding, but what if we still do not have enough?

It logically follows that if we accept the limitations of our abilities to understand the universe then there are occurrences that we might not be capable of perceiving or, even if we can perceive them, of understanding them in their entirety.

Nature with a consciousness may very well be presenting us with the evidence of its’ existence, we just do not have the ability (yet) to recognise what we are seeing!


Ah, very good. I believe we have many other senses than the five that are taught to our schoolchildren (hence my being forum guide for the Psychics'n'Sensitives forum here). Someone who discounts information they recieve though those other senses, such as my seeing and hearing the Goddess after successfully casting my first shield, would dismiss such occurances as wishful thinking or imagination.

[Heart of All]

In response to your little questiony face, I maintain my (somewhat silly) assertion that nature has consciousness in the form of us. We are a part of nature, and we have consciousness, therefore nature as a whole is not unconscious. It is only arguably unconscious in part, ie, the inanimate part.

[Infinite Grey]

In response to your little questiony face, I maintain my (somewhat silly) assertion that nature has consciousness in the form of us. We are a part of nature, and we have consciousness, therefore nature as a whole is not unconscious. It is only arguably unconscious in part, ie, the inanimate part.

I know what you meant, I just can't believe you said it.

[Heart of All]

I see...


Apparently my attempt to bring some levity to this discussion failed. :(

[Infinite Grey]

I see...


Apparently my attempt to bring some levity to this discussion failed. :(



No no, you succeeded. I chuckled.

[Heart of All]

Yay!

_happydanc

[Lunacie]

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out fallacies which should be avoided in general.

I have discussed people's ideas too... I'm sorry that you feel slighted by my high standards, perhaps you should avoid my threads in the advance section in the future.

Actually, your question has prompted some interesting discussion from other posters which I've enjoyed reading. I've simply given your posts very little attention.

And I agree with Tyger-Tyger that we have only recently learned to comprehend scientifically many things which we previously accepted on the basis of faith and belief - or discounted because of lack of proof. I think in time many other things will be demonstrated to be true by science. However, that won't be what science is trying to prove, as science is most often seen as being diametrically opposed to belief/faith/religion. It will be a by-product of scientific research and will have the label of "scientific" instead of "belief/faith/religion" attached to it. ;)

[Infinite Grey]

Actually, your question has prompted some interesting discussion from other posters which I've enjoyed reading. I've simply given your posts very little attention.


That was kind of the point of the thread... btw ouch; I wasn't even talking to you, but fair enough.

[Xentor]

You're still making a claim. "There are no gods" is a claim. "Nature does not have a consciousness" is a claim. So, what's your evidence? Why should we, without a shadow of a doubt, believe there is no higher power? In an "advanced" discussion, this is not an unreasonable question.

Problem is, that it is impossible to prove something does not exist... while it is possible to disprove something does not exist, simply by proving it does exist. So the burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists.

Infinite Grey does believe... so we could ask him the same question. Why do you believe, Infinite Grey?

[Xentor]

For example, there is evidence of Love - through actions, words, moods and emotional response.

Fun fact: there is evidence of brain activity combined to religious experiences. Maybe we believe because our brain likes it?

[Infinite Grey]

Problem is, that it is impossible to prove something does not exist... while it is possible to disprove something does not exist, simply by proving it does exist. So the burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists.

Infinite Grey does believe... so we could ask him the same question. Why do you believe, Infinite Grey?

I believe in a great many things, because; I can observe them, I can test them if I choose to, others can preform the same tests. I'll also admit to taking something on the word of some people - for example, I believe that there are black holes but I'll probably never understand the physics or methods that indicate their existence. One could claim that is a matter of faith - but the difference being is that if I truly applied myself I could join the effort and find out for myself. The things I believe in are not reliant on personal experience, gut feeling or that I just know.

For the sensitive types out there, this is not a criticism - but an explanation for why, how and what I believe.

[Twinkle]

Alright....I'll dip a toe into the water here.

I think that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Of course, this depends on the religion. For me it's not an either/or type of thing...I believe that they complement each other.

[Xentor]

I believe in a great many things, because; I can observe them, I can test them if I choose to, others can preform the same tests.

How is that belief? What you describe is empirical reality. You believe in reality? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

[Xentor]

Alright....I'll dip a toe into the water here.

I think that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Of course, this depends on the religion. For me it's not an either/or type of thing...I believe that they complement each other.

Amen!

[Infinite Grey]

How is that belief? What you describe is empirical reality. You believe in reality? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Belief is commonly defined as:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

In the strictest sense reality is often defined as:
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual:
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

My belief in reality is more of a mental acceptance of it being truth - in order for something to be proven true there is a need for evidence, the more empirical the better. The is no contradiction, just a collation of concepts.


Now having faith in empirical reality would be a contradiction.

[Xentor]

How odd... I seem to remember you once defining belief as an action contrary to empirical reality. If that definition were true, your behaviour would be impossible.

[Infinite Grey]

How odd... I seem to remember you once defining belief as an action contrary to empirical reality. If that definition were true, your behaviour would be impossible.

No, I pretty sure I've always defined faith as a belief without empirical evidence. Though it is possible that I've gotten lazy and used the word belief as a substitute if the context fitted the topic at hand.

[TygerTyger]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - how can you assume a universal concept of beauty? Take a look at what attracts other animals to each other. Proboscis Monkey with its very large nose, Star nose moles, barkeeper fish... you're viewing the universe through bias eyes and its supposed beauty is limited to your perception.

So no, your interpretation of a beautiful universe is not proof of intelligence.

It is my contention that our experience of Existence is entirely subjective; consequently we are all of us observing the universe through eyes that are biased irrespective of our intention.

I do not purport a universal concept of beauty, however, there are enough points of common agreement on what constitutes an instance of beauty that, as an idea, it can be accepted to posses a degree of objectivity.

I suppose the next question then concerns whether or not beauty is merely a part of the way in which we perceive Existence?

A combination of shape, colour, and pattern can lead an observer to identify a meaningful design, fundamentally how an empiricist makes sense of the evidence perceived. These elements also constitute something that we find to be beautiful.

The concept of beauty can, therefore, be validated by observance of natural phenomena.

My next question would be, is the appreciation of beauty an attribute of intelligence?

[Infinite Grey]

It is my contention that our experience of Existence is entirely subjective; consequently we are all of us observing the universe through eyes that are biased irrespective of our intention.

I do not purport a universal concept of beauty, however, there are enough points of common agreement on what constitutes an instance of beauty that, as an idea, it can be accepted to posses a degree of objectivity.

I suppose the next question then concerns whether or not beauty is merely a part of the way in which we perceive Existence?

A combination of shape, colour, and pattern can lead an observer to identify a meaningful design, fundamentally how an empiricist makes sense of the evidence perceived. These elements also constitute something that we find to be beautiful.

The concept of beauty can, therefore, be validated by observance of natural phenomena.

My next question would be, is the appreciation of beauty an attribute of intelligence?

I would say yes, appreciation of beauty is a symptom of intelligence - at development on instinctual urges involving mating choice, care of young and familiarity. Also throw our obsessive habit of looking for patterns as a contributing factor.

[patch]

Alright....I'll dip a toe into the water here.

I think that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Of course, this depends on the religion. For me it's not an either/or type of thing...I believe that they complement each other.

Ditto.

[TygerTyger]

I would say yes, appreciation of beauty is a symptom of intelligence - at development on instinctual urges involving mating choice, care of young and familiarity. Also throw our obsessive habit of looking for patterns as a contributing factor.

Does beauty exist as part of our perception in order for us to understand what we are seeing or does it exist independently of human observation?

[Infinite Grey]

Does beauty exist as part of our perception in order for us to understand what we are seeing or does it exist independently of human observation?

False dilemma there as those are not the only options.

I do not have time to answer it properly right now (work break is over), but I will say that beauty is probably not exclusively a human perception - two, beauty is an emotional response not a thing to exist without observation.

[TygerTyger]

I realise that it might seem to some that this thread has descended into a simple dichotomy but I am actually trying to go somewhere with this in relation to the original question, why believe?

I would argue that beauty is the quality that inspires the emotional response rather than the response itself. From that proposition I would argue that beauty is, therefore, a thing that does not require observation to exist as it is an attribute of Existence. A sunrise would remain exactly the same sunrise whether there was a human being around to observe it and term it beautiful or not.

Does beauty exist as an attribute of Existence merely to provoke an emotional response from a human being?

If nature had a consciousness wouldn’t it appreciate beauty too?

[Infinite Grey]

I realise that it might seem to some that this thread has descended into a simple dichotomy but I am actually trying to go somewhere with this in relation to the original question, why believe?

I would argue that beauty is the quality that inspires the emotional response rather than the response itself. From that proposition I would argue that beauty is, therefore, a thing that does not require observation to exist as it is an attribute of Existence. A sunrise would remain exactly the same sunrise whether there was a human being around to observe it and term it beautiful or not.

Does beauty exist as an attribute of Existence merely to provoke an emotional response from a human being?

If nature had a consciousness wouldn’t it appreciate beauty too?

In our minds I suppose the sunrise will be beautiful whether observed or not - but that almost suggests that beauty is part of a sunrise's function, part of its purpose... which unfortunately is not the case. Sunrises and Sunsets are an effect, a transitional times between night and day - which again are effects. The cause being the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The sunrises and sunsets would be going on and will go on with or without the concept of beauty.


If nature had a consciousness? I seriously doubt it would think in methods and patterns remotely similar to ours.

[David19]

Alright....I'll dip a toe into the water here.

I think that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Of course, this depends on the religion. For me it's not an either/or type of thing...I believe that they complement each other.

I personally don't think science can "prove" the existence of Gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc, at least, not in any measurable way. I, personally, don't use scientific methods to say "this proves Ereshkigal exists" or whatever, or "this proves magic exists", etc. Personally, while I don't that much about scientific theories, some of the ones that occultists, Pagans, magic users, etc use to "justify" and "prove" magic are just, IMO, dumb. Especially the ones that think they can explain Quantum Physics in an easy-to-understand manner, and say this "proves" magic exists, maybe it can, but, I'm sorry, I just don't believe SRW knows anything about Quantum Physics, and, if I want to learn about science (or even magic), I'll try and avoid pretty much most of the Llewellyn books, New Age authors and books, sites, etc, and I'll go to scientists who actually know about Quantum Physics or other science subjects (or occultists, who I think know about magic, etc).

That's just my opinion anyway, and sorry I got a little OT.

[Twinkle]

I understand you completely...but what I believe about my religion is not in contradiction with science.

To me...anything that contradicts Natural Law would just be based on feeling....and then you would be hard pressed to explay *why* you believe it.

[Xentor]

No, I pretty sure I've always defined faith as a belief without empirical evidence. Though it is possible that I've gotten lazy and used the word belief as a substitute if the context fitted the topic at hand.

Ah. Well there's a differentiation I most definitely, and from the looks of it, several others in this thread, either aren't aware of or don't use similarly. It could even lead to people trying to explain why they follow the religion they follow, or what good faith brings them... but obviously you aren't asking that...

Did you notice that people aren't using the same differentiation you are? You definitely are intelligent enough. And if so, what did you get out of not informing them?

[Infinite Grey]

Ah. Well there's a differentiation I most definitely, and from the looks of it, several others in this thread, either aren't aware of or don't use similarly. It could even lead to people trying to explain why they follow the religion they follow, or what good faith brings them... but obviously you aren't asking that...

Did you notice that people aren't using the same differentiation you are? You definitely are intelligent enough. And if so, what did you get out of not informing them?

Faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I didn't hide the dictionary...

[TygerTyger]

In our minds I suppose the sunrise will be beautiful whether observed or not - but that almost suggests that beauty is part of a sunrise's function, part of its purpose... which unfortunately is not the case. Sunrises and Sunsets are an effect, a transitional times between night and day - which again are effects. The cause being the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The sunrises and sunsets would be going on and will go on with or without the concept of beauty.


If nature had a consciousness? I seriously doubt it would think in methods and patterns remotely similar to ours.

The sunrise will be beautiful irrespective of human observation, not because beauty is a function of the sunrise but because the element of beauty is both an attribute and a consequence of the effect of a sunrise. The element of beauty would still be present even if humans beings had not evolved to witness it, or any other intelligent species capable of appreciating the concept of beauty for that matter.


This leads me now to my most critical question, for me that is, and why I believe as I do;

Why is the natural world, the universe, unconditionally beautiful?

The only logical answer that I have so far come up with is that there is an intelligence that appreciates such beauty on a scale from microscopic to macroscopic that probably influences its’ reality.

We, as human beings, cannot perceive the entirety of existence, at least not yet. Neither do we know everything yet. Perhaps when we come closer to we might also begin to recognise tangible evidence for the existence of an intelligence greater than our own, until then I have my faith.

[Xentor]

I didn't hide the dictionary...

Neither did you point it out to anyone in this thread that the definition they used in their answers didn't fit the one you used in your question.

Neither did you answer my question.

I find that quite telling.

[LadyLuthien]

Because, what would life be like with out this? How could I exsist in a world where what I see before me is all there is? I'd go mad.

[Infinite Grey]

Neither did you point it out to anyone in this thread that the definition they used in their answers didn't fit the one you used in your question.

Neither did you answer my question.

I find that quite telling.

It was a loaded question.


Ah. Well there's a differentiation I most definitely, and from the looks of it, several others in this thread, either aren't aware of or don't use similarly. It could even lead to people trying to explain why they follow the religion they follow, or what good faith brings them... but obviously you aren't asking that...

Did you notice that people aren't using the same differentiation you are? You definitely are intelligent enough. And if so, what did you get out of not informing them?

It's simple really, I got got very little out of not informing them - I simply assumed people knew the definition of belief. You might notice that I have provided the definition of belief vs faith on many occasions in past discussions. There was no hidden agenda, no maliciousness in the nature of the topic - I think you are reading a little too much into otherwise (or at least in this case) innocent motives.

Part of the original proposed functions of the Advanced Pagan forum involved more challenging discussions - I would submit that a discussion is not challenging unless someone or something challenges your position. Red herrings do not count as a challenge.

[thought_on_a_wind]

>Interjection<

*Ahem*


belief [bə lēf, bēlēf]
n.-

1. the state of believing; conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real

2. faith, esp. religious faith

3. trust or confidence [I have belief in his ability]

4. anything believed or accepted as true; esp., a creed, doctrine, or tenet

5. an opinion; expectation; judgment [my belief is that he'll come]
SYN.- OPINION, BELIEF, the term of broadest application in this comparison, implies mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty may be absent; FAITH implies complete, unquestioning acceptance of something even in the absence of proof and, esp., of something not supported by reason; TRUST implies assurance, often apparently intuitive, in the reliability of someone or something; CONFIDENCE also suggests such assurance, esp. when based on reason or evidence; CREDENCE suggests mere mental acceptance of something that may have no solid basis in fact



[Mental conviction]
Syn. credit, credence, acceptance, trust, avowal, conviction, confidence, profession, opinion, notion, persuasion, position, understanding, faith, assent, mindset, surmise, suspicion, thesis, knowledge, feeling, sentiment, conclusion, presumption, hypothesis, thinking, hope, intuition, assurance, expectation, axiom, deduction, judgment, certainty, mind, impression, assumption, conjecture, postulation, theorem, divination, fancy, presupposition, supposition, notion, apprehension, theory, view, viewpoint, guess, conception, reliance, dependence, idea, inference.


[That which is believed]
Syn. creed, credo, tenet, dogma; see FAITH 2, TENET.
Syn.- BELIEF, the term of broadest application in this comparison, implies mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty may be absent; FAITH implies complete, unquestioning acceptance of something, esp. something not supported by reason, even in the absence of proof; TRUST implies assurance, often apparently intuitive, in the reliability of someone or something; CONFIDENCE also suggests such assurance, esp. when based on reason or evidence; CREDENCE suggests mere mental acceptance of something that may have no solid basis in fact See also Synonym Study at OPINION.

Need I say more?

[TygerTyger]

I don't know if I answered the original question or not to your satisfaction but I would like to thank you for asking it because in attempting an answer I actually took a step forward in sorting out why I believe.

Cheers!

[Tinkerbell]

You said: "Those whom have known me since me start on MW will know that I went through many stages, I started out a fledgling pagan still struggling with my Christian upbringing - then came the Demonology period (or Christian magic) - then Chaos magic - then uncertainty (pure agnosticism) - then honesty (Atheism)."


I find this very interesting - would you please elaborate on it some more for me. I appreciate it.

[Infinite Grey]

>Interjection<

*Ahem*







Need I say more?

Yes, you do.


American Heritage Dictionary
be·lief
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


WordNet
belief

noun
1. any cognitive content held as true [ant: disbelief]
2. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law -
Main Entry: be·lief
Function: noun
: a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence



Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
belief
Main
a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Believing is either an intellectual judgment or, as the 18th-century Scottish Skeptic David Hume maintained, a special sort of feeling with overtones that differ from those of disbelief. Beliefs have been distinguished according to their degree of certainty: a surmise or suspicion, an opinion, or a conviction. Belief becomes knowledge only when the truth of a proposition becomes evident to the believer. Belief in someone or something is basically different from belief that a proposition is true.


belief
Main
a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Believing is either an intellectual judgment or, as the 18th-century Scottish Skeptic David Hume maintained, a special sort of feeling with overtones that differ from those of disbelief. Beliefs have been distinguished according to their degree of certainty: a surmise or suspicion, an opinion, or a conviction. Belief becomes knowledge only when the truth of a proposition becomes evident to the believer. Belief in someone or something is basically different from belief that a proposition is true.

Victory does not come cheap.

You have one maybe to dictionaries with that definition... I have how many? Naturally religious belief can be synonymous with faith.

[thought_on_a_wind]

But see, therein lies the flaw.

How many people on this website rifle through 6 different dictionaries to come up with a single definition? Why waste perfectly good neurons for the simple act of splitting hairs?

Let's break this down a bit shall we?

American Heritage Dictionary= which version of the defintion are you using, or did you just snippiity snip to ignore other possible definitions?

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Jargon dictionary. Meant for law and not normal conversational speech. Makes me wonder...

Maybe you should stipulate to a T exactly what you mean when you post your future questions in Advanced Paganism. Which is based upon beliefs at least semi-spirtual/faith based in nature. I'm pretty certain that I'm not alone in assuming that a question posed in this sub-forum is going to have something to do with religious belief, or at the very least the spiritual.

Clearly I've proven that there is a definition that ties faith to religion directly. This is where I will ignorantly declare limiting of beliefs and move on good day.

[Infinite Grey]

But see, therein lies the flaw.

How many people on this website rifle through 6 different dictionaries to come up with a single definition? Why waste perfectly good neurons for the simple act of splitting hairs?

Let's break this down a bit shall we?

American Heritage Dictionary= which version of the defintion are you using, or did you just snippiity snip to ignore other possible definitions?

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Jargon dictionary. Meant for law and not normal conversational speech. Makes me wonder...

Maybe you should stipulate to a T exactly what you mean when you post your future questions in Advanced Paganism. Which is based upon beliefs at least semi-spirtual/faith based in nature. I'm pretty certain that I'm not alone in assuming that a question posed in this sub-forum is going to have something to do with religious belief, or at the very least the spiritual.

Clearly I've proven that there is a definition that ties faith to religion directly. This is where I will ignorantly declare limiting of beliefs and move on good day.

:T You are precistent in your digression.

The original post was in relation to religious belief, hence the "Why believe" - but also to bring in question the origin and cause of that faith. The use of the term was brought up when Xen asked me what I believe and why - I answered, my answer didn't sit well with him - I refined what I meant by believe in the context it was given. Usually I make the distinction of Religious belief and Faith vs Belief. - as I have none and in the circles usually run with take the sentence "I believe" to based in empirical reality or a metaphorical.

So can we please drop this - I have little interest in debating the colour of herring.

[TygerTyger]

So can we please drop this - I have little interest in debating the colour of herring.

What's to debate, they are red!

:hehehehe:

[Infinite Grey]

What's to debate, they are red!

:hehehehe:

:lol: Almost crimson.

[therumpypumpyfaery]

I haven't read all the replies, but I believe, because I do.

I know that's a cop-out answer?

But the truth is? I can't explain why, other then I believe with my whole heart. I have experianced things and felt things that I can't explain using science, but they could have other explanations. But I believe.

Perhaps it's just a mental security blanket, perhaps it's not. But then I've always believed for as long as I can remember that there is a higher power to the universe. I don't believe it's inherently good or inherently evil, that it just is. I believe the Gods and Goddesses are part of that power (that I call the Divine) but seperate from it, and we are part of the Divine and seperate from it, everything from the universe is a part of it, and yet a thing in itself.

I can't explain this belief, only that I've believed it all my life. I wrote an essay explaining this belief when I was 8 years old.

That kinda says a lot about me.

Actually I find it interesting that I believe so strongly. There is no logical reason for me to believe what I believe, or even any evidence that's it's true other then what I've experianced and what I feel in my heart.

And the truth of the matter is is that I can see every arguement for why I'm wrong and acknowledge that they have a point and are probably right....and I'll still believe.

*shrugs* Maybe I'm just a freak I don't know, all I know is that I can't not believe.

[dr_zeus440]

I believe in absence of rational explanation.

I agree.


What do I mean by believe? Well I am referring to faith, magic, spirituality, religion, what ever. Believe in things that can not be empirically tested, or that can not be falsified by mathematics or repeatable testings.

It is my humble and undeveloped opinion that scientific enquiry is just another belief system.


Why believe?

Two answers.

The first is actually that, ideally, I don't believe. I know. But not, necessarily, through the enquiry of the five senses.

The second is that, whilst I endeavour to create a sizeable overlap in the two, I'd rather be happy than right.

[Solya]

I believe in the things I don't know for sure because I want to believe in them. Most of them end up as being validated for me as a person anyhow, but I furthermore choose to lead a life of faith because it feels right to me to do so. I always say that I have never not believed in something or someone. Having faith is something that defines me as a person.

As for logical reasons why I believe or know something... I think science is lacking in that department of explanation because it cannot easily measure emotions and the world of inner faith and knowledge. I base my beliefs solely on what feels right to me and on what I know is the truth. I can't begin to explain most of the things I believe, nor can I reason them out completely in a way that's understandable to human logic... but I know that they are real in some shape or form, if only because I believe them to be so.

Belief and knowledge have always gone together, for me. There are things I don't know yet, but do believe in. There's things I do know now which I had previously only believed in. I sometimes came to know things I didn't believe and I have sometimes even believed things I knew weren't true. And there's things I neither know or believe... and those are the kind of things I learn from.

[David19]

I agree.



It is my humble and undeveloped opinion that scientific enquiry is just another belief system.

I'm not sure I agree, 'cause scientific enquiry doesn't require much belief, like, with evolution, for example, it's pretty much a fact that humans evolved, most scientists don't "believe" in evolution, so much as, know it, if that makes any sense.

They might believe in a certain theory, that hasn't been tested yet, so, they might believe it has potential, or something, though.

[Eleisawolf]

Yes, you do.


Victory does not come cheap.

You have one maybe to dictionaries with that definition... I have how many? Naturally religious belief can be synonymous with faith.

Infinite Grey, you have deliberately deleted information that counters your position--specifically regarding the Merriam-Webster definition.



Main Entry:
be·lief Listen to the pronunciation of belief
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈlēf\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date:
12th century

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance.

belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

If you're going to argue dictionary definitions, you have to include the whole thing. You only posted the third definition. Note that , in standard dictionary structure, as the number of the definition increases, the usage of that particular definition is usually less common.

Taken from the bolding above, it is likely that some people will use belief to imply certitude, while others will not. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable linguistically to equate belief and faith, and if you did not clarify your position in this particular debate, it is entirely accurate for people to accuse you of having not defined the parameters of the debate properly.

The fact of the matter is that language is not static, and even accepted meanings might not have the exact same implications to everyone. Editors of dictionaries and linguistic experts admit that (and, as a person who works with words daily, I dare include that most of us embrace it), and any good debater knows that in order to have an effective debate, the particular definition of any term being used must be stated at the beginning of the debate before it can be used against anyone in the course of the debate.

Otherwise the point is moot.

As you were...

Peace

[Infinite Grey]

Infinite Grey, you have deliberately deleted information that counters your position--specifically regarding the Merriam-Webster definition.



If you're going to argue dictionary definitions, you have to include the whole thing. You only posted the third definition. Note that , in standard dictionary structure, as the number of the definition increases, the usage of that particular definition is usually less common.

Taken from the bolding above, it is likely that some people will use belief to imply certitude, while others will not. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable linguistically to equate belief and faith, and if you did not clarify your position in this particular debate, it is entirely accurate for people to accuse you of having not defined the parameters of the debate properly.

The fact of the matter is that language is not static, and even accepted meanings might not have the exact same implications to everyone. Editors of dictionaries and linguistic experts admit that (and, as a person who works with words daily, I dare include that most of us embrace it), and any good debater knows that in order to have an effective debate, the particular definition of any term being used must be stated at the beginning of the debate before it can be used against anyone in the course of the debate.

Otherwise the point is moot.

As you were...

Peace

What are you talking about? Oh I see.

The definition was not altered nor did I omit relevant data - the confusion here I believe comes from the fact I used the Merriam-Webster Law definition in that instance. As I can't remember what point I was trying to make, I just thought it would be prudent for you to address the same source I was using.

[Sage Rainsong]

I have been thinking about this for a while and I feel and I tried to come up with an original answer, but I can't. I believe in the divine and magic because of the experiences that I have had. I have had various spiritual experience whenever I have done something spiritual it feels right to me. It enhances my life, and I have received a lot of joy and love from my religion. I do not think of science as incompatible with religion at all. For example, I often watch scientific shows while reading an occult tome during the commercials. I think that it is a fallacy to think that being a smart and/or scientific person means that you are not spiritual. There is an interesting archive of scientists who have had spiritual experiences on this website: http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtml. Now I know that just because that there are scientists who believe in a God does not prove anything. It does prove that not all people who are scientifically minded are automatically atheistic. But I digress. I choose to believe that my experiences have significance and that they are real. Is that very scientific, no it is not. However science isn't always useful for all aspects of the human experience. I know many people use the example, do you believe in love? While you can say that there are scientific indicators, if you answered your significant others' question "do you love me," with a complete chemical analysis of your brain, you may not get any action that day (unless you are a couple of serious nerds, not that there is anything wrong with that of course, lol!). It just lacks a certain something when you try to apply science to things like love, faith, poetry, desire, hate and other human experiences, so I do not. So to sum it all up, I trust myself and my experiences and I am not going to let anyone else tell me otherwise, including scientists. Sorry for the ramble people and I hope that I made at least some sense :lol:.

[David19]

I have been thinking about this for a while and I feel and I tried to come up with an original answer, but I can't. I believe in the divine and magic because of the experiences that I have had. I have had various spiritual experience whenever I have done something spiritual it feels right to me. It enhances my life, and I have received a lot of joy and love from my religion. I do not think of science as incompatible with religion at all. For example, I often watch scientific shows while reading an occult tome during the commercials. I think that it is a fallacy to think that being a smart and/or scientific person means that you are not spiritual. There is an interesting archive of scientists who have had spiritual experiences on this website: http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtml. Now I know that just because that there are scientists who believe in a God does not prove anything. It does prove that not all people who are scientifically minded are automatically atheistic. But I digress. I choose to believe that my experiences have significance and that they are real. Is that very scientific, no it is not. However science isn't always useful for all aspects of the human experience. I know many people use the example, do you believe in love? While you can say that there are scientific indicators, if you answered your significant others' question "do you love me," with a complete chemical analysis of your brain, you may not get any action that day (unless you are a couple of serious nerds, not that there is anything wrong with that of course, lol!). It just lacks a certain something when you try to apply science to things like love, faith, poetry, desire, hate and other human experiences, so I do not. So to sum it all up, I trust myself and my experiences and I am not going to let anyone else tell me otherwise, including scientists. Sorry for the ramble people and I hope that I made at least some sense :lol:.

It made sense to me, and, thanks for that link. I agree, for me, I just trust my experiences, my feelings, etc, I don't care if some scientists, or whoever, etc, think they're "crazy", or that "there's no scientific proof". I just go with what I feel, my experiences, etc.

[Shosha]

I find, in my personal experience, that belief comes first. Belief begins the process. I believe this will work. Then the belief evolves into a hypoithisis, evolving into experiments, evolving into either being disproven or proven (at least to myself) and finally being either discarded or filed under Knowledge.

Even some of the most unusual things have been proven to me. Things I didn't think would be proven to me. Like actual Majik (or however people want to spell it now.) I started small. Borrowed a skeptic's mind (my dear hubby.) I sat him in front of a fire... me next to him. I told him to make a note of any changes or alterations in the environment around him. Air temp, fire, bugs... everything he noticed, no matter how small or insignificant he thought it might be.
Then I say down and started chanting in my head... It was silly, I know, but I used "purple fire higher and higher"
after nearly half an hour I changed it to "flames of gree let it be seen"... and so forth. When I looked over his notes, I saw he'd seen every colour of flame I'd attempted... without his knowing what I was trying to do!

That was pretty cool. Then I decided, based on this, that Majik was possible with the right amount of will. It was proven to me. Maybe not to others, but I know it's possible.

Make sense? Belief, for me is a jumping off point.

[Scott Hill]

In short...

"I believe because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

Blessings,
Scott

[Shanti]

I believe only what I tested for myself and found to be true. I cant prove it because my experiences are only for me and thus what happened for me may not for another.

[Darth Brooks]

Why believe?

Because for some of us it's just more practical that way.


In my experience paganism isn't all that diffenerent. How many times have you heard (read) on this very site; "I've been told...". That is apeal to Authority, about the same (actually worse than) saying "my Reverend told me...".

That is very true.


Or anothe example would be: "You can't prove or disprove me belief". Again...That is a perfectly good argument. I won't deny that you are an excellent debater, but you make the exact same flaw every other atheist I've ever spoken to has made. You seem to think those of us who are believers automatically "owe" you some kind of proof for our beliefs. This goes back to what we were debating a long time ago, about how proof is needed in order for claims to have merit. I don't think anybody on this board really cares if you think their beliefs have merit or not. I don't think anyone here really wants to change your mind or convert you to anything. I know I certainly don't. And that is where you and many other atheists keep dropping the ball. For some reason, many of you seem unable to accept the fact that some believers are perfectly happy letting you be the way you are, and that we expect to be given the same courtesy in return. When it comes to people like us, you're not going to get anywhere by demanding proof. But surely you already know this, which begs the question: what is the real motive for demanding proof? It is not because you want someone to prove you wrong so that you can become a believer. More likely, it is because you want to talk somebody out of being a believer. And this is what some of us mean when we talk about atheists who try to convert other people to atheism.

If I am correct in discerning your true motive, I cannot condone it, but I know I can't stop you from doing it either. But it's real easy for the burden of proof to be shifted onto the other guy's shoulders. If you expect us to become atheists, some of us are going to demand absolute proof that our beliefs are wrong. Which we already know you are incapable of presenting. You can always try to turn the tables and say, "Ah, but you don't prove a negative, since you're the ones who believe, you must prove your beliefs," but that won't work on most people here. We believe what we believe for our own reasons and we do not expect our beliefs to have merit for those who do not already share them with us. Most people here are also against proselytizing. But if you expect your way of seeing things to have merit for us then the burden of proof is suddenly placed on you. Go on all you want about not proving negatives, but it won't get you anywhere with this lot.

Now I understand a lot of it comes from the fact that many believers are snot-nosed bigots who are very mean to atheists, and to anyone else who believes differently, and who constantly preach that everybody needs to become just like them, or else. I have dealt with such people myself more than I would like. I think everyone here has. I empathize with you and everyone else who is treated that way. When it comes to people like that, then I think we can all agree the burden of proof is on their shoulders, since it is very clear that they expect their claims to have merit for the rest of us. That is the key here that I think you and many other atheists keep missing - the burden of proof is a flighty animal and it takes roost on the shoulders of anyone who expects their claims to have merit for those who do not already share an enthusiasm for them. It happens just as easily with atheists as it does with believers. We are not subject to it just because you want proof of our beliefs, and you are not immune to it just because you disbelieve.


What evidence? Unless it is repeatable, observable, and/or testable it isn't evidence, personal experience is not enough for me, and I can't imaginer why it would be enough for anyone else.It depends on the personal experience the person has had. Some experiences will grab a hold of a person no matter how irrational or illogical or downright unreal they might seem. And no amount of criticism will change it. It may be difficult for you to imagine but not everybody on earth shares the same cognitive parameters.

And even if I had absolute scientific proof that my beliefs are true, I wouldn't give it to you or to anybody. You think I want every asshole in the world praying to Set?

[Owd Scrat]

I simply don't think a forum thread will expose the answers that agnostics and atheists have searched for for thousands of years.

As far as science goes, there's this article on religion and brain scans:

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article623228.ece

It's pretty interesting. Otherwise, I don't think much of what any of us believes can be proven. Well, except for the majesty of the natural world. Anyone who disputes that is just off their rocker. ;)

~Melanie

:bow: Kudos on your post! Best response yet.

[Owd Scrat]

Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

Yea, pretty much Sacred! I think we all know the type pretty well.... :abored:

[Infinite Grey]

Yea, pretty much Sacred! I think we all know the type pretty well.... :abored:

Superior much? :hehehehe:


I know your type well too ;)

[ffetcher]

since Melanie re-posted childofbasts' posting of a report on Newberg's work...


As far as science goes, there's this article on religion and brain scans:

http://www.tampabay.com/features/hum...icle623228.ece (http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article623228.ece)

It's pretty interesting. Otherwise, I don't think much of what any of us believes can be proven. Well, except for the majesty of the natural world. Anyone who disputes that is just off their rocker. ...I thought I'd contribute a couple of riders to this bit of thread necrophilia. Firstly, Newberg started out working with the late d'Aquili, using Zen meditators as their subject group, and I find it fascinating that the resulting changes in brain activity are pretty much identical. That experience, which I thionk it would be fair to say pre-disposes one to spiritual experiences and, not reaching too far ahead of the evidence, thus to belief, appears to be hard-wired (the SPECT results are backed up by fMRI work form various establishments in the US and UK).

Secondly, Infinite Grey may have followed Ricj=hard Dawkins' work - he's presumably acceptable as a scientist since he's very very atheist with no room for any other viewpoint: for him, not only are non-atheists wrong, any religion is actually dangerous. He famously participated in a Horizon programme on the BBC in 2003:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

with fellow scientist Michael Persinger' and the atheist author Philip Pullman, amongst others. He seemed, at the end, to soften his approach (I'm paraphrasing because I can't find my transcript right now):
"Perhaps we're asking the wrong question. Rather than asking 'what is the evolutionary advantage of spiritual experience', we should be asking 'what is the evolutionary advantage of a brain structured in such a way as to predispose one to spiritual experience."

In short, I believe because the spiritual experiences to which my brain is predisposed lead me to that belief. Since those experiences are mediated by my brain in exactly the same way as my exoperience of, say, a wonderful sunset, and generate much the same brain functions, I don't feel I need to justify those beliefs.

The fact that I can describe the brain functions associated with spirituality in terms of temporal and parietal lobe, or limbic system functions, doesn't impair them for me. Knowing how to make coloured glass makes doesn't stop a stained glass window being beautiful, nor does knowing about refraction and atmospheric dust in any way diminsh the sunset.

blessings
ffetcher

(the elements of this post that may constitute what students of critical thinking call 'logical fallacies' are intended to stimulate debate)

[Karri Morgan]

Why believe?

Oh, have I asked myself that question so many times...
Thing is, for me, I guess life would be easier with no faith at all. Just all practical and materialistic. No deeper meaning, or difficult questions with no answer.

How about we rephrase that question? Instead of "Why believe?", Id say "Why put ourself through the troubles of searching for an answer that cannot be ever truly found?" Or "Why search for mysteries that cannot be combined with the practical pragmatic world that has no miracles, just suffering and pain."

Because we all (I believe) see the suffering and pain that is out there, we all have seen starving children and victims of genocide and hate-crimes. Why belive that anything will ever be better, or search for the good in a world which has so much bad.

These are my thoughts. My issues. But I doubt I am the only one with them.

So, why believe?

I tried for years, not to believe in anything. Just accept the pain and the suffering, and get by. Just live through everything. Like some cold and barren planet in a burning galay (far far away..) Or a iron wheel, doing my thing.

But what is faith, exactly? And I dont care if it is faith in Jesus, or Jehova, or Allah, Odin, the Universe, Apollon.. Isn`t it just an anchor? A comfort? Something that gets you by?

My best friends mother is a mormon. Quite the hard-core believer as well. I never really understood her, untill I saw one of her faith cards. It was a pink thing, with sayings about a good family. Then it really struck me. The womans worst fear, is losing her family. Being alone in the world. Now, I am not a phsyciatrist. Or a shrink. But everything connected to her faith is regarding her family. She is obsessed about everything that makes a family, and the bonds that keeps them together. And honestly? There are a lot of threats to a happy family out there. Euconomy, war, infidelity.. Shit happens!
So, my guess is, her faith, is her way of handeling that fear of something happening to her and her family. It is her answer to her fear. It makes her feel safe, and comforted. Christian people, are to me, just about judging. But truthfully, I guess, they too cling to their faith, because they are scared. Scared of life. And hey, it is understandable. Life is freaking scary. And full of shit. Why cant faith function as a blanket? Security, comfort, rules, traditions, everything that someone would need, to feel secure and worthy a place in the world.

Human beings all search for the same things. Meaning, security, hope..
Some people, I guess, find it through christianity, or similar religions. Some people are born into religions, and dont know what else to believe, or how else to live. Some step out of it, dont find it to be the better solution, and looks elsewhere.

I have always been "searching". But have I been religious? In my own way I guess. I have that longing for something bigger than me. To belong. Have a name. Have a purpose. A faith.

I dont think atheists are more secure people. Some probably are. Hell, perhaps even most. However, I do believe that we believe, either because we need to, in order to feel safe and have meaning or belonging (to a group or to the Universe), or .. I dont know..

Sometimes I get the "Matrix" feeling. That we just need some fantasy to be content. Like not knowing is bad for our inner soullife. We need to "see" the world around us, "know" it, "sense" it.

I dont think mysteries or unanswered questions are good for the average human being. It makes us nervous and frightened. We need meaning. Order.
Some of us, at least.

Shit, even chaos and anarchy is a way of putting your own world into an understandable idea. Because, if you accept that the world is in chaos, then you dont have to stribe for order!

[malkookoo]

I would seem to me that belief and disbelief are a part of the same process.

God, for example: To say that God exists ignores the possibility that God could not exist.

To say irrefutably that God does not exist, which can't be verified either, ignores the possibility that God could could exist.

Therefore, as far as words go, both are acts of the same process: Ignorance.

And both belief and disbelief tend to lead people into taking actions which would otherwise be senseless, if not completely irrational.

Of course, people who believe have been significantly more, eh, motivated in this respect, which may or may not explain the utter lunatic horror that is history.

However, I also think that for most people the active belief comes second. Most faith centered activity that I've witnessed seems to be more of a focal point for ritual and community, a constant in a world full of constant shift. For many, I think, it's just a comfortable means to an end, and the actual mechanics of it aren't given long hours of focused, intense thought (though not always).

[Phoenix Blue]

[Why] Believe in things that can not be empirically tested, or that can not be falsified by mathematics or repeatable testings.
Everyone believes in something. Even an atheist believes in himself.

[Ailyn]

Well, I guess when it comes down to it, I believe because to not believe makes me sad. I get sad whenever I ponder nothing after death, or the idea of eternal damnation, or that I am the "highest" conscious force in the world, I mean look at how we screw everything up. So I choose to believe in something more than myself to give me hope for the human race, to give me love when I feel it nowhere else, and for a place to rest when I can't go any further. I don't want to believe this is it, so I choose not to. I could be wandering down a path of self-delussionment, but I'm happy, or at least hopeful, on that path. The world created by pschizo's mind is just as real to them as this world is to me. No, I cannot test my beliefs, experiences and relationships scientifically, but thats ok with me. If there is nothing beyond death, I will find out eventually, but at least I'll be happy, or at least hopeful, when I stand upon that threshold and gaze forward.

So I guess I am fulfilling my base instinct of being comfortable. I am comfortable in my mind, with myself and with the world.

But I do believe with all my heart in my Gods. They tell me They exist, and even if its a fantasy perpetrated by my over creative mind, I'm happy within it. Deus ex Machina, I guess. Except this machine is confudled on if it created or was created. I choose the latter. :D

[cydira]

I put a lot of thought into where to place this thread, it could belong in non-theistic path forum or theology and philosophy; but since this is a predominately a pagan site and I seek an advanced answer this seems like the place to stick it.

So without further ado...

Why believe?

What do I mean by believe? Well I am referring to faith, magic, spirituality, religion, what ever. Believe in things that can not be empirically tested, or that can not be falsified by mathematics or repeatable testings.

I understand that that as a species we as hardwired to believe in thing we can not see; a useful evolutionary instinct in the instance of threat, but for modern man (modern man being a general term for the last 5 thousand years [a conservative number] or so) with no natural predators, not so much.

So why believe? Is there are logical reason to, or does it all boil down to dumbo's feather? http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:PY162II4ldlRtM:http://gilles.mathevet.free.fr/images/dumbo.jpg


Answers such as; "you just know" or "you have to believe first to see it" or not answers as all. Similar "I can't prove it, so I won't try" or "you won't believe it if you saw it because you're closed minded". They are cop out answers in these context. OR at least I was not satisfied with these answers.

Those whom have known me since me start on MW will know that I went through many stages, I started out a fledgling pagan still struggling with my Christian upbringing - then came the Demonology period (or Christian magic) - then Chaos magic - then uncertainty (pure agnosticism) - then honesty (Atheism).

Honesty in the sense that I could not be true to myself and coincide my beliefs with reality.

So, Advance Pagans. Why believe?

You've made several good points in the initial post here, Infinite Grey. Now, I must say that if you look at a lot of what is present in mainstream paganism a great deal of it is just like Dumbo's feather. Before all y'all get up in arms over this (because I know several are going to be offended by that statement) we need to recognize this is a legitimate psychological technique.

I forget what the term for it is but Dumbo's feather served as a mental focus the same way ritual tools for random pagan X do. As you reach a point where you're sufficiently educated in how things work, you'll realize that you don't need the 'feather' anymore because your abilities are rooted within yourself. Many people get stuck on the idea of the 'feather' being the source of power when it really isn't the feather, as a result there's a great deal of superstition and ritualism present.

We then have the question as to what exactly are the abilities and why they work. There's a lot of different ways to look at it. There are some things that people can do which are exceptionally difficult to explain. Some of these things can fit under the heading of magic as it is used within the pagan community, such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, and apparent telepathy.

Unfortunately, there are many, many claims of success at the use of these abilities that are false. This makes study of the legitimate occurrences highly difficult. Add to this a great deal of self deception and the highly subjective nature of many of the informal studies... Well, you can kinda see where I headed with this so I'll leave that be. Also, there is a strong bias against studying these sort of occurrences within the scientific community because it moves away from the position of being free from subjectivity, in the eyes of most within it. Heck, that's if you can get past the accusations that you're a gullible fool and a superstitious one at that for even suggesting it.

Now, putting these things aside, there is one other matter to consider. Some claims have been made that people are 'hardwired' for belief in something supernatural. A great deal of research into NDEs spawned this concept because of the associated increase with dopamine levels when a certain center of the brain gets deprived of oxygen. I believe some researcher got so far as to calling for a search for the 'god gene'.

I believe that there may be some evidence to support this line of argument but I don't think we can really call it a strong argument yet. If this so called 'god gene' is truly present, then it must be some form of a recessive gene because there are people who don't believe in stuff like divinity, magic, or anything else of the kind. I think that there is also a significant amount of evidence that can point to a 'nurture' side of this argument.

If you look at the society of the United States, for example, there is a startling amount of Christian undertones. Among the concepts we're socialized from a very early age to accept is that there is some form of divinity. (And I'm not talking about the wonderfully delicious fudge that I still can't make right. :bigredgri) Resisting this is very difficult because it is incredibly pervasive. I'm not saying that the USA is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles. I'm saying that it has been highly and heavily influenced by the Christian faith because it was predominantly the faith of choice for the people who are highly placed within the social structure of the USA over the course of history.

I think until we separate how much of the belief in the supernatural and the divine is nature and how much is nurture we're going to have to accept that there is not really much of a ground work to look at for where belief begins. Now, I do think that it is possible to resist genetic inclination to an extent. As such, it is possible to argue that belief is ultimately a matter of individual decision.

From that stance, I have to say that my decision for belief is a combination of a few different factors. Part of this is because of how I was raised and it is habitual. Another part of my decision is based in the fact that this world view is the one that makes the most sense in organizing my understanding and perception of the world about me. And, finally, I believe in these things because I have had experiences which are supported and validated in this worldview.

I prefer to think I am not a mad woman because I know that I can hear the dead whispering to me, that I have precognitive experiences on a fairly regular basis, or because I have had visionary experiences. One could say that it is self delusion, but it's my delusion to have and I enjoy. :hahugh:

[Citana]

Nicely intense debate! I am not currently not armed with the citations I need to best support my conclusions regarding this quesiton, but I may come back with that later . ;)

Cydira said alot nicely that I should not need to paraphrase. See Cydira, below :).

Although, I remember reading recently (most likely American Science Magazine), that those who believe in something, have a longer average life span of those who do not. Now, of course, I am not saying all believers are backed by a god who give them longer life and prosperity, but in an empirical study (most likely a survey of sorts or research into death records, dunno, will find out), they found that on average, American who believe in "something," whether it be a "higher power," science, etc., they live longer and are happier. Kinds like having a dog. Or cat. Anyway, thought I'd input my two cents, and will see about bringing backup next time!

(I hate how i remember these kinds of things, but never offhand remember where they came from)

Love and Blessings!

[Citana]

Re:

Originally Posted by Sacredsin http://mysticwicks.com/enlighten/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3581373#post3581373)
Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.


I don't think we need to go and disrespect those who ask good and legitimate questions that make you think. The only way to grow in your spirituality is to constantly question everything. Get to know why, how and what for. Those who ask these kinds of quesitons are those who get to the nitty gritty. Those who can answer them well, inteligently, and respectfully are those who have true beliefs and opinions, eyes wide open.

And on the otherside of this, be respectful and corteous of those who seem offended or concerned. Please :). If we are advanced Pagans, we should know better. Kudos to all who have been!

[cydira]

Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

Sacredsin, as a person I highly admire once said:

While I do not agree with your statement, I shall defend your right to say it.

This said, please do not consider that I'm about to post anything remotely akin to a personal attack. That is the absolute last thing on my mind here and not my intention at all. Any and all offense that might be given is purely accidental and I apologize in advance.


Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine?

The above does appear to be a statement made in the spirit of frustration and perhaps a bit of anger. I can empathize with the feelings but it really doesn't have a place in this discussion. I understand how difficult it is to debate, let alone engage in an intense discussion on this topic.

Taking an antagonistic position immediately after requesting clarification doesn't exactly put the person you're asking the question of in a comfortable position to respond. They may be disinclined to answer because of a concern that they'll be attacked for doing so and not giving an answer that was desired.

You might want to change your approach a little and separate your expression of frustration from your request for clarification. It serves to voice what offense you might feel and your frustration in a manner that isn't threatening. I'm not the best at doing this myself, but I've found that it does work quite well. Just a friendly suggestion from someone who's been there before (many, many times) in this kind of discussion. :hahugh:


When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

It may be that Infinite Grey is having some difficulty recognizing what the thrust of the questions were. Some of the questions asked of Infinite Grey were about as open ended as the initial question asked. Perhaps you could rephrase the questions you are concerned were not addressed in a satisfactory way. I'm interested in seeing which one's you'd like addressed. :)

As to the initial statement of your post, Sacredsin, I think I can answer the question as to the point of the initial question asked by Infinite Grey. (Infinite Grey, correct me if I am misunderstanding your goal in initiating this discussion/debate! :boing: ) I understand the main objective of Infinite Grey in starting this discussion is to come to a greater understanding as to why others believe in that which can not be proven at this time via empirical evidence and can seem difficult to reconcile to the different logical frames of reference available when one considers the world.

Metaphysics, the philosophical inquiry into matters such as theology, cosmology, and the nature of existence (among many other things), is a notoriously difficult branch of philosophy to discuss with out allowing a great deal of one's emotion and biases to influence their position. This is partly because there is quite a bit of the matter that are highly subjective. Also, when one discusses a subject such as theology, you run into an incredible amount of difficulty with clarifying terms and establishing the framework of the discussion. As my philosophy instructor at college phrased it: all 'god talk' is nonsense talk.

This isn't a slight against theology or the belief in god. It's a statement about just how hard it is to just establish a list of agreed upon terms. Even within one religion! When you take into account multiple religions and perspectives upon the matter, it just increases the difficulty exponentially. Even terms that seem to be straight forward and universally understood, become difficult when examined because of how we individually understand them.

It's a difficult discussion. I can understand your frustration, Sacredsin. I believe, however, that discussions like this are necessary because it helps to establish an understood set of terms for proceeding on to discussions about other related topics. I don't think that poo-pooing anyone was a part of this at all.

It may be that Infinite Grey is having similar difficulties in expressing his/her position that others are here and it's being misunderstood as belittling the positions of others. I just wanted to point that out.

[cydira]

Have we established which definition we're using for the terms of belief and faith? There was a lot of really great ones from several different sources presented. Should we link back to the definition we're using?

I briefly forgot that there wasn't an agreement when I typed up my reply. I may, however, be wrong and managed to confuse myself. :boing: (It's a little easier to do when you're pregnant. LOL :boing: )

[Karri Morgan]

I very much agree.. To question aspects of our life/faith can lead us to development and understanding. But still, I find some questions a bit .. Well, what is the word? Not un-interesting, by all means.. Just.. Some questions depend so much on the individual, that discussing it boiled down to a simple idea makes no sense. He asked; "Why believe?"

Can we actually find an answer to that, that will generally satisfy people? I really doubt it. What we can do, is to answer individually, why do we believe, and combine that with some philosophical theories about belief and the basic human need for religion (As long as there has been people, there has been religion). But doesn`t that change the whole point of the question? It still wont really be; "Why believe?" But it will be "Why do you, or that group of people believe?" And it most probably will not be a satisfying answer, because we are so different, so people with different belief-system probably wont manage to identify with that exact feeling, or need.

What I am saying, is that, I might share why I believe, or my theories about other people`s beliefs, but it still wont come near to answer the question for the person who originally asked the question, and it might not make sense to anyone other than me. Not because I am a very special individual (I am not), but because faith and belief is just one of those things that feels unique to people, that just simply cannot be explained away.

Like explaining the wonder of a childbirth to someone who has not ever witnessed a pregnancy or known someone who has given birth. Or something else, you catch my drift.. I am sure an astronaut could not explain to me, how it feels to swoop around in "no gravity land".

Not that haing one sort of belief is better than another type of belief. As I said, even atheists have a belief. We all believe in something, whether it is money, Jesus, Odin, Sarah Palin (gah) or Allah.
(Sorry, could not help myself..)

[Morgaine_cla]

Why believe? ... (in things that can not be empirically tested, or that can not be falsified by mathematics or repeatable testings) ...[Prehistoric man may have needed intuition, but] for modern man ...with no natural predators ...[why] believe? Answers such as; "you just know" or "you have to believe first to see it" or not answers as all. ... So, Advance Pagans. Why believe?


[Bracketed text summarized.]


Neat question.

I don't believe in anything I can't see, hear, taste, smell, and feel, nor do I believe in processes whose results cannot be reliably repeated. (The Avalonian definition of ritual is "doing the same thing, the same way, to achieve the same results"--not so different from the definition of the scientific method, really.) Avalonian Druids subject all of teachings and intuitive work to a process called "verification". Verification requires you to find three outside sources (literary, scientific/academic, and folkloric) that substantiate your findings or assertions. Things that have not yet been verified are not pitched out as "nonsense", because we recognise that "facts" change as new evidence comes to light; instead, unsubstantiated claims are tabled until such time as they can be verified (however long that might be), or until they are proved untrue. What is verified is considered "true", to whatever extent a thing can be true when seen through the perceptions of limited senses and biased intellects.

I believe that which I directly experience, observe and have verified in "legitimate" (i.e. pre-validated) outside sources. I believe that everything must be challenged and questioned, and that things which don't hold up to that process must be considered highly suspect. That said...

Atheism attempts to assess spiritual belief according to a standard academic model, yet the "established truths" of the academic are routinely overturned by cutting edge science. With very few exceptions, academia typically lags behind the latest science by some decades. This is especially true in the area which best elucidates the causes behind "unexplainable" spiritual and magical operations and phenomena: the science of modern Physics. Thus atheism is not a "rational" scientific viewpoint, since what is rational is supported by science and any truly scientific perspective is, by definition, constantly questioning/challenging the status quo in the interest of investigating new possibilities.

I also believe that there is an excellent reason for retaining and developing the subtle (intuitive) senses, namely that all things in Nature follow cycles. The fact that we may think we are top predators today does not ensure that the same will be true tomorrow. Even if we discard this sentiment as nonsense, it has been documented that the far ancestors used their subtle senses to detect celestial events and objects that our science is only now discovering... maybe we should be consulting ancestral skills to find the next close-orbiting space object. Sometimes going backward is going forward. :hahugh:

That's the basis for my belief. Whether and what you believe will depend entirely upon your own limitations and perceptions.

Cheers!

Morgaine

PS--I am not an academic. Keeping all of the references I find in the course of verifying my spiritual explorations could easily be a full-time job, but as it isn't a job that pays, I prefer to spend my time actually walking my Path. However, in most cases a simple, 5-10 min. search using basic search criteria and browsing only accredited university or science sites should reveal the same or similar "evidence". Therefore please forgive me for failing to provide these customary academic "proofs".

[Russ]

Infinite Grey, what is the point of this, really? To show us how we're all wrong and ignorent for believing in the divine? When posters bring up good questions for you you ignore them and then call them wrong and ignorent without acknowledging what they wrote. I can't help but think this isn't really about "advanced conversation" and more about showing the little ignorent pagan why they're less intelligent simply because they believe in divinity.

Thank you Sacred! I honestly wonder if people on this board (Not the mods the peoples) would be as generous and accomidating with a Christian came on and made the same kind of arguments that Infinite has been doing.

As for why I believe, cuz I do and see my signature. That's the way it is and I don't have to answer it on anyone else's terms but mine.

[Infinite Grey]

Thank you Sacred! I honestly wonder if people on this board (Not the mods the peoples) would be as generous and accomidating with a Christian came on and made the same kind of arguments that Infinite has been doing.

As for why I believe, cuz I do and see my signature. That's the way it is and I don't have to answer it on anyone else's terms but mine.

1> Christians tend not ask these sort of questions and/or arguments.
2> What's wrong with my questions and/or arguments?


"I do not need science, logic or rationality to justify my beliefs"
-Me


Then is stands that you can not justify your beliefs without the use of one fallacy or another.


"One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen."
-The Same

-snort- Only one that has a contorted understanding of what science is and how it works. I bet you believe that because scientists have been wrong in the past constitutes a weakness in the scientific community... am I right?

[Russ]

1> Christians tend not ask these sort of questions and/or arguments.

Your not as different as you'd think. I know a few that would follow the line your taking. Right down to calling people that do not come to conclusion you'd like a liar.


2> What's wrong with my questions and/or arguments?

Well I basically think your proselytizing for atheism. But that's really a Mods call not mine so carry on I.G.


Then is stands that you can not justify your beliefs without the use of one fallacy or another.

You see the thing is I don't need to justify them to anyone.


-snort- Only one that has a contorted understanding of what science is and how it works. I bet you believe that because scientists have been wrong in the past constitutes a weakness in the scientific community... am I right?

Yeap, susceptible to dogmatic thinking, elitism, close mindedness, blind obedience to fads and so on. You know just like every other community in existence.

I've known of a couple of Pagans in the scientific community that keep there faith under there hat just to protect there jobs for example as they'd be dismissed if it ever came to light they believed in and practiced magic.

[Infinite Grey]

Your not as different as you'd think. I know a few that would follow the line your taking. Right down to calling people that do not come to conclusion you'd like a liar.

I'd like to see a serious example of me calling someone a liar because they did not come to a conclusion I liked. Else you will be guilty of making shit up... aka lying :thumbsup:




Well I basically think your proselytizing for atheism. But that's really a Mods call not mine so carry on I.G.


You can think that all you want - won't make it true. It's a redundant practice proselytizing atheism, :rolleyes: Oh, asking questions and presenting arguments is not proselytizing - unless you're subscribing to logic as described by Scientology.



You see the thing is I don't need to justify them to anyone.

Then why post? Obviously you do feel the need to justify your beliefs.




Yeap, susceptible to dogmatic thinking, elitism, close mindedness, blind obedience to fads and so on. You know just like every other community in existence.

Mmhmmm I knew you did not understand the scientific world or the scientific method.

I'll post an article that explains it simply, but I won't hold my breath expecting you read it...

One thing I will mention though is, the scientific method is a self correcting mechanism - fads, blind obedience, close mindedness, dogmatic thinking and even elitism (all things common in religion) are rendered impotent - that is why those previously thought to be impossible or unlikely discoveries were made and excepted into the standard scientific literature.


I've known of a couple of Pagans in the scientific community that keep there faith under there hat just to protect there jobs for example as they'd be dismissed if it ever came to light they believed in and practiced magic.

And I call bullshit. The only way I see that happening is via managerial policies, but nothing to do with the science community. Now if they try to include magic into their scientific procedures, then their ass deserves to be fired.

[Russ]

I'd like to see a serious example of me calling someone a liar because they did not come to a conclusion I liked. Else you will be guilty of making shit up... aka lying :thumbsup:

Well for starters you called me a liar because I didn't come to your conclusion after watch a clip of Dawkins.


You can think that all you want - won't make it true. It's a redundant practice proselytizing atheism, :rolleyes: Oh, asking questions and presenting arguments is not proselytizing - unless you're subscribing to logic as described by Scientology.

Depends, I've known a few atheist that are big on promoting it, there are such movements now even.


Then why post? Obviously you do feel the need to justify your beliefs.

I wanted to give Sacredsin some moral support.


Mmhmmm I knew you did not understand the scientific world or the scientific method.

Why do you say that?


I'll post an article that explains it simply, but I won't hold my breath expecting you read it...

An shall not hold mine expecting you to believe me if I did.


One thing I will mention though is, the scientific method is a self correcting mechanism - fads, blind obedience, close mindedness, dogmatic thinking and even elitism (all things common in religion) are rendered impotent - that is why those previously thought to be impossible or unlikely discoveries were made and excepted into the standard scientific literature.

But at times they had to go against everyone. It's interesting how some people put the scientific community on a pedestal and refuse to acknowledge it's done it's share of wrongs or just explain them away.

But then Scientism is the dogma or our time.


And I call bullshit. The only way I see that happening is via managerial policies, but nothing to do with the science community.

And this would be the second time you have called me a liar.


Now if they try to include magic into their scientific procedures, then their ass deserves to be fired.

What would you consider including magic in procedures? You mean like having charms for success or clarity of mind?

[Infinite Grey]

Well for starters you called me a liar because I didn't come to your conclusion after watch a clip of Dawkins.


Oh I remember that! I called you a liar because I did not believe that you had watched the video... considering you responded something like 2 minutes after I posted it and it was like 6 minute long... you also accused Dawkins of something that he stated the exact opposite of in the first 2 minutes of the video. So yeah, I felt justified in calling you a liar for claiming to watch the video... had nothing to do with your conclusions.



Depends, I've known a few atheist that are big on promoting it, there are such movements now even.

True that atheism is promoted. But that is not what I'm doing. Or do you just lump all atheists in one group?



I wanted to give Sacredsin some moral support.

Sure - and putting me in my place had noooothing to do with. This thread was effectively dead.




Why do you say that?

Errr that you attribute things to science that do not belong to it.


An shall not hold mine expecting you to believe me if I did.

Bugger, after all that I forgot to link it. On second thought I'll link you to a series of educational videos on the topic - they're quite entertaining and informative.




But at times they had to go against everyone. It's interesting how some people put the scientific community on a pedestal and refuse to acknowledge it's done it's share of wrongs or just explain them away.

Such as?

They nickname the method in which a theory much travel the Trail of Fire for a reason. All theories had to endure the harsh scrutiny and even abuse of their peers... the scientific method is set up that way, a harsh meritocracy - if a theory can survive the Trail of Fire, the scientific community can not deny its validity. It also ensures that crap science is obliterated.


But then Scientism is the dogma or our time.

What the **** is Scientism?


And this would be the second time you have called me a liar.
It would have... but you tried, but it was twisting of what I said in that case that justified your claim... so not a liar, just you misrepresenting me... wait a sec!



What would you consider including magic in procedures? You mean like having charms for success or clarity of mind?
No, like saying the bacterial flagellum was designed by a mysterious supernatural intelligent agent - or Mushroom rings are formed by fairies.

[Russ]

Oh I remember that! I called you a liar because I did not believe that you had watched the video... considering you responded something like 2 minutes after I posted it and it was like 6 minute long... you also accused Dawkins of something that he stated the exact opposite of in the first 2 minutes of the video. So yeah, I felt justified in calling you a liar for claiming to watch the video... had nothing to do with your conclusions.

And I explained my reason. Seen it before and I agreed with Memnoch based on what Dawkins said before.


Sure - and putting me in my place had noooothing to do with. This thread was effectively dead.

Didn't notice till now that this thing started in 08 but I saw it at the top a bit back, the 21st of this month to be exact and made a mental note to post in it soon as I had a moment.


Bugger, after all that I forgot to link it. On second thought I'll link you to a series of educational videos on the topic - they're quite entertaining and informative.

It happens we both have lives outside of Mystic Wicks after all.


Such as?

The Eugenics movement, the scientific 'proof' blacks are inferior to whites. Science is a tool and can be abused and the Scientific community is capable of doing wrong. Just like everyone else.


They nickname the method in which a theory much travel the Trail of Fire for a reason. All theories had to endure the harsh scrutiny and even abuse of their peers... the scientific method is set up that way, a harsh meritocracy - if a theory can survive the Trail of Fire, the scientific community can not deny its validity. It also ensures that crap science is obliterated.

So your saying science is incablable of error?



What the hug is Scientism?

Wiki but an okay overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)


It would have... but you tried, but it was twisting of what I said in that case that justified your claim... so not a liar, just you misrepresenting me... wait a sec!

Umm come again?


No, like saying the bacterial flagellum was designed by a mysterious supernatural intelligent agent - or Mushroom rings are formed by fairies.

Ahh I see thank you.

[Infinite Grey]

And I explained my reason. Seen it before and I agreed with Memnoch based on what Dawkins said before.

Fair enough.




Didn't notice till now that this thing started in 08 but I saw it at the top a bit back, the 21st of this month to be exact and made a mental note to post in it soon as I had a moment.

Still a little late to the game for the discussion between me any SS.




It happens we both have lives outside of Mystic Wicks after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Ahuh! I remembered to link it finally!




The Eugenics movement, the scientific 'proof' blacks are inferior to whites. Science is a tool and can be abused and the Scientific community is capable of doing wrong. Just like everyone else.

WRONG! Eugenics was based on pseudo-science, social prejudices and religious doctrines... most particularly the private works of Martin Luther. An example of bad science, and its mangled corpse being thrown on the junk pile. Try again.


So your saying science is incablable of error?

Do you actually read what I write or only pretend to? What does Self Correcting mean? It means, if an error is discovered it is exposed and corrected. duh.





Wiki but an okay overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

Ah the strawman philosophy invented by christian apologetics, like that other nonsense like scientific imperialism.

Though in a way it can be applicable if you subscribe to Michael Shermer's definition "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

If the world is headed that way, then the future is bright and hopeful.




Umm come again?

LoL nevermind.


Ahh I see thank you.

Finally.

[David19]

One thing I will mention though is, the scientific method is a self correcting mechanism - fads, blind obedience, close mindedness, dogmatic thinking and even elitism (all things common in religion) are rendered impotent - that is why those previously thought to be impossible or unlikely discoveries were made and excepted into the standard scientific literature.

I just wanted to add something, there is a certain elitism that some scientists convey, like the fact that not all of their findings are available to the public, unless you pay (or, you'll have to subscribe to a specific journal). I think science should be available to everyone, not just the ones who can afford it. Some of the most well-known scientists are white, hetrosexual middle-aged males, I don't I'm generalizing in some places, and that's probably more a criticism of our society rather than scientists, per se, but, there is a bit of elitism, IMO, anyway. Although, again, I think that's due to human nature, not science itself.

[Infinite Grey]

I just wanted to add something, there is a certain elitism that some scientists convey, like the fact that not all of their findings are available to the public, unless you pay (or, you'll have to subscribe to a specific journal). I think science should be available to everyone, not just the ones who can afford it. Some of the most well-known scientists are white, hetrosexual middle-aged males, I don't I'm generalizing in some places, and that's probably more a criticism of our society rather than scientists, per se, but, there is a bit of elitism, IMO, anyway. Although, again, I think that's due to human nature, not science itself.

Yeah, I'm overly fond of that practice either... but a lot of that I think, has to do with finances over elitism. In many countries scientists have devote a lot of time to raising funds. What would be elitism would be to deny access to the peer reviewed based on education credentials.

[David19]

Depends, I've known a few atheist that are big on promoting it, there are such movements now even.

There are, for example:

Church of Virus (http://www.churchofvirus.org/index.html) - big of Memetics, here's a bit of info about the CoV:


Goal
Virus was created to compete with the traditional (irrational) religions in the human ideosphere with the idea that it would introduce and propagate memes which would ensure the survival and evolution of our species. The main advantage conferred upon adherents is Virus provides a conceptual framework for leading a truly meaningful life and attaining immortality without resorting to mystical delusions.

So, in other words, "our way is better than yours".

Then, there's the:

First Church of Atheism (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/), from the site (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/about/):


The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men. When Paul and Jacki were wed, they hired a non-denominational minister to perform the ceremony. They requested that the ceremony be entirely faith neutral, as they were both devout atheists. To their dismay, the ceremony that the minister submitted for their approval was littered with references to, and direct statements about, god. They pulled out a red pen and started editing, paring down the ceremony into a 2 minute long affair.

In other words, they were too dumb to go to a Registary Office.

[Philosophia]

There are, for example:

Church of Virus (http://www.churchofvirus.org/index.html) - big of Memetics, here's a bit of info about the CoV:

So, in other words, "our way is better than yours".

Sounds like most other websites describing there own practices.


Then, there's the:

First Church of Atheism (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/), from the site (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/about/):

In other words, they were too dumb to go to a Registary Office.

:wtf: Why are you claiming that they were too dumb? They wanted a wedding...the minister gave them something with god in it and they crossed it out. That doesn't mean that they are dumb.

[~Belladonna~]

I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to get an answer that you like and/or understand. That seems to be the problem between those that do believe and those that do not.

I agree with this.

[David19]

Yeah, I'm overly fond of that practice either... but a lot of that I think, has to do with finances over elitism. In many countries scientists have devote a lot of time to raising funds. What would be elitism would be to deny access to the peer reviewed based on education credentials.

True, but, it does tend to lead to a perceived elitism, especially when a lot of the more famous scientists do seem to be upper/Middle Class, white hetrosexual males.



Sounds like most other websites describing there own practices.



:wtf: Why are you claiming that they were too dumb? They wanted a wedding...the minister gave them something with god in it and they crossed it out. That doesn't mean that they are dumb.

True, those sites are like most other sites describing their own practices, I was just using it as an example to show there are some Atheist groups who do hold a "our way is better" view, just like other groups do.

Also, I just thought The First Church of Atheism was going a bit overboard, when you can just go to Registary Office and get married, without any religious trappings, there's no need to start an entire Church for it.

[*oonagh*]

i have not read this whole thread.
i *know*. i don't believe. i experience the divine every day and in every thing. there is god (some force...call it whatever makes you happy) which is at the center of all things. it doesn't matter if we believe or if we don't. that which is...is. it doesn't need *us* to make it so.

[David19]

i have not read this whole thread.
i *know*. i don't believe. i experience the divine every day and in every thing. there is god (some force...call it whatever makes you happy) which is at the center of all things. it doesn't matter if we believe or if we don't. that which is...is. it doesn't need *us* to make it so.

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know you know?, how do you know it's not all in your head?.

[*oonagh*]

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know you know?, how do you know it's not all in your head?.

it doesn't' matter if it's in my head. it still *is*.