Llwellyn Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Persons should trust the conclusions that they make based on what SEEMS true to them. Seeming is being. Or, at least we don't have any closer grasp on "what is" except what has seemed to us most likely. I don't think that it is desirable to come to the point that we all share the same beliefs and opinions. I am reminded of the quote: "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." George S. Patton. But least of all should you accept what SEEMS to you to be wrong. This is what would happen if you allowed the Bible to turn the power off to your reason. The Bible spends a lot of time telling readers that what seems to the reader to be true is not true. Proverbs 12:15: "The way of fools seems right to them." Proverbs 14:12, 16:25: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." This allows the Bible, and Christian teachers to smuggle into a person's life and a persons mind a lot of behaviors and beliefs that are abnormal, irregular, and illogical. Until a teaching SEEMS right to you, for whatever reasons you may count as reasons, you should not believe it. Consider the applications -- If it seems to you that there is no God, because you have never been persuaded by compelling evidence or argument, then that is because there IS no God. I admit that there are people for whom it SEEMS that there is a God, or it SEEMS that the use of contraception is an evil, or it SEEMS that the world was created by intelligent design. I think those people are wrong, but I think so because of how things appear to ME. Each of us should believe exactly what we do believe until we have some reason to change our beliefs. There is also the position of just allowing yourself not to have an opinion one way or the other, because nothing SEEMS persuasive to you one way or the other. We ought to exchange our observations and opinions with each other in order to decide for ourselves what we will believe. Once you get started with this method, it is actually pretty awesome: I don't believe in the Pantheistic mind because it seems like it is a fantasy. I don't believe in the Marxist materialistic dialectic because it seems like superstition. The Platonist world of the forms seems like unwarranted speculation, so I reject it. I admit that for some questions our thoughts about how things SEEM can stand to benefit from the application of science, and its ability to extend common sense deeper and further. I believe in atoms and molecules because that SEEMS right after I took physics and chemistry in high school and college. How does this analysis seem to you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eXcelInferno Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I think this is a great analysis! It's very scientific. In science, we assume nothing is absolutely true because we are always looking at different ways to improve what we already know. Therefore everything that we "know" to be true is always just what "seems" to be true. When writing a scientific paper we always say "This trend appears to be happening," or "It appears that this is correlated with that." This is because we know we can be wrong and are always looking for ways of improving our methods, which I think is wonderful. They say in Christianity you have to be humble, but I think this approach is the humblest of them all. I also think that it is great for everyone to be able to form their own opinions. I find it interesting that, as less and less people become religious in the world, more and more people seem to have the same ideas on what is right and wrong even on controversial issues such as gay rights and abortion. Interesting how the vast majority of disputes on these topics are just between religious vs. non-religious people. I think what's important is that people come to these conclusions based on what they find out and conclude to "seem" correct and not based on dogmatic influence. I think that's what the problem is there, is that once one deconverts it is fairly obvious what is right and wrong based on facts which seem to make sense, not on ideas presented as "fact" that conflict with what seems to otherwise make sense. And that is what seems to push many people toward deconversion: the conflict between dogma and the perception of life as it is (which does seem to make more sense). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 It seems that the fantasy of science spices up my pantheistic reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 ideas presented as "fact" that conflict with what seems to otherwise make sense. If we are going to adopt a belief, we must adopt the one that, on reflection, seems to be right -- the best, the most reasonable, belief to take. I'm not going to insist that this will be atheism rather than theism. If a person says that their reason points to the existence of a God (say Plato, for example), I am going to respect that conclusion. But Christians reason in bad faith. Tertullian, the Christian Theologian wrote "credo quia absurdum" -- "I believe because it is absurd." Christians seems to break faith with the human community when they say that they will believe what seems to them to be false. They believe it precisely BECAUSE it seems wrong. This is a decline in intellectual integrity. They would reject the very values that are the basis for any articulation of a philosophical view of truth and knowledge at all. It is simply an abandonment of the very attempt to learn more about the nature and adequacy of conditions of inquiry. Christianity weakens our intellectual resilience and leaves us even more vulnerable to rhetorical seduction. If a person will believe something that seems wrong, then there is no limit to the nonsense that they, for that reason, will fill their minds with. Mark Twain pointed it out -- "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I basically agree, Llewellyn. Among things that "seem to be true," you include conclusions from experiments and from the math about the findings, even if they seem counter-intuitive, no? I.e. some stuff in physics seems pretty weird. I gather from your last full paragraph in your OP that you too hold this. Just a note: there is no passage in Tertullian where the words "credo quia absurdum est" appear, although he said what amounts to the same dictum in On the Flesh of Christ, i.e. "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum OK, carry on, L! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 We call something "counter-intuitive" only after we have come to believe that it is true. And we come to believe it is true because we have allowed our repeated surprise to form a new conjencture that was different from our first conjecture. As long as it is still simply "counter," then we'll still call it "false." When educated people have theories which are informed by science, and different from the theories of uneducated people, we call these theories "counter-intuitive." Intuition is very important important to humans, but it too can be educated and improved. Experience teaches us by practical jokes, mostly cruel. She says, "Open your mouth and shut your eyes And I'll give you something to make you wise." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts