ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Let's go down your path for a moment....disregarding a "soul". This would mean that feelings are essentially instantaneous facts. And what I hear you saying is that if we understand facts, sure, that's a good thing, but if we don't, bad thing. You really can't make that judgment with these instantaneous urges/facts because they might certainly be telling your mind to move into or away from said circumstance. There are "instantaneous urges" and there are making decisions based on emotion as opposed to reason. Sure, this new car may feel great, but the decision to buy it should be based on my budget, income, and what I can ultimately afford. Same with religion. I may feel loved, taken care of, special....but should I really disregard the historicity of the bible? Should I actively work against current scientific leanings? Logical inconsistencies? Furthermore, should these "intellectual" values be demeaned in favor of emotion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Let's go down your path for a moment....disregarding a "soul". This would mean that feelings are essentially instantaneous facts. And what I hear you saying is that if we understand facts, sure, that's a good thing, but if we don't, bad thing. You really can't make that judgment with these instantaneous urges/facts because they might certainly be telling your mind to move into or away from said circumstance. No, not at all. Feelings are not factual information, though it may be a fact that you have the feeling. Perhaps you'd like to have me say that in the absence of factual information and the immediate need to take action, we are left to rely on our intuition, instincts, best guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Not trying to overstep my bounds here; but I would submit that the universality of love would be a good indicator of its "truth" (for lack of a better term). Love is, and has been, experienced by people of all races, ethnicities, ages, and religions, throughout human history. It is a common human emotion, like happiness; but with much more profound consequences, like joy. The father who sacrifices for his children, or the wife who longs for her man to come home from war. Love is, in my opinion, an absolute; in that the effects of love are felt consistently by all. Contrast this with the effects of "god", which vary widely between religions; and even churches within the same faith cannot seem to agree. Well if God is love, then what your statement tells me is we ARE truly individuals as described in the Bible.....because you say love is absolute, but each person's religious experience unique, is that God has a plan for each of us to be "finished". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 No, not at all. Feelings are not factual information, though it may be a fact that you have the feeling. Perhaps you'd like to have me say that in the absence of factual information and the immediate need to take action, we are left to rely on our intuition, instincts, best guesses. By default, you opinion here is wrong C. Without an outside Source, there is nothing left but physics and chemistry. It may be facts we can't get a handle on, yet they are certainly fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 By default, you opinion here is wrong C. Without an outside Source, there is nothing left but physics and chemistry. It may be facts we can't get a handle on, yet they are certainly fact. What does that even mean? That there are unknowns therefore "Source?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 What does that even mean? That there are unknowns therefore "Source?" You are saying there feelings are not factual information. I'm saying, by default, without a "God" or "Soul", yes they are. We may not be able to pin down the billions of instantaneous chemical reaction that produce those feelings, but yeah, it's a fact. The problem you have is you are trying to rule out what we don't understand in favor of what we do and throw the rest out....rigid old bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Our understanding of our objective reality is wonderfully incomplete. This incompleteness should not be seen as an opportunity to insert what we strongly desire to see into what we fervently hope are available gaps. Strong desires and fervent hopes? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 You are saying there feelings are not factual information. I'm saying, by default, without a "God" or "Soul", yes they are. We may not be able to pin down the billions of instantaneous chemical reaction that produce those feelings, but yeah, it's a fact. The problem you have is you are trying to rule out what we don't understand in favor of what we do and throw the rest out....rigid old bastard. Feelings are NOT factual information. They are how you feel, not what is true, untrue, real or imagined. A feel is not a fact. I'm not ruling out anything just because I don't understand it. Explain it to me so I do understand. This sounds like a not even thinly veiled God of the Gaps argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Well if God is love, then what your statement tells me is we ARE truly individuals as described in the Bible.....because you say love is absolute, but each person's religious experience unique, is that God has a plan for each of us to be "finished". Oh, god completely has a plan for each of us... except the mohammedans... and the buddhists... and vegan wiccan anti-vaxxer's children... See, if god were an absolute, then everyone would share a commonality of experience with god, as we do with love. But god is not an absolute; he's not even a constant. That's why there are so many religions experiencing "god" so many different ways. Smoke some weed, End3; the Rastas are actually the ones who are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Feelings are NOT factual information. They are how you feel, not what is true, untrue, real or imagined. A feel is not a fact. I'm not ruling out anything just because I don't understand it. Explain it to me so I do understand. This sounds like a not even thinly veiled God of the Gaps argument. No, if there is no God, then all there is, is objective...including us. This would narrow a feeling down to an chemical mechanism. It's gaps alright, gaps we don't understand, but several of you are saying that the filling the gaps with something we suspect is totally without merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 22, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2017 Filling the gaps with what we suspect and infer that may be true is how science works. Then we test the hypothesis to see if it holds water. That's the step some people skip. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 No, if there is no God, then all there is, is objective...including us. This would narrow a feeling down to an chemical mechanism. It's gaps alright, gaps we don't understand, but several of you are saying that the filling the gaps with something we suspect is totally without merit. You keep using the word "objective," I'm not certain I'm grasping your meaning. What do you mean by "then are there is, is objective..." What does this mean? There are still lots of studies going on with regard to emotion, but there is plenty of research to back up the assertion that a feeling IS a chemical mechanism. Because we more than suspect that, we can fill the gaps with this knowledge. What are you proposing we fill the gaps with? Again, I apologize, but you are not making any sense to me. I'm not following your points and how you are connecting your thoughts and arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 No, not at all. Feelings are not factual information, though it may be a fact that you have the feeling. To whom are feelings not factual information? If you experience excruciating pain (a completely subjective experience) and there is no objective evidence to explain it, am I justified in saying your pain is not factual? I'm not saying objective information should be dismissed as part of decision making. I'm saying that subjective information should not be dismissed just because it is subjective. Certainly I could love some one who turns out to be a murderer. That doesn't mean the love itself would become any less real when faced with those facts, even though the feeling of love cannot be measured by objective means. I'm not really trying to make parallels with Christianity. I think TRP has a point when he says we're more inclined to believe subjective experiences are real or truthful when it is experienced universally in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 23, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 To whom are feelings not factual information? If you experience excruciating pain (a completely subjective experience) and there is no objective evidence to explain it, am I justified in saying your pain is not factual? I'm not saying objective information should be dismissed as part of decision making. I'm saying that subjective information should not be dismissed just because it is subjective. Certainly I could love some one who turns out to be a murderer. That doesn't mean the love itself would become any less real when faced with those facts, even though the feeling of love cannot be measured by objective means. I'm not really trying to make parallels with Christianity. I think TRP has a point when he says we're more inclined to believe subjective experiences are real or truthful when it is experienced universally in the same way. Okay, we can experience pain. There are causes for pain, be they physical or psychological. The pain is real. Pain is not an emotion the way swooning over the love of Jesus is an emotion. I already stated that love may be a genuine emotion one feels, or real if you prefer, but that love does not provide any factual or even helpful information about the object of your love or the practical ramifications of pursuing that love relationship. Thinking gives us a logical way to deal with factual information, emotions are spontaneous feelings or reactions. I am not dismissing or devaluing emotions, we all have them. I am maintaining that emotions are not a reliable guide to decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 STAR TREK II : THE WRATH OF KHAN Spock: Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing. Logic suggests... McCoy: Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic; we're talking about universal Armageddon! You green-blooded, inhuman... . . . EX-CHRISTIAN.NET, THE LION'S DEN, THE ABSOLUTE BAA: Really End3. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing. Logic suggests... End3: Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic, we're talking about feelings here! You (insert insult here)... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 You keep using the word "objective," I'm certain I'm grasping your meaning. What do you mean by "then are there is, is objective..." What does this mean? There are still lots of studies going on with regard to emotion, but there is plenty of research to back up the assertion that a feeling IS a chemical mechanism. Because we more than suspect that, we can fill the gaps with this knowledge. What are you proposing we fill the gaps with? Again, I apologize, but you are not making any sense to me. I'm not following your points and how you are connecting your thoughts and arguments. Florduh was stating that a "feel" was not a fact. All I was saying was in the absence of a God explanation, a feel, regardless of whether we understand the chemical mechanism, is a fact.... as you have said here, that feelings are suspected of being a given set of reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Florduh was stating that a "feel" was not a fact. All I was saying was in the absence of a God explanation, a feel, regardless of whether we understand the chemical mechanism, is a fact.... as you have said here, that feelings are suspected of being a given set of reactions. I understood Florduh to mean that emotion was not the best reason or basis for a decision. I could feel love, fact or not, for a sociopath, but the decision to stay with him may not be a good idea regardless of feelings. As a Christian, I might have felt an emotion for a homosexual friend, but that wouldn't have been a good enough reason to me to decide to go to a gay wedding. I might feel love for my child, that doesn't mean I should give into that emotion if that child needs to be disciplined or reprimanded. Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 I understood Florduh to mean that emotion was not the best reason or basis for a decision. I could feel love, fact or not, for a sociopath, but the decision to stay with him may not be a good idea regardless of feelings. As a Christian, I might have felt an emotion for a homosexual friend, but that wouldn't have been a good enough reason to me to decide to go to a gay wedding. I might feel love for my child, that doesn't mean I should give into that emotion if that child needs to be disciplined or reprimanded. Make sense? Yes, a twofold answer here. One, there might be very useful reasons why the emotions, chemistry, urges are as they are....not just proving to be an unreliable guide. Secondly, I don't think that is what he was initially saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yes, a twofold answer here. One, there might be very useful reasons why the emotions, chemistry, urges are as they are....not just proving to be an unreliable guide. Secondly, I don't think that is what he was initially saying. An invitation for @florduh to clarify here, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 23, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 An invitation for @florduh to clarify here, then? I guess I am not expressing my thoughts well enough. Please be specific and I shall do my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 I understood Florduh to mean that emotion was not the best reason or basis for a decision. I could feel love, fact or not, for a sociopath, but the decision to stay with him may not be a good idea regardless of feelings. As a Christian, I might have felt an emotion for a homosexual friend, but that wouldn't have been a good enough reason to me to decide to go to a gay wedding. I might feel love for my child, that doesn't mean I should give into that emotion if that child needs to be disciplined or reprimanded. Make sense? In the answer above, I detailed my understanding of your stance on emotion. @end3 does not think you were saying this. Since my understanding is explained above and I'm not sure how end3 took it, he may need to explain the confusion. Of course, if I am wrong on what you were saying, you can clarify directly as well. I have already mentioned that I don't think I'm getting end3's point though, it is disjointed and not making sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 23, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 I don't know how else to say it. I think comprehension problems arise when one frames everything with religious dogma. Feelings, emotions and opinions are not factual information. People have feelings and emotion and reactions, and those are real things but they provide no information. One simply cannot give emotion and the cognitive process equal weight. Emotions often lead us to wrong conclusions and inappropriate response. Have you ever been mad at a friend over a misunderstanding? Your emotional response to what you think they said or did could cause years of estrangement because no actual facts or information were sought because you just had that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Feelings, emotions and opinions are not factual information. The point I was trying to make....feelings/emotions are indeed, unless a God thing, factual.. At this point we don't know how to define them because our ability to measure in order to define is limited and probably be from now on in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 23, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 The point I was trying to make....feelings/emotions are indeed, unless a God thing, factual.. At this point we don't know how to define them because our ability to measure in order to define is limited and probably be from now on in this area. I still don't know what you mean by factual. Feelings and emotions do in fact exist. They arise in response to other, usually real, things. One's feelings or emotions about a given thing typically turn out to be irrelevant at best and harmful at worst. Why anyone would prefer feeling to thinking when a decision must be made is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 The point I was trying to make....feelings/emotions are indeed, unless a God thing, factual.. At this point we don't know how to define them because our ability to measure in order to define is limited and probably be from now on in this area. End, Is this breakdown helpful? 1. Feelings/emotions are factual unless (they are) a God thing. 2. We currently don't know how to define these feelings/emotions. 3. That's because our ability to measure and define is limited. 4. And probably will be from now on. I get 2, 3 and 4 but what did you mean by # 1? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now