Belief in God

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

canpakes wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:50 pm
Your partner’s actions can absolutely be a manifestation of love … but intent can factor in on both sides of the exchange. : D
I suppose, but I'm trying to think of an ulterior motive for doing things for me consistently over a few decades other than an intent to love me. It's exactly why I do everything I do for her. I'm not biding my time until something better comes along, and I doubt she is too.

But your point is taken.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by canpakes »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:29 pm
canpakes wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:50 pm
Your partner’s actions can absolutely be a manifestation of love … but intent can factor in on both sides of the exchange. : D
I suppose, but I'm trying to think of an ulterior motive for doing things for me consistently over a few decades other than an intent to love me. It's exactly why I do everything I do for her. I'm not biding my time until something better comes along, and I doubt she is too.

But your point is taken.
I think that your conclusion is pretty solid. I just like to play Devil’s Advocate in general, and my cynicism was not meant for your situation. : D
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:45 am
People's accounts are certainly evidence, just not reliable. What makes them so problematic is the fact that every person's god is different. There is so much room to argue over the various god ideas because we don't have any external thing to decide our arguments.

My wife has been making me meals for years now; she keeps me alive. That's pretty physical evidence of her love for me.

Of course, to me, love is action, not the associated feelings.
Do you think that everyone's answer would match yours? Would you categorize your evidence as empirical or subjective to your experience?
No doubt. I find myself contending with it constantly.
Welcome to the human club! :)
I think you may have a fundamental misconception about scientific theories. They wouldn't be theories without a ton of supporting evidence and peer reviewed studies. Theories are sometime tweaked as new information is discovered, but the theories themselves are almost never completely upended.

What you seem to be talking about are hypotheses, but scientists don't live their lives based on hypotheses, unless they're crackpots.
Are you saying that hypotheses are not part of the scientific method?
It depends on what you mean by spiritual. If by that you mean, do human beings feel things deeply, and sometimes have transcendental experiences that change the way they think? Then yes, that's what I think humans are.
If by spiritual you mean religious in some way, then no, I don't think humans are spiritual by default. I think that behavior has to be taught.
I agree. I think that's part of spirituality. I think other things are as well like intuition and perceptiveness. FTR, unless I misunderstand you, I don't think any of those can be taught. When you say "religious in some way" what do you mean? Do you mean like a religious person might pray for something....it happens...and they take that as spiritual?
If there is a creator of the universe, I guess I'm at a loss for how this creation can be corrupted unless the creator baked corruption into the universe.
So, I think I said this in another post on this thread. If God is holy and he creates something (like angels I guess or us humans) does it automatically follow that what he creates is holy as well? According to what is presented in the Bible, there's no evidence to suggest that what he creates is holy. Quite the contrary is true based on what we read throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.

Actually, as I think of it just now, there is Old Testament evidence (if you rely on it as an explanation or indication) to suggest that what is outside of God must be purified so therefore what is outside of God must not be holy like he is.
So your god isn't omnipotent either.
If you could see omnipotence at work in this world, what would that look like?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sat Nov 12, 2022 2:34 pm
I've just got to say, Jersey Girl, that I agree with KevinSim. You're being unnecessarily harsh with him in this thread, and it doesn't seem warranted. We all have busy lives and this board shouldn't be anyone's top priority. I'm also confused why you're upset he asked for a clarification.

I suppose I'm saying this because I'm impressed with how long he's hung in this conversation. I'm impressed with you hanging in too, but I think you should cut him some slack.
Keep hanging in there with him and get back to me or hang in there with ME and get back to me! :lol:

For myself, I was "raised up" on long discussions like this. The first board I was on the discussions would go up to 300 posts and the system shut the thread down. Then we'd start a new thread for the same topic. I did that for 8 years, possibly 10. I'd rather discuss something that interests me (like this one here or quite frankly, true crime cases) than just fool around here. Though I admit that I do fool around with stuff. This is going to sound crazy but I'm glad no one is quoting scripture but rather discussing concepts.

Like that a LOT.

Anyway, I have no problem hanging in on a thread like this. The thing is nobody ever asks me about what I believe. I'm sure it's boring or I am boring. I do interject a religious perspective from time to time but I don't feel it's regularly called for in this forum and I'm not interested in Terrestrial any more really.

Also that old board was unmoderated. It used to get pretty heated. Flame wars they called it back then. mikwut (he posts here sometimes) once referred to me as "Grace under fire". Trust me, I wasn't always graceful. :lol: I try not to be a total witch on this board or anywhere else in life for that matter.
Last edited by Jersey Girl on Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:38 am, edited 4 times in total.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

This post. (I'm marking posts for reply. Live with it.)
canpakes wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:50 pm
Some Schmo wrote:
Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:45 am

My wife has been making me meals for years now; she keeps me alive. That's pretty physical evidence of her love for me.

Of course, to me, love is action, not the associated feelings.
Your partner’s actions can absolutely be a manifestation of love … but intent can factor in on both sides of the exchange. : D

Still, this question prompts another, for you, Jersey Girl (and I still owe you an answer from a previous post; will have to find that).

What actions of love to you see - either from God or other external entities driven by God - as evidence that ‘God loves us’?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:17 am
Do you think that everyone's answer would match yours?
No, they would supply their own experience of it, but the answer might express the same idea.

I see what you're getting at.
Would you categorize your evidence as empirical or subjective to your experience?
It's subjective, but I could start keeping records of everything she does for me with supporting documentation (including videos) that, if documented long enough, could demonstrate to others her love.

We can't do that for actual god experiences, although we could certainly document people's love for their gods. I will even say that I understand people falling in love with their own creations.
I think you may have a fundamental misconception about scientific theories. They wouldn't be theories without a ton of supporting evidence and peer reviewed studies. Theories are sometime tweaked as new information is discovered, but the theories themselves are almost never completely upended.

What you seem to be talking about are hypotheses, but scientists don't live their lives based on hypotheses, unless they're crackpots.
Are you saying that hypotheses are not part of the scientific method?
Or course they are. They're in the beginning of the process

The vast majority of scientific hypotheses are thrown out. Not the same for peer reviewed theories.
I agree. I think that's part of spirituality. I think other things are as well like intuition and perceptiveness. FTR, unless I misunderstand you, I don't think any of those can be taught. When you say "religious in some way" what do you mean? Do you mean like a religious person might pray for something....it happens...and they take that as spiritual?
When I said "religious in some way," I meant the suggestion that there wasn't a way to feel spirituality without religion, or that spirituality has to have some religious component. That idea is what needs to be taught.

I think everyone has deep, powerfully moving mental experiences. I have them regularly. It's what we attribute those natural occurrences to that differs from person to person. So yeah, if one thinks those experiences are reserved for religious thought, one is misattributing their source.
If you could see omnipotence at work in this world, what would that look like?
In concert with a god that cared? Infinite possibilities. Not having to worry about our environment would be an easy start.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

Guys on the thread. I wanted to introduce this to the discussion earlier as food for thought. Anyway, here it is. Fowler's Stages of Faith. I thought you might find it of interest. The developmental theorists he refers to here are the same ones I sometimes refer to here. Enjoy!
According to Fowler, there are seven primary stages of faith (including Stage 0) in the life of the individual. They are as follows:

Stage 0 – Primal Undifferentiated Faith (Ages Birth-2): This stage is very much like Erik Erikson’s first stage of ”trust versus mistrust.” Here, the baby acquires experiences from the outer environment that either instill in him a feeling of trust and assurance (from being comforted, living in a secure and stable environment, and a experiencing a sense of consistency and care from parents). These personalized experiences, according to Fowler, essentially translate into feelings of trust and assurance in the universe and harmony with the divine. Conversely, experiences of parental or environmental neglect and/or abuse at this stage of development, can result in the formation of feelings of mistrust and fear with respect to the universe and the divine, sowing the seeds for later doubt and existential angst. This stage also compares with Jean Piaget’s sensori-motor stage of cognitive development, where thinking takes place in and through the body.

Stage 1 – “Intuitive-Projective” Faith (Ages 3-7). Children at this stage have acquired language and the ability to work with symbols to express thoughts. Children at this stage don’t develop formalized religious beliefs, but are instead affected by the psyche’s exposure to the Unconscious, and by a relatively fluidity of patterns of thought. Faith at this stage is experiential and develops through encounters with stories, images, the influence of others, a deeper intuitive sense of what is right and wrong, and innocent perceptions of how God causes the universe to function. This stage aligns with Piaget’s stage of pre-operational thinking (lacking consistent logical-mental structures).

Stage 2 – Mythic-Literal Faith (Ages 7-12). Children at this stage have a belief in justice and fairness in religious matters, a sense of reciprocity in the workings of the universe (e.g. doing good will result in a good result, doing bad will cause a bad thing to happen) and an anthropomorphic image of God (e.g. a man with a long white beard who lives in the clouds). Religious metaphors are often taken literally thus leading to misunderstandings. Thus, passages in the Holy Bible that say: ”If, then, you obey the commandments that I enjoin upon you this day, loving the Lord your God and serving Him with all your heart and soul, I will grant the rain for your land in season, the early rain and the late. You shall gather in your new grain and wine and oil – I will also provide grass in the fields for your cattle – and thus you shall eat your fill.” If these promises don’t come to pass in the world, then a person at this stage might feel cheated or disappointed in God. This stage aligns with Piaget’s concrete operational stages of cognitive development, where true logical thinking begins to develop in the child’s mind.

Stage 3 – “Synthetic-Conventional” Faith (Ages 12 to Adult). This stage is characterized by the identification of the adolescent/adult with a religious institution, belief system, or authority, and the growth of a personal religious or spiritual identity. Conflicts that occur when one’s beliefs are challenged are often ignored because they represent too much of a threat to one’s faith-based identity. This stage (and all subsequent stages) correspond to Piaget’s stage of formal operational thinking, thus making it possible for the adolescent or adult to perceive the divine as an abstract or formless manifestation.

Stage 4 – ”Individuative-Reflective Faith” (Ages Mid-Twenties to Late Thirties). This stage is often characterized by angst and struggle as the individual takes personal responsibility for her beliefs or feelings. Religious or spiritual beliefs can take on greater complexity and shades of nuance, and there is a greater sense of open-mindedness, which can at the same time open up the individual to potential conflicts as different beliefs or traditions collide.

Stage 5 – “Conjunctive” Faith (Mid-Life Crisis). A person at this stage acknowledges paradoxes and the mysteries attendant on transcendent values. This causes the person to move beyond the conventional religious traditions or beliefs he may have inherited from previous stages of development. A resolution of the conflicts of this stage occurs when the person is able to hold a multi-dimensional perspective that acknowledges ”truth’ as something that cannot be articulated through any particular statement of faith.

Stage 6 – ”Universalizing” Faith (or ”Enlightenment”). (Later Adulthood). This stage is only rarely achieved by individuals. A person at this stage is not hemmed in by differences in religious or spiritual beliefs among people in the world, but regards all beings as worthy of compassion and deep understanding. Here, individuals ”walk the talk” of the great religious traditions (e.g. ”the kingdom of God is within you”). One good example of this stage in the life of an individual is the life of Count Leo Tolstoy, who in his later years emphasized the importance of equality among people, asceticism in one’s style of living, and the practice of compassion for all (see, for example, his last novel, Resurrection, which caused him to be excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church).
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

I get the feeling that many people will balk at the idea that they made up their own god because they were taught the god idea when they were young.

It would probably be more accurate to describe the process of creating your personal god as creating a collage of attributes picked up from other people. Most of the pieces of that collage are unoriginal, but the way the pieces are chosen and arranged is unique to everyone. A lot of the available pieces for any given collage are discarded because they don't fit into the individual's picture.

Image
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by KevinSim »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:22 am
Anyway, I have no problem hanging in on a thread like this. The thing is nobody ever asks me about what I believe.
What do you believe, Jersey Girl? What do you believe about Jesus and God the Father and everything else we've been talking about?
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Belief in God

Post by Physics Guy »

Some Schmo wrote:
Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:26 am
The vast majority of scientific hypotheses are thrown out. Not the same for peer reviewed theories.
Don't get me started on peer review. Ah, too late.

Peer review is not some kind of gold standard that ensures things are reliable. Peer review is simply review conducted by peers, as in peer-to-peer, as opposed to having review by some central authority, like a world panel of experts. So who selects these "peers"? That's the thing.

If you ever publish a scientific paper, you are marked for life as a "peer" on that topic. Journal editors will pursue you almost as relentlessly as the Church of Scientology, to get you to review other papers submitted to their journals.

You will eventually be getting e-mails every week or two from some journal or other, many of them obscure journals that you have never even noticed, let alone actually read (though some will be prestigious journals whose attention will at first seem flattering until you realize that they are also just trying to get free work from you). They will want you to invest a couple of hours, for free and anonymously, to give a dispassionate recommendation on whether or not they should publish this manuscript. If the manuscript is not fantastic as it is, but could potentially be improved into something worth publishing, they expect you to give them free advice, which they can pass on to the manuscript authors, on exactly how to improve the paper.

This will all happen even if you are not especially brilliant and your published paper was nothing special. The fate of many papers will nonetheless be decided by you and one or two other randos like you, who happen to have published something not too far removed from the topic, at some point.

You might be tickled by some unimportant feature of a paper and enthusiastically recommend it, while carelessly overlooking its disastrous flaws. Or you might misunderstand something through ignorance and send in a damning assessment of a brilliant breakthrough. Unless another reviewer disagrees with you violently, or something in your recommendation sounds sketchy enough to the editors that they decide to consult someone else just on spec, your totally fallible judgement will get a bad paper published, or a good one rejected. That's peer review.

Sometimes you don't even have to have published a paper to get dinged as a peer reviewer. Maybe your doctoral advisor offloaded some of their reviewing work onto you, telling some particular journal that you were a sufficient expert. Thereafter that journal will be happy to consult you again directly, repeatedly. Since your advisor's vouching for your expertise wasn't public information like a publication, I'm not sure whether any other journals will get wind of you and start hounding you, too; but it wouldn't surprise me so much if journals shopped lists of names to each other. The whole peer review process bears an uncomfortably distinct resemblance to e-mail spam.

It's still the best system we have. If a good paper gets rejected, oh well. The authors will send it to another journal and it will get published eventually. It might end up published in a less prominent journal, but if it's really such a good paper then people will eventually notice it, wherever it is. If a bad paper gets published, oh well. People will read it and realize how bad it is. Few peer reviewers are geniuses, and many are too busy to spend as much time as authors and editors might wish, but most are quite competent and take the job of reviewing papers seriously as a professional duty. Apart from giving thumbs up or down, reviewers often improve papers substantially with their revision suggestions.

Peer review is a good standard, but it's a minimal standard, not a gold standard. Tons of stuff that gets published in high-caliber peer-reviewed journals is wrong. Not infrequently it's wrong in its conclusions, but very often it's wrong in thinking that they are new and important. Back when libraries had shelves, it was a physics joke to observe that the number of journal articles published had been growing exponentially over time for so long that soon the volumes would be filling shelves at a speed faster than light, and this would be possible because no information was being transmitted.

Major scientific theories that have been tested and applied for decades by thousands of researchers around the world are really reliable. Even if they turn out to be wrong in important ways, they won't just have been completely wrong. But that kind of status is far beyond peer review. If that kind of status for a scientific theory is like being a Hall of Fame athlete, having passed peer review is like having been on a team in high school. It's something, but not all that much.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Post Reply