marg wrote:in my opinion that's a key significant difference between a good critical thinker versus a poor one, being "comfortable with uncertainty". A good critical thinker doesn't assume any belief is so sacred that it can not be criticized. They don't become so wedded to a belief that they dismiss all disconfirming evidence which is presented or available. A good critical thinker holds all beliefs from the operating perspective that they are temporary and should be changed if warranted but for operational purposes are used as if true with the appreciation at all times that they might not be.
Aarrgh! I have no disagreement with what you've said here. This is the way I try to operate. Why do you insist otherwise?
When I look at MG's posts in this thread, he never looks at "what if" God doesn't exist, what if the God he believes in doesn't exist, what if the Church is entirely man created.
We need to sit down person to person and talk. I have asked myself these questions many times.
And yet he believes he thinks in terms of possibilities and probabilites.
Why not?
When he made the statement that "reality demonstrates there are many ways to know God” I pointed out that reality doesn’t demonstrate this because the evidence is his God has only been known and worshipped a short time - 4,000 years...
This is the period of time I'm referring to.
...relative to the evidence that modern man has been around for at least 100,000 years and hominids from which man evolved have been around 6 million years.
Confucianism and Taoism in China; Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism in India; monotheism in Israel; and philosophical rationalism in Greece which came out of the axial age are where we start getting a real flow of religiosity spreading throughout the world. What comes before this is somewhat fuzzy isn't it?
Therefore what reality demonstrates is that his God is not easily knowable, if where has he been, certainly not in man's mind in all these 100,000’s of years. MG didn’t address this.
It's a little tough to when not a whole lot is known. So what can I say? Before the Native American and Australian Aborigine peoples and early Hinduism there is precious little known about early humans and their worship patterns. We don't know what was "in man's mind in all these 100,000’s of years", so how can we even have a conversation about it?
"Man has walked on this earth for longer than before recorded history. Even the archaeologists know very little about the cultural beliefs and practices of early man. We assume that they had some sort of transcendent belief because of the manner in which they buried their dead.
It is not until the agricultural developments around 10,000 BCE that man begins to have a sense of cultural identity. As mankind started living in large groups, it is highly probable that the rudiments of what we, today, call "religion" began to formulate...
Whatever beliefs, theories and ideas we have of early history are based solely on archaeological finds. Archaeology is not an exact science! With each discovery an archaeologist will fill in the missing pieces of history by "connecting the dots."
http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara.com/ol ... ligion.htm
Nobody knows with accuracy how the first religions evolved. By the time that writing had developed, many religions had been in place for millennia and the
details of their origins had been forgotten. However, there is
speculation that the first religions were created to give people a feeling of security in an insecure world...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm
marg wrote:When he commented that giving money to the church was a good thing even if the church wasn't true and I pointed out that the church owns approx. 35 billion dollars in assets and didn’t need money from families who are strapped for it he again didn’t address this and suggested I start a new thread for my problem.
Marg, I'm operating on the
supposition that tithing moneys also bring blessings of one form or another to those that obey the law of the tithe. The church may not need the money, but the tithe payers may receive blessings for obedience. If the church is bogus, then this argument doesn't hold near as much water, granted. I didn't address matter, however, because I'm operating from the point of view or assumption that the church is using the money the way the Lord would want it to be used on the whole. I think that tithing issues simply belong on another thread.
When I pointed out that historically churches haven't used money for good, no comment. When I pointed out that it was laws which kept church from being terrible and one can look at polygamy as an example ..no comment.
Marg, I would just as well stay on topic and in my judgment (after all, I started this thread) this is/was getting off on a tangent...thus no response.
So this is how MG operates, he deludes himself into thinking he is an “out of the box” thinker who looks at possibilities to determine probabilities. And he pats himself on the back. He doesn’t appreciate how intellectually dishonest he is. The evidence in the discussion indicates he participates in order to seek arguments or develop his own which will support his current position and beliefs and any evidence against and/or reasoning against he dismisses.
I won't disagree with this up to the point of saying "any evidence against and/or reasoning against he dismisses." I am more than willing to look at the evidence and adjust my thinking. I'm willing to make paradigm shifts...and have. But unless I come around to your way of thinking I'm being intellectually dishonest?
This is starting to sound a bit like "he said, she said"...with she said trying to get in the final word. <g>
I think it requires intellectual honesty. And it requires a high level of personal integrity to value truth over what one wishes to believe is true.
We are in agreement here. by the way, Marg...what is truth from your perspective?
Pascal's wager, which MG mentioned was a reason he believes indicated to me he lacked personal integrity.
When I can see that making one choice rather than an other based upon available information makes more sense to me than making another choice, especially as it relates to going about choosing a belief system or non-belief system to live my life by, wouldn't it be wise to make a choice that not only may bring potential benefits in the here and now but also in a hoped for hereafter?
Where is the loss of integrity here?
MG, you are a waste of time in my opinion to converse with.
I can't say the same in regards to my conversation with you. I've enjoyed it, and consider it to have been worthwhile from where I sit.
Again, thanks for the conversation,
MG