The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Res Ipsa]

for what it's worth, I agree that you and I are using different tools but are arriving at the same conclusion.

I'm not even sure that we are arriving at the same conclusion. For example, I think that my reply to Cam is a muddled mess because I was trying to fit my thinking into his mold, grab on to his perspective, and use it to express myself and it doesn't work.

Maybe not. I'm agreeing with your statement that we cannot choose to believe but we can choose to follow, but I'm guessing using entirely different paths to get there.

[huckelberry]

Morley, I think you make an important point. I am unsure if belief is always a good (or bad) thing. Sometimes it is trivial and unproductive. There have been more than enough times belief has generated evil.

You have lost me on your new image. An odd duck? well not a duck but perhaps a naturalists observation of a distinctive bird?
Any chance by Darwin?

It's art appropriate for this discussion, I think. Some see duck, some a rabbit.

Oh dear, a truly troubling observation about this thread. I cannot see or find anything even vaguely like a rabbit. Do we live in multiple parallel worlds? Bits of this tread might sound like it.

[Jersey Girl]

Morley, I think you make an important point. I am unsure if belief is always a good (or bad) thing. Sometimes it is trivial and unproductive. There have been more than enough times belief has generated evil.

You have lost me on your new image. An odd duck? well not a duck but perhaps a naturalists observation of a distinctive bird?
Any chance by Darwin?

It's art appropriate for this discussion, I think. Some see duck, some a rabbit.

Is art misappropriate appropriate for this discussion? I noted on the other thread that the image that was posted was ripped off from a children's book, Duck! Rabbit! that predates that cartoon. If that is the one that you're talking about please acknowledge that the image itself is plagiarized. It really irks me that a piece of children's literature resulted in a controversial religious cartoon.

[Jersey Girl]

I'm not even sure that we are arriving at the same conclusion. For example, I think that my reply to Cam is a muddled mess because I was trying to fit my thinking into his mold, grab on to his perspective, and use it to express myself and it doesn't work.

Maybe not. I'm agreeing with your statement that we cannot choose to believe but we can choose to follow, but I'm guessing using entirely different paths to get there.

I will come back to this later. I've got too many irons in the fire right now. Thanks for the reply.

[Morley]

It's art appropriate for this discussion, I think. Some see duck, some a rabbit.

Is art misappropriate appropriate for this discussion? I noted on the other thread that the image that was posted was ripped off from a children's book, Duck! Rabbit! that predates that cartoon. If that is the one that you're talking about please acknowledge that the image itself is plagiarized. It really irks me that a piece of children's literature resulted in a controversial religious cartoon.

This wiki entry talks about the original image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2 ... k_illusion

"The rabbit–duck illusion is an ambiguous image in which a rabbit or a duck can be seen.[1]

The earliest known version is an unattributed drawing from the 23 October 1892 issue of Fliegende Blätter, a German humour magazine. It was captioned "Welche Thiere gleichen einander am meisten?" ("Which animals are most like each other?"), with "Kaninchen und Ente" ("Rabbit and Duck") written underneath."

[Gadianton]

Gad if you are reading here, would you please look over my recent replies? Question me if you think it will help get me on track. Any track! Is philosophy the only way to examine a state of god belief? Can't we use cognition?

Do you see that Cam and RI on one hand, and I on the other hand, are using two different sets of tools to examine the same issue and if so, how can that work? Can it work if we are speaking two different languages?

with regard to god belief, I rely heavily on intuition. How can we communicate if I am coming at the issue from a cognitive, well really, a psychological perspective while they are coming at it using a philosophical perspective. Isn't that two different conversations?

people can talk past each other very quickly when talking about "choice" and most people will struggle to even know what they are trying to say themselves. True for me also. I think you are right that a philosophical conversation about choice and a psychological one will be different, because psychology assumes a causally closed world, which is the point at issue in philosophy. Philosophers are asking if choice is compatible with the notion of determinism. Some say yes some say no. Psychologists assume the world is determined, so if they say "did you have a choice?" they mean something different. I'll defer to Morley on what they mean. Depends on what school of psychology I suppose.

So your statement:

We don't have a choice to believe. If we believe, we have a choice to follow.

Sentence 1 should find common ground between a lot of religious people and a lot of atheists / agnostics also, because if we're wired by biology or wired by God's will, then we don't have a "choice" to believe in the (philosophical) sense of libertarian or contracausal freedom.

In the psychological sense, I'd play devil's advocate here because while I agree, generally, that a person can't just change their beliefs on the fly, they could perhaps change their beliefs. Maybe Morley could believe in God if the right brainwashing techniques were used, or a believer can disbelieve with similar brainwashing techniques?

Sentence 2 is tricky because if we don't have the choice to believe, e.g., causally closed universe, we also wouldn't have a choice to follow. HOWEVER, as I believe you correctly state, if we're speaking psychologically (and I don't know what school of thought here) then I assume if the word "choice" means anything at all to a psychologist, then it's possible for a person to have a choice in some matters to a greater degree than they do in others. So it's possible that we can't choose to believe but we can choose to follow. But how is it that this is the case? That's going to be the hard part to argue -- but you are exempt from the argument.

As stated, both a agnostic/atheist and a theist can be "soft determinists" albeit for different reasons. As a religious person, the challenge would be to find a theological reason to explain the difference between our ability to follow vs. believe. At first glance, it might be something like, belief is basic (plantinga) but action is a different matter. (I don't know how he frames it but he'd probably be the first place to look)

[Morley]

It's art appropriate for this discussion, I think. Some see duck, some a rabbit.

Oh dear, a truly troubling observation about this thread. I cannot see or find anything even vaguely like a rabbit. Do we live in multiple parallel worlds? Bits of this tread might sound like it.

Feed the back of the duck's head a carrot and pet the beak as if they were ears.



...


For what it's worth, I can never see this stuff either, Huck.

[Jersey Girl]

Is art misappropriate appropriate for this discussion? I noted on the other thread that the image that was posted was ripped off from a children's book, Duck! Rabbit! that predates that cartoon. If that is the one that you're talking about please acknowledge that the image itself is plagiarized. It really irks me that a piece of children's literature resulted in a controversial religious cartoon.

This wiki entry talks about the original image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2 ... k_illusion

"The rabbit–duck illusion is an ambiguous image in which a rabbit or a duck can be seen.[1]

The earliest known version is an unattributed drawing from the 23 October 1892 issue of Fliegende Blätter, a German humour magazine. It was captioned "Welche Thiere gleichen einander am meisten?" ("Which animals are most like each other?"), with "Kaninchen und Ente" ("Rabbit and Duck") written underneath."

Morley I came back to offer you an apology. When I saw that one post and given my limited knowledge base, and the fact that I didn't bother to search further, I wrongly accused you of forwarding a rip off of a children's picture book illustration and concept. My only defense is that as I already stated, I didn't bother to research and the fact that I own and have read that book to many a class of children (I use a Jersey accent for one of the voices ), it just hit an emotional nerve in me.

Please accept my apology for being a lazy accusatory jerk. I was a total ass to you.

[Morley]

This wiki entry talks about the original image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2 ... k_illusion

"The rabbit–duck illusion is an ambiguous image in which a rabbit or a duck can be seen.[1]

The earliest known version is an unattributed drawing from the 23 October 1892 issue of Fliegende Blätter, a German humour magazine. It was captioned "Welche Thiere gleichen einander am meisten?" ("Which animals are most like each other?"), with "Kaninchen und Ente" ("Rabbit and Duck") written underneath."

Morley I came back to offer you an apology. When I saw that one post and given my limited knowledge base, and the fact that I didn't bother to search further, I wrongly accused you of forwarding a rip off of a children's picture book illustration and concept. My only defense is that as I already stated, I didn't bother to research and the fact that I own and have read that book to many a class of children (I use a Jersey accent for one of the voices ), it just hit an emotional nerve in me.

Please accept my apology for being a lazy accusatory jerk. I was a total ass to you.

You're a sweetheart, Jersey Girl. Though this was not necessary, it is extremely classy. It's what I've come to expect from you.


edit: I can Identify with what you're saying about children's literature. I taught elementary school for almost a decade.

[huckelberry]

Oh dear, a truly troubling observation about this thread. I cannot see or find anything even vaguely like a rabbit. Do we live in multiple parallel worlds? Bits of this tread might sound like it.

Feed the back of the duck's head a carrot and pet the beak as if they were ears.



...


For what it's worth, I can never see this stuff either, Huck.

With the explanation I now have the unpleasant experience of seeing it. I will complain that for a rabbit the ears are wrong. They are one above the other instead of attached on either side of the skull. Despite that false manipulation I can now see a rabbit. ug.