Freethought & Rationalism Archive

penatis · 08-10-2001, 05:57 PM

rodahi: In order to arrive at your conclusions, you must ignore virtually ALL of the available early textual evidence. In my opinion, that is not a good idea--IF one wants to find out what actually happened. Also, your “intuitive connections” don’t impress those who are more concerned with what the evidence suggests. Anyone who attempts to intuitively “connect the dots” and “read between the lines” while avoiding most of the available evidence can be convinced of anything he wants to be convinced of.

A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction.

This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith."

A: Literal scientism--even though a mainstay of evidential investigation since the Enlightenment--is not the only way to approach the texts (especially when one is dealing with parable, metaphor, paradox and poetry).

Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry.

A: Intuition is sometimes needed for breakthroughs that cannot manifest in any other way.

Intuition is no substitute for evidence.

A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests.

How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence?

penatis

aikido7 · 08-10-2001, 08:35 PM

A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction.

This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith."

If one judges from a point of view that sees only the amount of biblical "evidence" and pays very little attention to pattern, emphasis and redaction--and the careful work of other scholars--then I can certainly understand why you might see things that way. It is a very popular error among literalists and agnostics ("fact fundamentalists") to take the Bible largely at face value. The ancient world can be easily misinterpreted if we view it only through a rationalistic, "no nonsense" set of lenses.

Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry.

Conviction is an act of mind and will, and does not yield willingly to the approach needed for the aesthetic bias. Poetry and metaphor definitely engage a different part of the brain than our "rational" side! Scientists have convinced themselves of this after viewing CAT and PET scans of the working human brain.

Intuition is no substitute for evidence.

A profound truth, of which its opposite is also a profound truth.

A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests.

How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence?

The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact. One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end.

And the evidence is in the texts. Conduct any sort of trial with it that suits you!

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

penatis · 08-11-2001, 06:16 AM

A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction.

P: This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith."

A: If one judges from a point of view that sees only the amount of biblical "evidence" and pays very little attention to pattern, emphasis and redaction--and the careful work of other scholars--then I can certainly understand why you might see things that way. It is a very popular error among literalists and agnostics ("fact fundamentalists") to take the Bible largely at face value. The ancient world can be easily misinterpreted if we view it only through a rationalistic, "no nonsense" set of lenses.

P: Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry.

A: Conviction is an act of mind and will, and does not yield willingly to the approach needed for the aesthetic bias. Poetry and metaphor definitely engage a different part of the brain than our "rational" side! Scientists have convinced themselves of this after viewing CAT and PET scans of the working human brain.

I prefer to be rational. You don't. I prefer to use evidence. You prefer to use faith. BTW, you mention what scientists have determined about the brain. What have poets determined?

P: Intuition is no substitute for evidence.

A: A profound truth, of which its opposite is also a profound truth.

Let's see, you say that evidence is no substitute for intuition. I don't think so. Example: At a busy city intersection, you intuit no cars coming and step off the curb, but a car is actually coming--since you have ignored the evidence but instead relied on your intuition, your intuition could get you killed.

A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests.

P: How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence?

A: The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact.

Did you intuit this or did you arrive at this conclusion based on the available evidence?

A: One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end.

In Mark, Jesus is depicted as an apocalyptic prophet who had difficulty relating to just about everyone he encountered. He mentions love in only one encounter, and, in that one instance, he backs up his view by appealing to the Law, not compassion.

Since the most primitive narrative paints a basically neutral (and sometimes negative) picture of Jesus, I see no good reason to think it is not based on some historical material.

A: And the evidence is in the texts. Conduct any sort of trial with it that suits you!

See above.

penatis

aikido7 · 08-12-2001, 11:38 AM

Quote:

P: Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry.

"Either/or" thinking precludes the possiblity of other choices, a common epistemological error. And I see a profound difference between a person convincing himself of "anything he wishes" and a "being convinced" experience of what the Greeks called "metanoia." Convincing oneself is an act of rational will, while "being convinced" involves right-brained functions and what the Eastern philosophies might call "ego loss."

Quote:

I prefer to be rational. You don't. I prefer to use evidence. You prefer to use faith. BTW, you mention what scientists have determined about the brain. What have poets determined?

You have done a lot of mind-reading in your posts and much of your conclusions have been wrong or don't go far enough. The Bible uses both reason and revelation for it is a product of oral tradition, cultural expectations and Hellenistic philosophy.

In my view, most poets and artists usually do not concern themselves with the brain as matter but seem to prefer mind and consciousness as something not located within the confines of the skull. The scientist Stephen Jay Gould has some well-reasoned and eloquent arguments about the difference between the scientific sphere and the religious domain. Huston Smith in his book "Why Religion Matters" also sets this difference out in a readable, always entertaining fashion.

One biblical scholar pointing out the difference between history and faith once said something like "Jesus was a man--that is historical evidential fact. 'Jesus is the Son of God' is a faith statement which points to a metaphoric truth." So perhaps we are mixing apples and oranges and not seeing the possiblity of adding a bit of yogurt with them both to make a lovely fruit salad.

Quote:

Let's see, you say that evidence is no substitute for intuition. I don't think so. Example: At a busy city intersection, you intuit no cars coming and step off the curb, but a car is actually coming--since you have ignored the evidence but instead relied on your intuition, your intuition could get you killed.

This seems a rather silly example to me. You fail to differentiate among intuition, preoccupation (with rational evidential thoughts?) or a simple failure to look both ways. But intuition CAN get one killed. I think we can all agree on that.

Quote:

How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence?

He moved from town to town and slept in the countryside, he was addressed as "teacher" (rabbi), he told a parable we call "the Good Samaritan," he counseled his followers to love their enemies and pray for them that abused them. If you want specific verses and more of them, though, I am just feeling a bit too left-brained now to provide them!

"The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact."

Quote:

Did you intuit this or did you arrive at this conclusion based on the available evidence?

Both.

"One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end."

Quote:

In Mark, Jesus is depicted as an apocalyptic prophet who had difficulty relating to just about everyone he encountered. He mentions love in only one encounter, and, in that one instance, he backs up his view by appealing to the Law, not compassion.

Since the most primitive narrative paints a basically neutral (and sometimes negative) picture of Jesus, I see no good reason to think it is not based on some historical material.

If you take the Bible literally (using a concordance) you may find the word "love" mentioned only a few times in Mark. From this rational approach it does not follow that Jesus was neutral or sometimes negative (in my view). Because my wife doesn't always tell me she loves me or demonstrates it to my rational mind does not mean I cannot daily intuit our underlying feelings for each other.

Penatis, there may be a gestalt here that we are disposed not to see. Our schools seem to teach almost nothing about "the pattern which connects," the one which can often be triggered and/or glimpsed through metaphor and parable and paradox. Meeting reality with recognition and empathy is not a quantifiable market item in our world right now.

There is a story I will leave you with, but first let us see if we can both leave behind the stories in the Bible and of Jesus for a moment.... (Hmmm, that may be interesting in itself....)

A man wanted to know about mind--not in nature, but in his huge computer which hummed away on the desk in front of him. He asked it (no doubt in his best computer language available): "Do you compute that you will ever think like a human being?" The machine set to work analyzing its own computational habits and with a click and a whirring sound printed out these words on the latest printer: THAT REMINDS ME OF A STORY.

[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

penatis · 08-12-2001, 04:30 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P: Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aikido7: "Either/or" thinking precludes the possiblity of other choices, a common epistemological error. And I see a profound difference between a person convincing himself of "anything he wishes" and a "being convinced" experience of what the Greeks called "metanoia." Convincing oneself is an act of rational will, while "being convinced" involves right-brained functions and what the Eastern philosophies might call "ego loss."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to be rational. You don't. I prefer to use evidence. You prefer to use faith. BTW, you mention what scientists have determined about the brain. What have poets determined?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have done a lot of mind-reading in your posts and much of your conclusions have been wrong or don't go far enough. The Bible uses both reason and revelation for it is a product of oral tradition, cultural expectations and Hellenistic philosophy.

In my view, most poets and artists usually do not concern themselves with the brain as matter but seem to prefer mind and consciousness as something not located within the confines of the skull. The scientist Stephen Jay Gould has some well-reasoned and eloquent arguments about the difference between the scientific sphere and the religious domain. Huston Smith in his book "Why Religion Matters" also sets this difference out in a readable, always entertaining fashion.

One biblical scholar pointing out the difference between history and faith once said something like "Jesus was a man--that is historical evidential fact. 'Jesus is the Son of God' is a faith statement which points to a metaphoric truth." So perhaps we are mixing apples and oranges and not seeing the possiblity of adding a bit of yogurt with them both to make a lovely fruit salad.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see, you say that evidence is no substitute for intuition. I don't think so. Example: At a busy city intersection, you intuit no cars coming and step off the curb, but a car is actually coming--since you have ignored the evidence but instead relied on your intuition, your intuition could get you killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems a rather silly example to me. You fail to differentiate among intuition, preoccupation (with rational evidential thoughts?) or a simple failure to look both ways. But intuition CAN get one killed. I think we can all agree on that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He moved from town to town and slept in the countryside, he was addressed as "teacher" (rabbi), he told a parable we call "the Good Samaritan," he counseled his followers to love their enemies and pray for them that abused them. If you want specific verses and more of them, though, I am just feeling a bit too left-brained now to provide them!

"The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you intuit this or did you arrive at this conclusion based on the available evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both.

"One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mark, Jesus is depicted as an apocalyptic prophet who had difficulty relating to just about everyone he encountered. He mentions love in only one encounter, and, in that one instance, he backs up his view by appealing to the Law, not compassion.
Since the most primitive narrative paints a basically neutral (and sometimes negative) picture of Jesus, I see no good reason to think it is not based on some historical material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take the Bible literally (using a concordance) you may find the word "love" mentioned only a few times in Mark. From this rational approach it does not follow that Jesus was neutral or sometimes negative (in my view). Because my wife doesn't always tell me she loves me or demonstrates it to my rational mind does not mean I cannot daily intuit our underlying feelings for each other.

Penatis, there may be a gestalt here that we are disposed not to see. Our schools seem to teach almost nothing about "the pattern which connects," the one which can often be triggered and/or glimpsed through metaphor and parable and paradox. Meeting reality with recognition and empathy is not a quantifiable market item in our world right now.

There is a story I will leave you with, but first let us see if we can both leave behind the stories in the Bible and of Jesus for a moment.... (Hmmm, that may be interesting in itself....)

A man wanted to know about mind--not in nature, but in his huge computer which hummed away on the desk in front of him. He asked it (no doubt in his best computer language available): "Do you compute that you will ever think like a human being?" The machine set to work analyzing its own computational habits and with a click and a whirring sound printed out these words on the latest printer: THAT REMINDS ME OF A STORY.

You sound like your mind is pretty much made up. These are my final two questions: Is there ANY evidence that would get you to change your mind? If so, what would it be?

penatis

aikido7 · 08-12-2001, 10:34 PM

Quote:

<STRONG>You sound like your mind is pretty much made up. These are my final two questions: Is there ANY evidence that would get you to change your mind? If so, what would it be?

penatis</STRONG>

If one's mind is made up, they are intellectually finished.

Yes, there would be: the discovery of a new text, a world without art and poetry or a less ambiguous Bible.

penatis · 08-13-2001, 10:33 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sound like your mind is pretty much made up. These are my final two questions: Is there ANY evidence that would get you to change your mind? If so, what would it be?
penatis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aikido7: If one's mind is made up, they are intellectually finished.

Yes, there would be: the discovery of a new text, a world without art and poetry or a less ambiguous Bible.

Thanks for answering my questions. I would like to focus on the part of your answer where you state, "Yes, there would be: the discovery of a new text". Sorry, but I now have another question: What would the new text have to say to change your mind?

penatis

Ion · 08-13-2001, 05:51 PM

aikido7:

1) did you tangibly do anything today that doesn't have scientific evidence in it?

2) if you don't use anything that is backed-up by scientific evidence, can you stay alive?

aikido7 · 08-14-2001, 10:45 PM

If a text was found dating before Mark and possibly Thomas that showed Jesus as John's disciple throughout and was filled with apocalyptic parables and aphorisms, I would be inclined to revise my opinion--after surveying scholarly comments regarding the new find.

aikido7 · 08-14-2001, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:
<STRONG>aikido7:

1) did you tangibly do anything today that doesn't have scientific evidence in it?

2) if you don't use anything that is backed-up by scientific evidence, can you stay alive?</STRONG>

I think these questions are interesting, but I really don't see the point.

May I say that scientific evidence is not "in" the thing, but in the relationship between science and the object. So that might help you to clarify your first question. Looking at nature with or through science is one way (and a valid one since the Renaissance and through the Enlightenment) to understand reality, but it has its limitations.

And since science looks at "life," your second question makes sense, but people managed to stay alive before the rise of scientism too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2001, 05:57 PM	#31
penatis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA Posts: 10	rodahi: In order to arrive at your conclusions, you must ignore virtually ALL of the available early textual evidence. In my opinion, that is not a good idea--IF one wants to find out what actually happened. Also, your “intuitive connections” don’t impress those who are more concerned with what the evidence suggests. Anyone who attempts to intuitively “connect the dots” and “read between the lines” while avoiding most of the available evidence can be convinced of anything he wants to be convinced of. A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction. This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith." A: Literal scientism--even though a mainstay of evidential investigation since the Enlightenment--is not the only way to approach the texts (especially when one is dealing with parable, metaphor, paradox and poetry). Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry. A: Intuition is sometimes needed for breakthroughs that cannot manifest in any other way. Intuition is no substitute for evidence. A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests. How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence? penatis

08-10-2001, 08:35 PM	#32
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction. This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith." If one judges from a point of view that sees only the amount of biblical "evidence" and pays very little attention to pattern, emphasis and redaction--and the careful work of other scholars--then I can certainly understand why you might see things that way. It is a very popular error among literalists and agnostics ("fact fundamentalists") to take the Bible largely at face value. The ancient world can be easily misinterpreted if we view it only through a rationalistic, "no nonsense" set of lenses. Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry. Conviction is an act of mind and will, and does not yield willingly to the approach needed for the aesthetic bias. Poetry and metaphor definitely engage a different part of the brain than our "rational" side! Scientists have convinced themselves of this after viewing CAT and PET scans of the working human brain. Intuition is no substitute for evidence. A profound truth, of which its opposite is also a profound truth. A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests. How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence? The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact. One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end. And the evidence is in the texts. Conduct any sort of trial with it that suits you! [ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

08-11-2001, 06:16 AM	#33
penatis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA Posts: 10	A: It is not only how much ancient evidence there is in favor of a certain conclusion--especailly when it comes to biblical evidence. History and faith must answer to empasis and redaction. P: This is the kind of answer that one would expect from someone who has very little evidence to support his position. Why rely on "faith." A: If one judges from a point of view that sees only the amount of biblical "evidence" and pays very little attention to pattern, emphasis and redaction--and the careful work of other scholars--then I can certainly understand why you might see things that way. It is a very popular error among literalists and agnostics ("fact fundamentalists") to take the Bible largely at face value. The ancient world can be easily misinterpreted if we view it only through a rationalistic, "no nonsense" set of lenses. P: Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry. A: Conviction is an act of mind and will, and does not yield willingly to the approach needed for the aesthetic bias. Poetry and metaphor definitely engage a different part of the brain than our "rational" side! Scientists have convinced themselves of this after viewing CAT and PET scans of the working human brain. I prefer to be rational. You don't. I prefer to use evidence. You prefer to use faith. BTW, you mention what scientists have determined about the brain. What have poets determined? P: Intuition is no substitute for evidence. A: A profound truth, of which its opposite is also a profound truth. Let's see, you say that evidence is no substitute for intuition. I don't think so. Example: At a busy city intersection, you intuit no cars coming and step off the curb, but a car is actually coming--since you have ignored the evidence but instead relied on your intuition, your intuition could get you killed. A: All biblical scholars look and sift through the same evidence, adding their own value judgements and "best case" scenarios, putting together the pieces in new and different ways. The picture arrived at is in harmony with the scholar's "gut level" best guess--an innate intuitive judgement coming forth in response to "objective" views of what the evidence suggests. P: How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence? A: The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact. Did you intuit this or did you arrive at this conclusion based on the available evidence? A: One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end. In Mark, Jesus is depicted as an apocalyptic prophet who had difficulty relating to just about everyone he encountered. He mentions love in only one encounter, and, in that one instance, he backs up his view by appealing to the Law, not compassion. Since the most primitive narrative paints a basically neutral (and sometimes negative) picture of Jesus, I see no good reason to think it is not based on some historical material. A: And the evidence is in the texts. Conduct any sort of trial with it that suits you! See above. penatis

08-12-2001, 04:30 PM	#35
penatis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA Posts: 10	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P: Some rely on faith. Some rely on evidence. Most parables, metaphors, paradoxes, and poety can be interpreted numerous ways. In other words, a person could convince himself of anything he wishes, using parable, metaphor, paradox, and poetry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aikido7: "Either/or" thinking precludes the possiblity of other choices, a common epistemological error. And I see a profound difference between a person convincing himself of "anything he wishes" and a "being convinced" experience of what the Greeks called "metanoia." Convincing oneself is an act of rational will, while "being convinced" involves right-brained functions and what the Eastern philosophies might call "ego loss." quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I prefer to be rational. You don't. I prefer to use evidence. You prefer to use faith. BTW, you mention what scientists have determined about the brain. What have poets determined? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have done a lot of mind-reading in your posts and much of your conclusions have been wrong or don't go far enough. The Bible uses both reason and revelation for it is a product of oral tradition, cultural expectations and Hellenistic philosophy. In my view, most poets and artists usually do not concern themselves with the brain as matter but seem to prefer mind and consciousness as something not located within the confines of the skull. The scientist Stephen Jay Gould has some well-reasoned and eloquent arguments about the difference between the scientific sphere and the religious domain. Huston Smith in his book "Why Religion Matters" also sets this difference out in a readable, always entertaining fashion. One biblical scholar pointing out the difference between history and faith once said something like "Jesus was a man--that is historical evidential fact. 'Jesus is the Son of God' is a faith statement which points to a metaphoric truth." So perhaps we are mixing apples and oranges and not seeing the possiblity of adding a bit of yogurt with them both to make a lovely fruit salad. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's see, you say that evidence is no substitute for intuition. I don't think so. Example: At a busy city intersection, you intuit no cars coming and step off the curb, but a car is actually coming--since you have ignored the evidence but instead relied on your intuition, your intuition could get you killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems a rather silly example to me. You fail to differentiate among intuition, preoccupation (with rational evidential thoughts?) or a simple failure to look both ways. But intuition CAN get one killed. I think we can all agree on that. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How does this somehow prove that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi that preached love and compassion? Where is the evidence? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He moved from town to town and slept in the countryside, he was addressed as "teacher" (rabbi), he told a parable we call "the Good Samaritan," he counseled his followers to love their enemies and pray for them that abused them. If you want specific verses and more of them, though, I am just feeling a bit too left-brained now to provide them! "The gospels are neither divinely inspired or historical fact." quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you intuit this or did you arrive at this conclusion based on the available evidence? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Both. "One thing many assume is the popular 19th century-tinged picture of Jesus as a do-gooder and a doormat. The tradition of the incident in the temple attests to a Jesus not only preaching compassion but concerned with justice and hypocrisy. In my view he was much more than a one-dimensional teaching and healing rabbi but was one willing to stand up for his idea of justice and to be honest to his vision until the end." quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Mark, Jesus is depicted as an apocalyptic prophet who had difficulty relating to just about everyone he encountered. He mentions love in only one encounter, and, in that one instance, he backs up his view by appealing to the Law, not compassion. Since the most primitive narrative paints a basically neutral (and sometimes negative) picture of Jesus, I see no good reason to think it is not based on some historical material. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you take the Bible literally (using a concordance) you may find the word "love" mentioned only a few times in Mark. From this rational approach it does not follow that Jesus was neutral or sometimes negative (in my view). Because my wife doesn't always tell me she loves me or demonstrates it to my rational mind does not mean I cannot daily intuit our underlying feelings for each other. Penatis, there may be a gestalt here that we are disposed not to see. Our schools seem to teach almost nothing about "the pattern which connects," the one which can often be triggered and/or glimpsed through metaphor and parable and paradox. Meeting reality with recognition and empathy is not a quantifiable market item in our world right now. There is a story I will leave you with, but first let us see if we can both leave behind the stories in the Bible and of Jesus for a moment.... (Hmmm, that may be interesting in itself....) A man wanted to know about mind--not in nature, but in his huge computer which hummed away on the desk in front of him. He asked it (no doubt in his best computer language available): "Do you compute that you will ever think like a human being?" The machine set to work analyzing its own computational habits and with a click and a whirring sound printed out these words on the latest printer: THAT REMINDS ME OF A STORY. You sound like your mind is pretty much made up. These are my final two questions: Is there ANY evidence that would get you to change your mind? If so, what would it be? penatis

08-13-2001, 10:33 AM	#37
penatis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX,, USA Posts: 10	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You sound like your mind is pretty much made up. These are my final two questions: Is there ANY evidence that would get you to change your mind? If so, what would it be? penatis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- aikido7: If one's mind is made up, they are intellectually finished. Yes, there would be: the discovery of a new text, a world without art and poetry or a less ambiguous Bible. Thanks for answering my questions. I would like to focus on the part of your answer where you state, "Yes, there would be: the discovery of a new text". Sorry, but I now have another question: What would the new text have to say to change your mind? penatis

08-13-2001, 05:51 PM	#38
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	aikido7: 1) did you tangibly do anything today that doesn't have scientific evidence in it? 2) if you don't use anything that is backed-up by scientific evidence, can you stay alive?

08-14-2001, 10:45 PM	#39
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	If a text was found dating before Mark and possibly Thomas that showed Jesus as John's disciple throughout and was filled with apocalyptic parables and aphorisms, I would be inclined to revise my opinion--after surveying scholarly comments regarding the new find.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.