Faith vs. Intellect

[Marylou]

Uh huh :) It was a nice surprise when I learned there was a name for what I already thought. (And I don't need to be told that some religious people do the same. I'm talking about the ones who are trying to believe something they know they don't believe. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I'd have given up already.)

 

:)

Rosie

 

But . . . maybe it's not "they" who are trying to believe, but *God* working in them stirring a desire to know the Truth?

 

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this mile long thread is that the faith God says we must have to please Him is also a gift from Him! Remember the disciples said, "increase our faith!" It is the one gift in life we can most assuredly ask for more without being considered rude :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Uh huh :) It was a nice surprise when I learned there was a name for what I already thought.

Oh, I understand what you mean now.

[Rosie_0801]

But . . . maybe it's not "they" who are trying to believe, but *God* working in them stirring a desire to know the Truth?

 

 

Of course I understand that a believer would interpret the situation that way.

 

However, a person who is trying to believe in God but doesn't, isn't going to feel that the God they don't believe in is trying to persuade them because gods that don't exist don't perform any actions at all.

 

A person who doesn't believe (in whatever tradition we're talking about) and isn't trying to, would say the frustrated searcher might well have a better chance of finding the Truth if they stop talking over the top of it and let it explain itself. For that person, Truth might turn out to be the god they were trying to believe in, or it might turn out to be something else. In any case, they'd have stopped bashing their head against a wall, and when the headache subsides, they'll be better able to absorb information.

 

(I imagine you would understand this point of view, but this is a FYI, just in case.)

 

Then, of course, we can separate believe in a specific God with the religious practices that tend to get packaged up with that God, but we don't need to go there now.

 

It is the one gift in life we can most assuredly ask for more without being considered rude[/b] :001_smile:

 

Hehehe, that's cute!

 

:)

Rosie

[Gooblink]

A person who doesn't believe (in whatever tradition we're talking about) and isn't trying to, would say the frustrated searcher might well have a better chance of finding the Truth if they stop talking over the top of it and let it explain itself. For that person, Truth might turn out to be the god they were trying to believe in, or it might turn out to be something else. In any case, they'd have stopped bashing their head against a wall, and when the headache subsides, they'll be better able to absorb information.

 

This called to mind Psalm 46:10 "Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth."

 

I tend to believe that you're right, Rosie. For all of us, the truth will turn out to be something else. Maybe not something else, entirely, but something different than we'd expected. :)

[MamaSheep]

Still no time (I'm off in search of new student chairs and nice markers momentarily), but have been sneaking glances periodically and thought I'd drop in a quick note with another 2 cents again.

 

It's my opinion that people have sort of a spiritual "sense"--like sight, smell, hearing, or proprioception, except it responds to spiritual things rather than physical. Science has not yet found a way to measure it, but saying that makes it unreal makes no more sense to me than saying heat-sensing nerve endings didn't exist before thermometers. I have, as yet, no way to scientifically prove the existence of this spiritual sense, but based on personal experience and observation and on the reports of others I am now convinced that it is more likely that such a sense exists than that it does not. Also, there seems to be sufficient consistency in the observational and anecdotal "data" to draw a few conclusions about how it likely does, and does not, operate. I'm not going to even attempt to articulate that here, though, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else they have to accept my hypothesis. I'm just reporting my personal opinion on the matter to that what I want to say next will make sense. Which is this: If a person were blind and didn't believe in light, or in "sight" because they had never personally experienced it (or if the person went around intentionally blindfolded because they don't believe in light or electromagnetic radiation and thought "sight" was a hallucination that must be eliminated in order to think rationally), it would be difficult to prove the existence of rainbows to that person, or to discuss the concept of "green". You could discuss electromagnetic radiation and wavelength, but how would that prove "green" or "rainbows"? (And the electromagnetic spectrum aspect would not have made sense at all to a person in the days before the electromagnetic spectrum was discovered and described by scientists. I wonder how much that research was influenced by observation of rainbows? If nobody had believed in rainbows, would the research have occurred? Anyway...I'm digressing.)

 

I think it must be as difficult to "prove" the existence of spiritual things to a person who refuses to believe in such things unless they can see it as it would be to prove rainbows to a person who refused to believe in them unless they could smell or hear it. If a spiritual sense does exist, then "If I can't see, touch, taste, smell, or feel God then God cannot possibly exist," doesn't make any more sense than "If I can't smell, hear, taste, or feel green, then green cannot possibly exist."

 

Again, just personal musings based on personal observation and experience, and I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, just throwing it out there to think about.

[Mejane]

It's my opinion that people have sort of a spiritual "sense"--like sight, smell, hearing, or proprioception, except it responds to spiritual things rather than physical.

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but I feel that spiritual sense in response to physical things: when I'm in the woods, for example; it's palpable to me... when I held my newborns. I never had that feeling in church or when I tried to believe in something invisible. I self-identify as agnostic, but these things would signify God to me if I cared to label them as such.

[MamaSheep]

I understand what you're saying, but I feel that spiritual sense in response to physical things: when I'm in the woods, for example; it's palpable to me... when I held my newborns. I never had that feeling in church or when I tried to believe in something invisible. I self-identify as agnostic, but these things would signify God to me if I cared to label them as such.

 

I understand what you're saying too. And I also "feel" that spiritual sense being triggered in response to physical things and physically observable events. But I understand spiritual and physical to be intermingled, rather than separate and mutually exclusive things and would expect to be able to sense the same thing both spiritually and physically, just as I can both see and taste chocolate (thank goodness!). FWIW, I have had that feeling in church (though not in EVERY church) and I don't actually believe God is invisible (sort of like China isn't invisible, but I've never personally seen it either). Rather I think He can reach out to us in some spiritual way without necessarily being physically present, kind of like we can reach out to each other with our voices from the next room over (Except different. Lol...how to explain things for which there are no words...sigh.) So we can sense his existence and interest and receive advice without necessarily being able to physically see Him, even though I think He COULD be physically observed under the right circumstances. If that makes sense. All of which is neither here nor there. Your experiences have been different than mine, and I respect your position. Thanks for sharing your perspective. :)

[Ester Maria]

Science has not yet found a way to measure it, but saying that makes it unreal makes no more sense to me than saying heat-sensing nerve endings didn't exist before thermometers.

Science operates with observable nature. Scientific theories get improved all the time as our measure instruments advance, and thus we get to observe phenomena that we might not have observed before, I agree - but still note that, AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, any notion of an existence of a being with proprieties that are attributed to God or things such as spiritual world and alike remain in the area of pseudo-science. When spiritual phenomena will have been observed, experimentally repeated in controlled environment, peer reviewed and satisfied the rest of the criteria for something to be scientific, then it will be science.

 

The problem with claims regarding the spiritual is that anyone can make them, and you technically cannot disprove an existence (logical impossibility). The burden of proof is on the one who claims, not on the one that disagrees. The same logic follows claims "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist." No, I cannot, but you also cannot prove there is no invisible immaterial yellow monkey next to me right now if I were to claim there is and that I somehow see it and communicate with it. The burden of proof in a discussion is always on the one who claims - and people with claims regarding the spiritual world have so far not been able to scientifically prove their assertions.

I have, as yet, no way to scientifically prove the existence of this spiritual sense, but based on personal experience and observation and on the reports of others

But see, that's exactly the problem that we "ultra-rational" people have with it. ALL of your conviction is drawn upon personal experiences. There are lots of problems with claims that are only based on somebody's experience, "inner feeling" or general feelings.

 

There are psychotic people whose reality is VERY real to them, yet we cannot observe its elements and we're, in fact, convinced their perception is wrong. There are people under the influence of drugs with similar experiences, people who hallucinate, etc., but I'm not likely to take their word for what constitutes reality. And while "madness" is way too complex neurological problem than I have the knowledge to talk about, there are obvious patterns it manifests itself in and the area is very well researched from a biochemical point of view. It's not real just because somebody claims and experiences it as real, kwim? Nor do I have to accept its reality, even though I fully believe it's THEIR reality.

 

Even without going into pathology, personal experiences are often problematic. Do you know what's the blind spot of a human eye? If somebody tells me an object doesn't exist because it's currently in his blind spot, I WON'T believe it doesn't exist - if there is a physical evidence of its existence. There are PLENTY of such examples in which our senses delude us, in fact, human senses are all but perfect. When you add to the mix the complex emotional nature of human beings, and this symbolic dimension we've got with language and culture, it gets even more problematic.

 

So regarding spiritual world, all I can say is that I'm not willing to believe personal experiences that aren't documented, reproduced every time in an experimental setting, in research that are peer reviewed, etc., and ESPECIALLY I don't believe personal experiences of people known to have (had) neurological issues - such as (ex) substances abusers, for example, or people who've experienced supernatural in altered states of mind in general, be it religious trans or heroin.

 

While I agree that "one person's reality is another person's madness", I'm NOT willing to relativize to the point in which I accept all claimed experiences as true and genuine and speaking of objective reality, iykwim. So for anyone who comes from a scientific standpoint, what you're saying is a big no-no for an evidence of any kind. :)

If a spiritual sense does exist, then "If I can't see, touch, taste, smell, or feel God then God cannot possibly exist," doesn't make any more sense than "If I can't smell, hear, taste, or feel green, then green cannot possibly exist."

I'm really try not to come off as snarky, I get what you're saying and it's largely the same thing I'm saying, but - WHEN spiritual sense will have been scientifically confirmed as a regular human reality and lack thereof a disability, and when spiritual reality enters scientific textbooks as a documented and tested area, THEN what you're saying will be relevant. Until then, it's not exactly the same situation, imo. Edited August 14, 2010 by Ester Maria

[jazzyfizzle]

:lurk5: Very interesting thread.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I was in the gifted and talented club in high school but I do not know if it was warranted. I was in remedial reading classes all through elementary school and was tested for learning disabilities in 4th grade. (I scored above average in most areas).

 

In my junior year we had achievement tests but I was sick the first day so I stayed home. The school did not want us to miss if we did not have to so I came in for the second day. They did the science reasoning section (my favorite) that day but I do not remember any of it. I was sick the next day and stayed home.

 

I was shocked when I got the results back I had scored in the top 1% on the science section. So if I am sick and delirious I am really smart. :tongue_smilie: This earned me an invitation to join the gifted and talented club. I was insulted at first because I thought gifted and talented was a polite way to say mentally challenged or at least remedial. :001_smile: I thought my achievement test scores were a fluck but I guess everyone else did not.

 

Anyway I will let others judge if I should even answer the OP but I am Appalachian (Eastern) Orthodox and find that Orthodoxy has been great for me. I am barely literate so I like that the service is in a form that caters to the illiterate but the breadth and depth of the wisdom is like a deep ocean satisfies my reasoning. IMHO the revelation of God in the church and in the natural world have to agree. Fr. Hopko did a podcast this week that addressed this here.

 

He says "It is crazy to believe something just because it is in the Bible."

[OnTheBrink]

I was in the gifted and talented club in high school but I do not know if it was warranted. I was in remedial reading classes all through elementary school and was tested for learning disabilities in 4th grade. (I scored above average in most areas).

 

In my junior year we had achievement tests but I was sick the first day so I stayed home. The school did not want us to miss if we did not have to so I came in for the second day. They did the science reasoning section (my favorite) that day but I do not remember any of it. I was sick the next day and stayed home.

 

I was shocked when I got the results back I had scored in the top 1% on the science section. So if I am sick and delirious I am really smart. :tongue_smilie: This earned me an invitation to join the gifted and talented club. I was insulted at first because I thought gifted and talented was a polite way to say mentally challenged or at least remedial. :001_smile: I thought my achievement test scores were a fluck but I guess everyone else did not.

 

Anyway I will let others judge if I should even answer the OP but I am Appalachian (Eastern) Orthodox and find that Orthodoxy has been great for me. I am barely literate so I like that the service is in a form that caters to the illiterate but the breadth and depth of the wisdom is like a deep ocean satisfies my reasoning. IMHO the revelation of God in the church and in the natural world have to agree. Fr. Hopko did a podcast this week that addressed this here.

 

He says "It is crazy to believe something just because it is in the Bible."

 

It's not uncommon to be highly intelligent (gifted, even! ;) ) and have learning disabilities.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

It's not uncommon to be highly intelligent (gifted, even! ;) ) and have learning disabilities.

 

To be clear they never did find any learning disabilities. But you can think I have one if you want. :) I think the method they used to teach me to read never clicked (it was not phonics). It is interesting that I read better when I chant (I only do this in private) than when I read normally.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Father of Pearl

[lovemyboys]

Science operates with observable nature. Scientific theories get improved all the time as our measure instruments advance, and thus we get to observe phenomena that we might not have observed before, I agree - but still note that, AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, any notion of an existence of a being with proprieties that are attributed to God or things such as spiritual world and alike remain in the area of pseudo-science. When spiritual phenomena will have been observed, experimentally repeated in controlled environment, peer reviewed and satisfied the rest of the criteria for something to be scientific, then it will be science.

..........

The problem with claims regarding the spiritual is that anyone can make them, and you technically cannot disprove an existence .......

But see, that's exactly the problem that we "ultra-rational" people have with it. ALL of your conviction is drawn upon personal experiences. There are lots of problems with claims that are only based on somebody's experience, "inner feeling" or general feelings.

........

So regarding spiritual world, all I can say is that I'm not willing to believe personal experiences that aren't documented, reproduced every time in an experimental setting, in research that are peer reviewed, etc.,.......

While I agree that "one person's reality is another person's madness", I'm NOT willing to relativize to the point in which I accept all claimed experiences as true and genuine and speaking of objective reality, iykwim. So for anyone who comes from a scientific standpoint, what you're saying is a big no-no for an evidence of any kind. :)

 

 

I understand your point, Ester Maria, and I don't want to derail this thread but your first para. puts in mind the recent global warming issues wrt the human factor in scientific observation and validation. Thirty years prior there was the coming ice age.

 

Just thought I'd throw our infallibility into the equation. :tongue_smilie:

 

We've added 2 whole kingdoms of organisms just with the invention of the microscope. There will always be limits to what we can see and understand, regardless of our interpretation of phenomena.

 

Re: the 2nd para, I've long appreciated C.S. Lewis's observations (paraphrasing here) that Jesus was either a raving lunatic or who he claimed to be. He couldn't have been "just" a great man or a great prophet as some have claimed since then, because he claimed to be God. And as we know from modern times, when one claims to be God or a god, one is most often considered delusional. If he were a mere teacher, he would've spoken as such.

 

For many, "science," however it is practiced, is not the final arbiter of what we believe.

 

There have been too many new discoveries in the past few hundred years and too many theories and ideas that have been proven wrong over time to put all of our trust in science and scientific observation.

 

:001_smile:

[Scarlett]

To be clear they never did find any learning disabilities. But you can think I have one if you want. :) I think the method they used to teach me to read never clicked (it was not phonics). It is interesting that I read better when I chant (I only do this in private) than when I read normally.

 

Totally off topic, but I discovered I can text much faster when listening to music with a steady beat. Your chanting reminded me of that.

[Gooblink]

I was in the gifted and talented club in high school but I do not know if it was warranted. I was in remedial reading classes all through elementary school and was tested for learning disabilities in 4th grade. (I scored above average in most areas).

 

In my junior year we had achievement tests but I was sick the first day so I stayed home. The school did not want us to miss if we did not have to so I came in for the second day. They did the science reasoning section (my favorite) that day but I do not remember any of it. I was sick the next day and stayed home.

 

I was shocked when I got the results back I had scored in the top 1% on the science section. So if I am sick and delirious I am really smart. :tongue_smilie: This earned me an invitation to join the gifted and talented club. I was insulted at first because I thought gifted and talented was a polite way to say mentally challenged or at least remedial. :001_smile: I thought my achievement test scores were a fluck but I guess everyone else did not.

 

Anyway I will let others judge if I should even answer the OP but I am Appalachian (Eastern) Orthodox and find that Orthodoxy has been great for me. I am barely literate so I like that the service is in a form that caters to the illiterate but the breadth and depth of the wisdom is like a deep ocean satisfies my reasoning. IMHO the revelation of God in the church and in the natural world have to agree. Fr. Hopko did a podcast this week that addressed this here.

 

He says "It is crazy to believe something just because it is in the Bible."

:D

[zaichiki]

If you (or someone you know) is intellectually...in the gifted range... for the sake of this conversation, not just smart, but really gifted...what (if any) faith do you follow?

 

 

A cousin in my family is absolutely brilliant (as PG as possible). He was a Catholic priest. He is now a Buddhist monk.

 

 

There are a number of gifted adults in my family (both father's and mother's side). Some are religious and some are atheist.

 

A good friend of mine is brilliant. So is her husband. She is religious. He is atheist.

[zaichiki]

Given the gifted people's difficulty fitting in & following rules...I'd guess that the scientists & engineers are predominantly former AP students, which is a smart but very different breed.

 

Hmmm... some gifted people are rule-followers. Some scientists and engineers are not. (I know some quite well.) There are people in my family who have been formally identified as gifted and are also scientists and engineers.

[MamaSheep]

Esther Maria I think perhaps you have misunderstood a couple of things in my comments. For example, I was not claiming that the way my opinion on this particular point was formed constituted a formal scientific process complete with peer review. Rather, I specifically noted that at present this line of inquiry is not particularly conducive to formal scientific evaluation, and made a point of explaining that my "process" on this, while I believe it to be rational (though I am not asking you to believe it to be so, you can believe what you like), has been informal and largely subjective. There is no need to convince me that this is the case, I offered it as a given in my previous post.

 

Additionally, since I specifically mentioned that I am not trying to convince anyone, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to tell me you're unconvinced. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I was expressing a personal opinion, not presenting a formal argument with the intent to convince people to agree with a scientific hypothesis. I don't actually feel inclined to present such an argument here, or to try to convince people to agree with me, which is why I declined to discuss how I came to the conclusion I described or to present any evidence I might have used in that process. I certainly would not expect anyone to change their mind based solely on my say-so and without any kind of data or evidence on offer. I was only expressing an opinion. I am perfectly content to let you believe what you like, for whatever reasons suit you. I only ask the same courtesy from you. :)

 

That said, and I do hope we're both clear on those points now, I would feel rude not to respond to the points you made in your post after you took the time to type it all up. I'll have a go at it, and hope that the conversation can continue in a spirit of polite and pleasant banter, which is how I'm taking it so far. I won't read snark into what you say, if you'll do the same for me. :)

 

Science operates with observable nature.

 

You are quite right. We use our senses, sometimes with the addition of sense-enhancing devices, to make those observations. And the more senses we can bring to bear on a given observation, the more data we are able to collect. Also, it helps if we use a sense (with or without assistive technology) that is able to detect the natural phenomenon we are attempting to observe.

 

Scientific theories get improved all the time as our measure instruments advance, and thus we get to observe phenomena that we might not have observed before, I agree - but still note that, AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, any notion of an existence of a being with proprieties that are attributed to God or things such as spiritual world and alike remain in the area of pseudo-science. When spiritual phenomena will have been observed, experimentally repeated in controlled environment, peer reviewed and satisfied the rest of the criteria for something to be scientific, then it will be science.

 

I agree. Spiritual senses would need to be much better understood than they are AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, and a standardized method of describing spiritual observations would need to be invented in order for such observations to be useful for scientific research.

 

The problem with claims regarding the spiritual is that anyone can make them, and you technically cannot disprove an existence (logical impossibility).

That's certainly ONE problem, yes. However, as you say, the existence of this "problem" does not disprove the existence of spiritual phenomena or of a sense that can detect them. It only clouds the issue, it does not resolve the question.

 

The burden of proof is on the one who claims, not on the one that disagrees.

 

So you claim. I disagree, ergo, the burden of proof is not on me. :)

 

In all seriousness, though, I think the burden of proof is on the one who wants to know. The mere fact that person A disagrees with person B in no way places an obligation on person B to provide person A with proof. And if person A really cares about the answer he should not take person B's word for it anyway, he should go find out for himself. Life is not a formal debate. Wouldn't it be fun if it were, though? One could just go around disagreeing with everything anyone else said, and then one wouldn't have to think for oneself because the burden of proof would always be on someone else! And whatever argument the othery guy offered, one could always just disagree. Easy peasy.

 

The same logic follows claims "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist." No, I cannot, but you also cannot prove there is no invisible immaterial yellow monkey next to me right now if I were to claim there is and that I somehow see it and communicate with it. The burden of proof in a discussion is always on the one who claims - and people with claims regarding the spiritual world have so far not been able to scientifically prove their assertions.

 

And yet being unable to scientifically prove their assertions (or yours regarding your saffron simian sidekick), as you have pointed out, also does nothing to actually disprove their assertions either, so the impasse remains, in spite of all science can do.

 

But see, that's exactly the problem that we "ultra-rational" people have with it. ALL of your conviction is drawn upon personal experiences.

This is an assumption on your part. I have not offered any sort of listing of evidences from which my conviction is drawn--nor am I going to in this venue. I cannot agree with your characterization of this evidence as purely personal and consisting only of "inner feeling" or general feelings. But as I am unwilling to allow you access to the information, I have no problem with your not believing me. In fact, I shall happily assume you don't.

 

As it happens, though, I am more inclined to believe a thing happened if I experienced it myself than if all I have to go on is someone else's report. This is true whether it's a question of spirituality or of science. I am a big fan of personal experiences when a conclusion needs to be drawn.

 

There are lots of problems with claims that are only based on somebody's experience, "inner feeling" or general feelings.

 

There are psychotic people whose reality is VERY real to them, yet we cannot observe its elements and we're, in fact, convinced their perception is wrong. There are people under the influence of drugs with similar experiences, people who hallucinate, etc., but I'm not likely to take their word for what constitutes reality. And while "madness" is way too complex neurological problem than I have the knowledge to talk about, there are obvious patterns it manifests itself in and the area is very well researched from a biochemical point of view. It's not real just because somebody claims and experiences it as real, kwim? Nor do I have to accept its reality, even though I fully believe it's THEIR reality.

 

I fully agree with you here. And I am not likely to take the word or such persons for what constitutes reality either.

 

However, even given the fact that some people are "mad", have neurological issues, and/or consume mind-altering substances, it does not logically follow that all people who report experiences different from your own (or my own) fall into these categories. Nor does it logically follow that I must accept YOUR perception of reality as "correct". Certainly the fact that some people perceive reality "inaccurately" does nothing to disprove the existence of God--which you said earlier cannot be disproven in any case. Again, this just clouds the issue.

 

 

(continued...because it's been a long day, my fingers are verbose tonight, and I'm too tired to go back and edit so I'm splitting my overly long post; don't feel obligated to read it all...lol)

Edited August 15, 2010 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

(continued from previous post)

 

Even without going into pathology, personal experiences are often problematic. Do you know what's the blind spot of a human eye? If somebody tells me an object doesn't exist because it's currently in his blind spot, I WON'T believe it doesn't exist - if there is a physical evidence of its existence. There are PLENTY of such examples in which our senses delude us, in fact, human senses are all but perfect. When you add to the mix the complex emotional nature of human beings, and this symbolic dimension we've got with language and culture, it gets even more problematic.

 

 

If I remember correctly, the blind spot is where the optic nerve connects to the retina. Or something like that.

 

I don't disagree that there are problems with personal perception. To complicate matters, technological devices also have their shortcomings. However, at some point we have to form a personal opinion--based on the best data we have available interpreted to the best of our ability--as to what is real and what is not, and we have to go forward in our lives. If we are unwilling to make a move until we have scientifically proven, consistently replicatable, peer reviewed, incontrovertable PROOF of EVERY aspect of reality, we might as well be catatonic. For that matter, how could you PROVE that you didn't just imagine the experiments, the replication, or the happy little peers who did the reviews? Or that your invisible yellow monkey friend didn't give you a drug that made you hallucinate them? You can't. You just have to make a choice, based on your personal opinion, which is based on your personal experience of "reality".

 

So regarding spiritual world, all I can say is that I'm not willing to believe personal experiences that aren't documented, reproduced every time in an experimental setting, in research that are peer reviewed, etc., and ESPECIALLY I don't believe personal experiences of people known to have (had) neurological issues - such as (ex) substances abusers, for example, or people who've experienced supernatural in altered states of mind in general, be it religious trans or heroin.

 

I am not asking you to do so.

 

While I agree that "one person's reality is another person's madness", I'm NOT willing to relativize to the point in which I accept all claimed experiences as true and genuine and speaking of objective reality, iykwim.

 

I'm right with you here.

So for anyone who comes from a scientific standpoint, what you're saying is a big no-no for an evidence of any kind. :)

 

You might be surprised what "anyone" thinks. But again, I have offered no evidence whatsoever in this discussion. I see no reason to do so, as my intention is only to express a personal opinion, not to convince others to agree with it.

I'm really try not to come off as snarky, I get what you're saying and it's largely the same thing I'm saying, but - WHEN spiritual sense will have been scientifically confirmed as a regular human reality and lack thereof a disability, and when spiritual reality enters scientific textbooks as a documented and tested area, THEN what you're saying will be relevant. Until then, it's not exactly the same situation, imo.

 

Relevant to whom? The same situation as what? I'm not trying to be snarky either. I am a little surprised to hear someone who claims to come from a scientific perspective deferring to a book as the ultimate arbiter of truth. "Anyone who comes from a scientific standpoint" knows that with any new discovery somebody has to think it up BEFORE it can be tested and appear in a textbook, and that "anybody" also accepts that there are many things in existence that scientific textbooks (and the scientists who write them) cannot yet explain and/or have not yet discovered. It is blatantly unscientific to believe that only things in scientific textbooks can be true. That said, though, I rather enjoy scientific textbooks too. Lots of good information in there!

 

I also find it rather odd to assume that if a thing can be confirmed as a regular human reality then the lack thereof must be a disability. The ability to roll one's tongue is confirmed as a regular human reality, but I don't know anyone who considers the lack of that ability to be a disability. Though I suppose if a person got very, VERY technical the lack of any ability is a DIS-ability. But that's neither here nor there.

 

In the interest of fun in the discussion, let me point out another "problem" with spiritual senses and science. In order to test to see whether a hypothetical "spiritual sense" were functioning properly, or even existed, one would need to be able to scientifically confirm the presense of a "spiritual stimulus" that "ought" to trigger the spiritual sense. Round and round we go, eh? What fun!

 

Nevertheless, I choose to believe that "reality" includes a floor, and that I can walk on it, and therefore I opt to get out of bed in the morning rather than lie there waiting for an article on the subject in a peer reviewed journal (assuming there even is such a thing as "bed" and that one can do such a thing as "lie" in one). It's my personal opinion, based on personal experience, that the floor will most likely hold me up today. Again. And I also choose to believe, based on roughly similar evidence that I don't choose to share here, that there is such a thing as a spiritual sense.

 

You choose to believe differently, based on your own personal experiences. I'm fine with that. :)

Edited August 15, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Ester Maria]

Not going to type an elaborate response this time as we actually agree with regards to 90% of what we speak, so I'll keep it short and address certain points only.

 

We pretty much agree, but focus on different things in this discussion, MamaSheep. I neither claim that there isn't a logical possibility of the existence of the spiritual world, neither that science is any kind of "ultimate truth" (no idea where you managed to read that in my posts, I thought the remark about textbook wouldn't be read literally, so let me make it clear: when I talk of science, I talk of an explanatory model of the world, with FULL conscience that the model is being reshaped and "updated"; it's the method that I essentially promote as the best way we have discovered so far to interact with the world and make conclusions about it, and I consider it a "superior way" of thinking than drawing conclusions about the nature of the world from holy texts or exclusively personal experiences).

 

The first thing I disagree with is the argument that the burden of the proof in a discussion is on the one that wishes to know. Also note that even there I spoke hypothetically, without asking any kind of proof from you or anyone else concretely in this concrete discussion, just speaking of a mere principle - the one that makes the claim needs to justify it as it's logically impossible to prove the absolute lack of existence of anything. I also cannot accept as a proof personal experience only for reasons enumerated. Then you say:

I don't disagree that there are problems with personal perception. To complicate matters, technological devices also have their shortcomings. However, at some point we have to form a personal opinion--based on the best data we have available interpreted to the best of our ability--as to what is real and what is not, and we have to go forward in our lives. If we are unwilling to make a move until we have scientifically proven, consistently replicatable, peer reviewed, incontrovertable PROOF of EVERY aspect of reality, we might as well be catatonic. For that matter, how could you PROVE that you didn't just imagine the experiments, the replication, or the happy little peers who did the reviews? Or that your invisible yellow monkey friend didn't give you a drug that made you hallucinate them? You can't. You just have to make a choice, based on your personal opinion, which is based on your personal experience of "reality".

I've talked about this previously on this thread, I believe, so I found it unnecessary to make another disclaimer. :)

 

Yes, at some point, science is an axiomatic system, and solipsism cannot be disproven. It takes a step of belief to accept both - scientific method as a valid way of reasoning, and solipsism as a probably false position.

 

We agree there, you're absolutely right.

My problem is in the amount of relativizing rather than in these little "technical details" that I don't mention since I assume we both operate with them - saying that such a belief, such a hypothesis in one's worldview is equivalent to a hypothesis of a higher being, especially if the latter is taken from religious texts (again, it's just as ad verecundiam as somebody believeing something only because it's in a scientific textbook). I don't believe it is.

 

Science works, and that's my primary problem with alternative magic-based and religion-based treatments. Despite the fact that there are phenomena such as placebo/nocebo effect which we're yet to fully understand, I believe we can pretty safely say that pharmaceutical drugs - especially "heavy" ones - have real, observable effects regardless of your personal position with regards to them. Alternative treatments (I include here religious treatments, prayer, etc.) "work" by placebo if you already accept the primary hypotheses they work by, but might not work in other cases. In fact there's a pretty wide range of people in biomedical field who classify most of alternative medicine as, essentially, the industry of placebo, because of its dubious effects in a controlled experimental setting. If there effects were proven, they would no longer be on the verge of medicine - they would become "normal" medicine, kwim?

 

I'm using medicine only as an example, but transfer that on all stuff belief-related only. Even if we do have to accept certain axioms before we can operate with science, the results we get with it are FAR less subjective, applicable to far more contexts and actually work, better and better, as science advances. It's an imperfect system, I agree, but we're perfecting it all the time and even if it's fundamentally axiomatic, it's impressive how well it works. The way of thinking that produced that science MIGHT - as in, logical possibility that I cannot take away - be essentially flawed... but it works rather well. I'm typing this on a device that is a product of a scientific thinking, research and inventions - not of a prayer.

 

You might, of course, operate with a different idea of God in your mind (it seems to me that you do). You might talk of a God of Einstein, Leibowitz and similar conceptions which fall outside of the realm of what we might call "popular religion". My personal position on this is that I don't need that hypothesis in my worldview, but I still believe that's a rather different conception of God and divinity than the one found in "popular religion".

 

My rejection of spiritual world, and thinking that all phenomena are ultimately material phenomena (like sound waves - you cannot see them, but ultimately, they're material phenomena that can be described by the laws of physics that deal with material phenomena), goes the same way: I don't need the hypothesis of a spiritual world for my world to work. In fact, I tend to go along the lines of Leibowitz when it comes to God: whether or not God exists is actually irrelevant, "in the world as it is today string pulling by God is not noticeable at all".

I don't know. Blame Ockham I guess:tongue_smilie: - the principle of the fewest assumptions needed. For me, those are unnecessary assumptions, and even if I cannot logically disprove them just like I cannot disprove a giant teapot in the space, nothing essentially changes even if they're here.

 

I have no problems with your point of view, btw. :) I wasn't replying because I wanted you to prove anything, I was just thinking aloud, adding what I think of it.

I also find it rather odd to assume that if a thing can be confirmed as a regular human reality then the lack thereof must be a disability. The ability to roll one's tongue is confirmed as a regular human reality, but I don't know anyone who considers the lack of that ability to be a disability. Though I suppose if a person got very, VERY technical the lack of any ability is a DIS-ability. But that's neither here nor there.

I'm usually talking of disabilities only if it significantly affects your reality. Blue eyes are regular human reality, but so are green eyes or hazel ones, and they're not a disability just because they're different. They don't significantly affect how you see. But lack of sight IS a disability. I suppose one would have to go very technical to see where do you draw the line between the two, but roughly speaking at least, I believe we can differentiate the two positions.

 

If there is a spiritual sense, the ability to communicate with the spiritual world, the lack of it would definitely be a disability. I'm just of an opinion that such experiences could still be explained materially (altered states of mind, substance abuse, etc.), i.e. that they're not spiritual in their essence, and we've already explained lots of things as fundamentally material phenomena even if they don't appear as such. What's only a very sophisticated technology appears magical to people from previous epochs. I'm not sure if I'm writing clearly enough, I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

 

Regarding the final part of your post, we all make conscious decisions to believe things that we know by induction rather than deduction - I just still see a fundamental difference between claims regarding the material reality and those regarding the spiritual one, if there is such a thing. And while material reality is pretty shared for all healthy individuals, the spiritual one isn't very much. I know a whole bunch of people, myself included, who manage to do just fine in life without that hypothesis, have never had any experience they would classify as spiritual and couldn't explain materially, including in the most emotional moments of their lives with regards to strong emotions of the heights of love or the bottoms of despair. And if I tried to add spirituality in those moments, I knew I was multiplying the hypotheses and, ultimately, lying to myself. :D My husband is one of those people who literally observed with themselves how their religiosity goes down with their advance in their scientific education, until complete abandon and keeping only the traditional, "nationally glueing" elements of religion. I have a child (13 y.o.) that leans towards religiosity, but in Leibowitz's sense as well.

 

Either we all, along with the vast majority of our social circle, lack a sense that would have a considerable effect on our lives :D, either there is no such sense. I opt for the latter, but fully recognize the logical possibility of the former.

 

Essentially, we agree, just come from different standpoints with regards to this.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have no trouble at all with my sense of hearing, yet I do not hear what my daughter says about 50% of the time...

 

If I listened to her all of the time I would do nothing else, so I have to choose to tune her out.

 

Another aspect of the senses is how they can be finely tuned due to experience. As a musician, my dad can pick out the various parts of a variety of music. My mom thinks that most of it is noise.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Ester Maria]

I have no trouble at all with my sense of hearing, yet I do not hear what my daughter says about 50% of the time...

 

If I listened to her all of the time I would do nothing else, so I have to choose to tune her out.

 

Another aspect of the senses is how they can be finely tuned due to experience. As a musician, my dad can pick out the various parts of a variety of music. My mom thinks that most of it is noise.

But there IS a material reality of all of that and all hearing people will agree on it - even if you choose to ignore it, or even if people who aren't schooled musicians can't pick apart music. There is a concrete, observable, recordable, material reality of music and sound... The problem with spiritual dimension is that there isn't a consensus on the existence of such a thing - either because not all of us experienced it and a great part of human population is "spiritually disabled", either because even among a lot of those that did experience we can find material triggers for it so we conclude that most, if not all, of those phenomena can be explained materially at the end of the day.

 

If I were convinced it existed, and had substantial proof for it as well as the ability to access it (= no disability in a sense by which we reach it), then yes, I would have a choice to (i) ignore it, (ii) let it be as it is, or (iii) tune my spiritiual sense to get the most of it I can. :) I'm not somebody who came in touch with the divine and then ignored it or let it be and started to actively deny it - I'm somebody who never got into touch with it in the first place, not once, niente. And I know a whole of lot people who never did as well, including even those who WANTED it to exist and who WANTED to have an active relationship with the spiritual - and couldn't. So like I said, either big parts of human population are spiritually disabled, either such a thing doesn't exist. We can opt for either of those choices, and the logical possibility of the other option still remains.

 

Btw, I have a question for people who are religious (in any way). Do you believe that "spiritual sense" or however it is translated to your religious terms is a SHARED human reality (that those of us just fail to access for some reason), or a PRIVILEGE of the few?

[Lovedtodeath]

That is an interesting question Ester Maria. I believe that we are created with a spiritual need. Jesus said, "Happy is the one aware of their spiritual need".

[freethinkermama]

 

Btw, I have a question for people who are religious (in any way). Do you believe that "spiritual sense" or however it is translated to your religious terms is a SHARED human reality (that those of us just fail to access for some reason), or a PRIVILEGE of the few?

 

Hi, EM

 

When I was a Christian, I went through several views on this. For a while, I believed that people were saved because people were "called" into a relationship with Jesus Christ. It was not available to everyone because God didn't call everyone, just the "elect." These people had the fullness of spiritual life, and while we might not understand everything, we understood the important things.

 

I believed, for a long time, that everyone had a spiritual longing, and that was a human reality, but I believed that only specific people (Christians) had the privilege of actually knowing God. Most people thought they knew God (anyone religious/spiritual, but not born-again Christian) but were merely deceived.

[Rosie_0801]

Btw, I have a question for people who are religious (in any way). Do you believe that "spiritual sense" or however it is translated to your religious terms is a SHARED human reality (that those of us just fail to access for some reason), or a PRIVILEGE of the few?

 

I think everyone has a "God shelf" (if you don't mind imagining our brains as libraries full of bookcases) even if the books on it are called "A Pox on Religion: May it Leave Me Alone Forever and Ever," "Synonyms for the Divine: For Those Who Dislike the Word God," or any number of books that others with less eclectic shelves would argue shouldn't be labeled in the 200's.

 

I think those with empty shelves, if anyone does have an empty shelf, I've not met anyone I'd interpret that way, must be in one of two situations. One, someone else packed their God shelf with books they don't like, so they've thrown them on the floor and haven't recovered enough to feel ready to start buying their own books (or maybe the pile on the floor is so big they can't step over it.) Or two, their books have been shelved elsewhere; maybe the gardening shelf, the cookbook shelf, philosophy, logic etc.

 

Maybe other people who are trying, but can't find anything that will sit comfortably on their shelf need to stop trying for a bit and tighten the screws on the brackets so their shelf will be stable; so their search can be motivated from inspiration rather than fear. Maybe they will find that they already have the right books, but will feel better if they take them off the cookbook shelf, the philosophy shelf, the photo book shelf, the Biochemistry shelf and keep them on their God shelf instead.

 

So now you know the funny stories that carry on in Rosie's head.

 

Rosie

Edited August 15, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[TXMomof4]

I think everyone has a "God shelf" (if you don't mind imagining our brains as libraries full of bookcases) even if the books on it are called "A Pox on Religion: May it Leave Me Alone Forever and Ever," "Synonyms for the Divine: For Those Who Dislike the Word God," or any number of books that others with less eclectic shelves would argue shouldn't be labeled in the 200's.

 

I think those with empty shelves, if anyone does have an empty shelf, I've not met anyone I'd interpret that way, must be in one of two situations. One, someone else packed their God shelf with books they don't like, so they've thrown them on the floor and haven't recovered enough to feel ready to start buying their own books (or maybe the pile on the floor is so big they can't step over it.) Or two, their books have been shelved elsewhere; maybe the gardening shelf, the cookbook shelf, philosophy, logic etc.

 

Maybe other people who are trying, but can't find anything that will sit comfortably on their shelf need to stop trying for a bit and tighten the screws on the brackets so their shelf will be stable; so their search can be motivated from inspiration rather than fear. Maybe they will find that they already have the right books, but will feel better if they take them off the cookbook shelf, the philosophy shelf, the photo book shelf, the Biochemistry shelf and keep them on their God shelf instead.

 

So now you know the funny stories that carry on in Rosie's head.

 

Rosie

 

I really, really like this analogy. Really. Love your posts Rosie. ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Maybe other people who are trying, but can't find anything that will sit comfortably on their shelf need to stop trying for a bit and tighten the screws on the brackets so their shelf will be stable; so their search can be motivated from inspiration rather than fear. Maybe they will find that they already have the right books, but will feel better if they take them off the cookbook shelf, the philosophy shelf, the photo book shelf, the Biochemistry shelf and keep them on their God shelf instead.

Rosie, this makes sense to me and this is what I have done for a bit.

[MamaSheep]

The first thing I disagree with is the argument that the burden of the proof in a discussion is on the one that wishes to know...

I think we're talking past each other a little here. I was referring to inquiry in life, not to discussions. A discussion in which the purpose is to persuade may logically include a "burden of proof" which I would assert rests with whichever person is trying to do the persuading. If the purpose of the discussion is to inform, or entertain, however, I can't see how a "burden of proof" is relevant. Any which way, though, life is not a discussion. If I really want "proof", or even reasonable evidence, I have to take responsibility for finding it myself. Even if it's inconvenient. Even if it means reworking a lot of prior assumptions. It's not somebody else's job in life to provide me with proof or justification. And in fact, as you have pointed out, relying on someone else to provide it can be highly problematic.

I also cannot accept as a proof personal experience only for reasons enumerated.

 

Yes, you keep saying this, even though I have not offered any such proof. Do you mean to say that you cannot accept your OWN personal experience as proof?

 

I tend to be more skeptical of other people's personal experiences than I am of my own. Although I am aware that there are factors that can distort my own perceptions of the world around me (lack of sleep, hunger, distraction, illness), it's also easier to rule out at least some of the other concerns you mentioned in myself than in others. For example, I don't use mind-altering substances or engage in religious "trances", and I have no reason to believe "madness" is a factor.

 

If we cannot admit ANY personal experience of any kind as evidence, we have very little left because personal experience is really the ONLY form of evidence we have available to us. I certainly would agree, though, that some "personal experiences" are more reliable as evidence than others, and that we can and should make some judgments as to the reliability of personal testimony.

 

...My problem is in the amount of relativizing rather than in these little "technical details" that I don't mention since I assume we both operate with them - saying that such a belief, such a hypothesis in one's worldview is equivalent to a hypothesis of a higher being, especially if the latter is taken from religious texts (again, it's just as ad verecundiam as somebody believeing something only because it's in a scientific textbook). I don't believe it is.

 

Possibly you misunderstand the amount of relativity I ascribe to these things. I view reality as highly objective and concrete. It IS what it IS. This applies both to physical reality and to spiritual reality. Each person's PERCEPTION of reality is subjective and may vary based upon sensory capabilities, psychological state, cultural expectations, and other factors, but these differing subjective experiences do not indicate differing, relative realities.

 

Also, I completely agree with you that it is not logical to believe something merely because it is printed in a book, whether a religious text or a scientific one. I find it equally illogical to dismiss everything in any scientific or religious text out of hand merely because it IS in such a book. A scientific textbook represents a compilation of information that was gathered through the personal experiences of others in their interactions with the world around them. Some of their experiences were contrived (experiments), some were more serendipitous (the apple falling on one's head, so to speak), and some were almost entirely internal to the individual (the working out of a mathematical formula). Others are still entirely theoretical since they cannot be directly observed, and represent logical extrapolations from other ideas that can be "proved" (with the understanding that the "proven" model may change in the face of new information). Many of the same things can be said about religious texts.

 

Science works, and that's my primary problem with alternative magic-based and religion-based treatments.

...

I'm using medicine only as an example, but transfer that on all stuff belief-related only.

...The way of thinking that produced that science MIGHT - as in, logical possibility that I cannot take away - be essentially flawed... but it works rather well. I'm typing this on a device that is a product of a scientific thinking, research and inventions - not of a prayer.

 

I would argue that real spirituality also works. That's how we can tell it's real. It's also my opinion that real spirituality is not belief-only stuff. But pseudo-spirituality doesn't work any better than pseudo-science.

 

(Are you quite certain that none of the people who worked on developing the device in question, all of its components, and all of the intermediary inventions that led to the development of this device ever prayed in the process of that development and received in response an insight that assisted in their work? I don't think I can accept that assumption as a given.)

 

You might, of course, operate with a different idea of God in your mind (it seems to me that you do)...

 

I have not extensively studied Einstein's or Leibowitz's conceptions of God, but would say that from what little I do know I would almost certainly disagree with them on any number of issues. No, I hope you will not assume my conception of God matches up with theirs. But you are also correct that my understanding of God does not match up with what you are labeling "popular religion". I think if we discussed it further that you would find that my conception of "spirit" and things that are "spiritual" probably differ from a more "popular" conception as well.

 

I would certainly not assert that all things that claim to be spiritually "true" actually ARE such--not any more than I would make the assertion that all things that claim to be scientifically valid are such. Rather, it is my opinion that just as there is a great deal of pseudo-science out there trying to masquerade as the real thing, there is also a great deal of pseudo-spirituality or pseudo-religion (for lack of a better term) out there doing the same thing. And in my opinion it is just as tragic when a person tosses out the baby with the bathwater in one of these as it is the other.

 

My rejection of spiritual world, and thinking that all phenomena are ultimately material phenomena...goes the same way

 

I would certainly agree with you that physical phenomena can be described by the laws of physics that deal with physical phenomina--and that if there are things that occur that do not seem to comply with those laws it is only because there are laws at work that we do not yet comprehend and which have not yet been described by science. (They still exist, though, even though science has not yet described them.)

 

It is my opinion that there are also equally solid spiritual laws that deal with things that are spiritual. Further, I believe that the spiritual and the physical are interwoven with one another and can affect each other--in accordance with laws that govern the interaction of spiritual matter with physical matter--and those interactions can be observed. I also believe that spiritual phenomena can be observed. To me, spiritual "truths" relate to those things that observably "work" in spiritual matters, just as scientific "truths" relate to those things that observably "work" in physical matters.

 

I disagree with Leibowitz, since I've noticed strings being pulled on more than one occasion. ;)

 

...If there is a spiritual sense, the ability to communicate with the spiritual world, the lack of it would definitely be a disability. I'm just of an opinion that such experiences could still be explained materially (altered states of mind, substance abuse, etc.), i.e. that they're not spiritual in their essence, and we've already explained lots of things as fundamentally material phenomena even if they don't appear as such. What's only a very sophisticated technology appears magical to people from previous epochs. I'm not sure if I'm writing clearly enough, I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

 

....

 

I would say that the spiritual aspects of reality are as much a shared experience as the physical ones are, but that they are more difficult to discern and more subject to misinterpretation. And again, I don't accept ALL claims regarding the spiritual aspects of reality as valid. I understand and agree with your comments about technology being mistaken for "magic" in less developed cultures. I think it is also possible for spiritual phenomena to be misinterpreted as something else when people don't realize what it is they're actually looking at.

 

As for getting along fine without...well, I've known, and known of, many people who "get along fine" without eyesight or hearing too. That doesn't mean that light and sound waves don't exist or are meaningless to the rest of the population, however.

 

Either we all, along with the vast majority of our social circle, lack a sense that would have a considerable effect on our lives :D, either there is no such sense. I opt for the latter, but fully recognize the logical possibility of the former.

 

And, naturally, I opt for the former, but understand your opting for the latter. After all, if you are right then my husband and I, along with the vast majority of OUR social circle, are delusional. :D But I also recognize the logical possibility of the latter. Logic, however, has its limitations as well. ;)

 

Essentially, we agree, just come from different standpoints with regards to this.

 

Thank you for a fun discussion. :)

[MamaSheep]

Btw, I have a question for people who are religious (in any way). Do you believe that "spiritual sense" or however it is translated to your religious terms is a SHARED human reality (that those of us just fail to access for some reason), or a PRIVILEGE of the few?

 

I believe that it is a shared human reality, and that all people can access it, though some do not recognize when they have done so, and others intentionally choose not to do so. I think sometimes people expect "spiritual" things to be exotic or exciting and don't recognize the common, every day things that are spiritual. I would say, for example, that at its root, conscience is a manifestation of a spiritual sense. Empathy too.

 

ETA: Also, I like Rosie's analogy a lot too. :)

Edited August 16, 2010 by MamaSheep

[justamouse]

Rosie, you are an amazing, wise and wonderful woman. Really. Your posts, to me, are just full of light. (You know people. How they tick. You should write. You'd be one of those writers that slammed readers in the head with a mallet, all wrapped up in one sentence.)

 

 

shared. I do not believe in any way, shape or form that one sect, group or tribe is better than the others in God's eyes. She's no respecter of persons.

[justamouse]

I have no trouble at all with my sense of hearing, yet I do not hear what my daughter says about 50% of the time...

 

If I listened to her all of the time I would do nothing else, so I have to choose to tune her out.

 

 

 

I have your child. Pick her up anytime you want. :D

[Gooblink]

I think everyone has a "God shelf" (if you don't mind imagining our brains as libraries full of bookcases) even if the books on it are called "A Pox on Religion: May it Leave Me Alone Forever and Ever," "Synonyms for the Divine: For Those Who Dislike the Word God," or any number of books that others with less eclectic shelves would argue shouldn't be labeled in the 200's.

 

I think those with empty shelves, if anyone does have an empty shelf, I've not met anyone I'd interpret that way, must be in one of two situations. One, someone else packed their God shelf with books they don't like, so they've thrown them on the floor and haven't recovered enough to feel ready to start buying their own books (or maybe the pile on the floor is so big they can't step over it.) Or two, their books have been shelved elsewhere; maybe the gardening shelf, the cookbook shelf, philosophy, logic etc.

 

Maybe other people who are trying, but can't find anything that will sit comfortably on their shelf need to stop trying for a bit and tighten the screws on the brackets so their shelf will be stable; so their search can be motivated from inspiration rather than fear. Maybe they will find that they already have the right books, but will feel better if they take them off the cookbook shelf, the philosophy shelf, the photo book shelf, the Biochemistry shelf and keep them on their God shelf instead.

 

So now you know the funny stories that carry on in Rosie's head.

 

Rosie

 

They're great stories, Rosie.

 

And I sometimes feel I spend too much time poring over the books on my God shelf when I should be living and loving the people in my sphere of influence. Like sharing a good read. :)

 

I love your analogy.

[MamaSheep]

Psst....Aubrey! Sorry for sidetracking so badly. I hope you are feeling better about things?

[just Jenny]

Hi Aubrey,

 

been thinking about your post since you posted.

 

I have a MA from Stanford. Used to think I was very smart

 

until God got a hold of me. Lovingly, pushed my face into the dirt.

 

Opened my eyes, opened my ears.

 

Filled my heart with so many questions, and no one to answer them. Many questions that I didn't know how to even voice.

 

Convinced me that only He could answer my questions.

 

I started crying out to Him.

 

He answered.

 

Remember James 1:5

 

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."

 

All the best to you,

 

Jenny