Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jodie.Lynne

Is Faith an Accurate Pathway to Truth?

1,348 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

I appreciate that you took the time to do some research and post up some data with regard to our conversation.  I do think the data supports my point.  The numbers for Jehovah Witness, Mormon, and Protestant/Evangelical support my original assertion.  The Catholic numbers at 58% leave 42% which also agree with my original assertion.  

According to this link, 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian.  So, just in America that translates to about 245 million people.  About 62% of these people have a formal religious affiliation (church membership) and 51.3% of these are Protestant.  The Mormons are the fourth largest church organization in America and over 78% of them believe in special creation or do not identify as evolutionists.  

So, as I said.....in America.....this translates to a large number of people - who do view the bible as an accurate source on creation.  This does not mean that all of these people accept a young Earth.....there is no timeline in the bible on when the Earth was created.  The religious idea that the world is only 10,000 years old or less comes from Bishop Ussher's chronology which was published in 1650.  

As i said i was surprised by the number of creationists, but i think it is more common In America and some less developed countries. In Australia the figures are much much lower and compare to those in England 

Plus while i respect them, JWs and Mormons aren't actually major faiths.

  I had a lot of trouble verifying your comment about Mormons  because apparently they aren't classified as christian under most surveys in America :(   However wiki agrees that the y are the  4th biggest church in America  

However if you look world wide, and put Mormons, jws, and  christian scientists all together they still only make up 1% of Christians in the world 

http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/christians

Other Christian groups, which made up the remaining 1%, include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
9 hours ago, Guyver said:

It's not that I don't believe you......because I know that the mind is a powerful thing.  I've observed the video of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire in protest of the Viet Nam war, and burning himself to death without screaming.  People can do amazing things based on their own beliefs and practices.  

But, he didn't get off this rock unscathed, and neither did you or anyone else.  My point stands.  The fact that you choose to deny any pain or fear that you receive just demonstrates that you are a very unusual person.  Most people do not have that level of psychological awareness or capability.

If my dog died, I would be sad.  This goes for everyone I've ever known.....except maybe for you.  I think my point is valid.  FWIW.  

I agree Guyv., it isn't any kind of attribute to be in denial, repress emotions, or only acknowledge the positive things, for  fear of oneself. It requires the kind of justification, and defense posting, it requires controlling ones every thought just like MW is noted for. I think it makes a person wonky doodle.  MW is from the times when we didn't know anything about healthy emotional epression, he isn't gonna change at this point. Of course, life has its ups and downs. 

Of course if your dog died you would be sad, this is normal. 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I have been trying to keep up here, in the forum, in this thread. Been meaning to include my bit, but understandingly, or maybe not understandingly ;)  certain other thoughts have risen. But, I wanted to reflect on the OP's question of faith being the pathway to truth. 

I think, just simply looking at it, I think it is not. That is, if one looks at faith, as it is, faith is personal, while truth really isn't. I just see it as something, yet felt on a person by person basis, but it's something that wont change person to person. 

I just don't think one should look outside of the objective truth, and personalize it, when it's objective truth I find part of the subject here. Yeah, maybe my faith can be a pathway to my personal truth, but that can change. I think objective truth cannot. And if this thread is referring to objective truth, faith is not the pathway to it, in my opinion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Sometimes the objective proof, can only be arrived at, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Sometimes the objective proof, can only be arrived at, personally.

Habit this doesn't make sense. Objective is reality based. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 9/1/2018 at 2:36 PM, Mr Walker said:

" My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world" 

 True or not ? 

No. I don't even have evidence she exists. 

On 9/1/2018 at 2:36 PM, Mr Walker said:

or is your statement about truths being absolute, untrue ? :) 

Perspective changes opinion, not truth. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Sometimes the only proof, is the personal experience. Like for example, someone may be asked, " have you ever been in love ?" If the answer is, " I think so ", then those who have been in love, will know the speaker has never been in love. They know, as much as they know anything else is real. I'm not saying it is good or bad to have been "in love" but it is real, and the only proof is personal experience. And don't doubt, there are many who will live a lifetime in thinking being "in love" is just mawkish, pretentious nonsense.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
20 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Sometimes the only proof, is the personal experience. Like for example, someone may be asked, " have you ever been in love ?" If the answer is, " I think so ", then those who have been in love, will know the speaker has never been in love. They know, as much as they know anything else is real. I'm not saying it is good or bad to have been "in love" but it is real, and the only proof is personal experience. And don't doubt, there are many who will live a lifetime in think being "in love" is just mawkish, pretentious nonsense.

People in love exhibit behaviors that we can observe, we can support that love is a result of chemicals in the brain. We can evidence it is objective. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Wait. Love is a chemical?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

People in love exhibit behaviors that we can observe, we can support that love is a result of chemicals in the brain. We can evidence it is objective. 

psychological realities are the most important realities, in making the world of humans, what it is. I don't know what blood tests would conclusively prove people are "in love", in the sense I described, for all I know, the blood tests would show nothing different to those who feign being in love, who are ecstatic at the thought they have snagged a good partner, but are not "in love" with them. And how would the experimenter know what blood test, matched which condition ? it would depend on honest reportage, and who is going to admit they are faking it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Wait. Love is a chemical?

 

 

ANyone who has been "in love" or truly loved another, two very different things, would not hold with such reductionism.

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
21 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Wait. Love is a chemical?

 

 

Wife: Darling, I love you so much, you have shown me a love I didn't dream existed "

Hubby: Come off it, it is just a chemical, Have you heard of the Periodic Table ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
51 minutes ago, Habitat said:

psychological realities are the most important realities, in making the world of humans, what it is. I don't know what blood tests would conclusively prove people are "in love", in the sense I described, for all I know, the blood tests would show nothing different to those who feign being in love, who are ecstatic at the thought they have snagged a good partner, but are not "in love" with them. And how would the experimenter know what blood test, matched which condition ? it would depend on honest reportage, and who is going to admit they are faking it ?

Habit of course, love has a interpreted subjective reality too, and iyes it is important to the person and  we know love are chemical reactions in the brain, it is hard wired.  "First attraction, first "sparks" in the air followed by falling in love are caused by combination of three neurochemicals: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine and dopamine. Later stages of long relationships are guiding by another two: oxytocin and serotonin."

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Feelings of happiness and well being are serotonin. All this talk of divine sparks and faith is the brain on chemicals.

http://asdn.net/asdn/chemistry/chemistry_of_love.php

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
46 minutes ago, Habitat said:

ANyone who has been "in love" or truly loved another, two very different things, would not hold with such reductionism.

Oh, nonsense the brain seems to be wired for love chemically and it also interprets love in ways that are unique to the person's experience. 

I am in love with my husband and while I recognize it is in part chemical there is a subjective element to it too. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
26 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Wife: Darling, I love you so much, you have shown me a love I didn't dream existed "

Hubby: Come off it, it is just a chemical, Have you heard of the Periodic Table ?

Well, that's closer to the reality of the situation, its just not romantic to speak that way 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Habit of course, love has a interpreted subjective reality too, and yes, we know love are chemical reactions in the brain, it is hard wired.  "First attraction, first "sparks" in the air followed by falling in love are caused by combination of three neurochemicals: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine and dopamine. Later stages of long relationships are guiding by another two: oxytocin and serotonin."

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Feelings of happiness and well being are serotonin. All this talk of divine sparks and faith is the brain on chemicals.

http://asdn.net/asdn/chemistry/chemistry_of_love.php

 

Reductionist nonsense, the chemicals are not guiding anything, they are concomitant to psychological processes, you might as well say adrenalin guides anger or fear. What caused the adrenalin to flow was a psychological reaction to an external stimulus, or a perceived external situation.

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Well, that's closer to the reality of the situation, its just not romantic to speak that way 

It certainly isn't romantic, and it is simplistic rubbish to boot !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
58 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It certainly isn't romantic, and it is simplistic rubbish to boot !

I don't agree. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I don't agree. 

No surprises there !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No. I don't even have evidence she exists. 

Perspective changes opinion, not truth. 

You can judge if that statement  is true or false without knowing if she exists. 

It is a subjective statement, incapable of objective assessment, and thus cannot be true or false. 

And so you are correct. Perspective  changes subjective opinion and thus subjective truths ( if such can exist) but not  objective facts  or objective truths 

It is a true fact that i consider my wife the most beautiful and attractive woman in the world.

But this (belief/consideration)  cannot be proven to be true or false,  because it exists only in my mind .   Once they have  a machine capable of reading my mind it will be capable of verification, and thus become a fact. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Habit of course, love has a interpreted subjective reality too, and iyes it is important to the person and  we know love are chemical reactions in the brain, it is hard wired.  "First attraction, first "sparks" in the air followed by falling in love are caused by combination of three neurochemicals: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine and dopamine. Later stages of long relationships are guiding by another two: oxytocin and serotonin."

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Feelings of happiness and well being are serotonin. All this talk of divine sparks and faith is the brain on chemicals.

http://asdn.net/asdn/chemistry/chemistry_of_love.php

 

Actually "we" ie science knows that love is NOT hard wired into humans it is a cognitive concept ie a specific neural pattern of the mind.  A human must be taught how to love and allowed the opportunity to develop, recognise, and learn to construct,  the neural patterns which are love.

Otherwise they cannot love, as their mind never learns that neural pattern  This is known in both psychology and cognitive science  Children who are not taught HOW to love (this can be explicitly or implicitly through modelling)  don't develop the abilty to love.  Love has nothing to do with feeling good.  It is an idea and a thought and a construct of the mind You can love deeply and completely without ever experiencing those chemical rushes   

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Wait. Love is a chemical?

 

 

Only to reductionist materialists who have never known what true romantic love is like, as opposed to a "love"  based on physical attraction and lust, which lasts just long enough for the woman to establish grounds for a good divorce settlement   :) 

I also believe that the idea tha t love is just a chemical appeals to modern people who want to avoid taking responsibility. 

ie if love is a chemical then  I am not responsible for it. I mean; who can control those chemical rushes in my body, and indeed it would be unnatural to try and do so :) ?  

If the chemicals tell me Ive stopped loving my partner  and love another then i just have to go with that  and I am not responsible.  It is simply natural 

This is a lot easier than the idea that we are responsible for constructing and maintaining a love for another, even after, or without, chemical attraction,  so that, while we may be attracted to another, we maintain the idealised construct of love for our partner  ( ie stay in love with th em)and remain faithful.

Harder but a lot more honest and also better for families, society, and most individuals

Men are the big winners once people begin to think of love as simply a chemical response because  we respond to chemicals more, while women respond more to concepts feelings,  ideals, and abstract ideas, being more language based than men     

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N

What is love you may ask? well...

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have been trying to keep up here, in the forum, in this thread. Been meaning to include my bit, but understandingly, or maybe not understandingly ;)  certain other thoughts have risen. But, I wanted to reflect on the OP's question of faith being the pathway to truth. 

I think, just simply looking at it, I think it is not. That is, if one looks at faith, as it is, faith is personal, while truth really isn't. I just see it as something, yet felt on a person by person basis, but it's something that wont change person to person. 

I just don't think one should look outside of the objective truth, and personalize it, when it's objective truth I find part of the subject here. Yeah, maybe my faith can be a pathway to my personal truth, but that can change. I think objective truth cannot. And if this thread is referring to objective truth, faith is not the pathway to it, in my opinion. 

is it true that you love your partner (or someone)? Yes.  It may be a subjective truth, but it is still a truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Perhaps we could all agree that Pilate's question in John, What is truth?, is more complicated than it might first appear. That said, it would be interesting to know whether Faith is a pathway to any sense of truth worthy of the name, or whether any reliable pathway to truth in any worthwhile sense arrives at Faith.

Personally, but I don't think I'm the only one, the only kind of truth I'd credit as "worthy of the name" is one where my belief or disbelief didn't matter to the question of whether or not something was true. That is not without consequences (some version of "subject-object duality" would need to hold), but I'm willing to take my chances on those.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.