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 -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Right, let's be clear about some of the key issues that you brought up here in this particular passage and pull the blanket out from over the so called virgin territory. The conspicuous overview to me seems to point out the glaring misnomer regarding what is or is not actually virginal. The capricious demarcation that you draw around woo and the rational doesn't draw on or around anything either, except what you accept as definitively sound to you. You forget that you are casting your logic net over a wide terrain and then when coming up empty, says that the net is too small or that the fish was too big, or when you come up with a fish, you say that all the fishes are there in your net because that's all the fish there is, and all and every fish that there exists are the same. That's the extent of your numbers against the numbers of those that do not have nets, but not the extent of those numbers who, though have no nets, or not entirely oblivious to what nets are.

Where you are running up against is this wall of so called 'anti woo' that you keep banging your head against, maybe there are such apparitions of such anti woo brigades, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that everything not without an apathy to woo is also anti woo, sometimes woo is just an irrational perspective to what is commonly known as a set of unique and basic situation or circumstance. To make more of it teeters it over to the woo. There is nothing wrong with believing that there is something more to anything and everything, that's how science and the rational gains greater knowledge of what is already clear cut definitive information. It must add and not detract, from what is firm knowledge and understanding is what I am saying, if your woo manifesto has to tear down common sense before it makes any headway along some imagined fence demarcating the capacious mental provisional logic gap, I am afraid it is all nothing more than Atlantis calling from the mists of misnomers.

Of course there is a surfeit of BS that is not only irrational, but also non-existent in any realm of reality, and avidly seized upon by those with the agenda I speak of , to tar all "supernatural" stories with the same brush. They want a "weedkiller" that kills the whole damn lot, stone dead. The treatment is "rational thinking", applied liberally. Unfortunately  for those of that mindset, it turns out not to be 100% efficacious. It has fallen to me, to know better than to accept rationalist hegemony, and I am surprised that anyone that would be reading books about mysticism, which you say you do, who think much differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

Of course there is a surfeit of BS that is not only irrational, but also non-existent in any realm of reality, and avidly seized upon by those with the agenda I speak of , to tar all "supernatural" stories with the same brush. They want a "weedkiller" that kills the whole damn lot, stone dead. The treatment is "rational thinking", applied liberally. Unfortunately  for those of that mindset, it turns out not to be 100% efficacious. It has fallen to me, to know better than to accept rationalist hegemony, and I am surprised that anyone that would be reading books about mysticism, which you say you do, who think much differently.

Ahhh well ... if you still have your copy, maybe you'd want to look up Chapter X - The Unitive Life

Pay some attention to - The Doctrine of Deification -

Good Luck :tu:

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Ahhh well ... if you still have your copy, maybe you'd want to look up Chapter X - The Unitive Life

Pay some attention to - The Doctrine of Deification -

Good Luck :tu:

~

I still have my copy, but I want to hear your version of how "no woo" is compatible with mysticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I still have my copy, but I want to hear your version of how "no woo" is compatible with mysticism.

I can't help you any until you can help yourself, I am no Jesus or a Christ, I have no supernatural or paranormal abilities, I have no inner sights or greater insights

Mysticism is as far from woo as is woo from common sense, that there is where we depart on our paths, though we may have some similarity to some perspective, you seems to know exactly where you are on that path and where you are heading, I share no such lofty and contentious belief

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I can't help you any until you can help yourself, I am no Jesus or a Christ, I have no supernatural or paranormal abilities, I have no inner sights or greater insights

Mysticism is as far from woo as is woo from common sense, that there is where we depart on our paths, though we may have some similarity to some perspective, you seems to know exactly where you are on that path and where you are heading, I share no such lofty and contentious belief

~

No, there is no "religious" path being trod here, I don't take much credit for whatever inspirations I have received on the subject, but I absolutely would never have appeared on these boards but for happenings that convinced me, and would have convinced  any intelligent person, that the "beyond" is real beyond doubt, Mysticism, though, is "woo" of the highest order, it involves suspension of the rational faculty, the complete withdrawal of attention from that which employs discrimination, of any kind, whether to external or internal stimuli, including memory, to being "dead to the world". That to provide the the clean slate that God may deign to write upon, in mystical union. Who knows whatever that may be, but he who ventures there. And no-one can fake their way to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

No, there is no "religious" path being trod here, I don't take much credit for whatever inspirations I have received on the subject, but I absolutely would never have appeared on these boards but for happenings that convinced me, and would have convinced  any intelligent person, that the "beyond" is real beyond doubt, Mysticism, though, is "woo" of the highest order, it involves suspension of the rational faculty, the complete withdrawal of attention from that which employs discrimination, of any kind, whether to external or internal stimuli, including memory, to being "dead to the world". That to provide the the clean slate that God may deign to write upon, in mystical union. Who knows whatever that may be, but he who ventures there. And no-one can fake their way to it.

This much I can agree wholeheartedly , " And no-one can fake their way to it. "

As for the rest, it is too convoluted for my beliefs, woo is woo and to extract the woo from the path is what the Unitive Life means as I understand it. That much you and I disagree, and that's all there is to it

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

This much I can agree wholeheartedly , " And no-one can fake their way to it. "

As for the rest, it is too convoluted for my beliefs, woo is woo and to extract the woo from the path is what the Unitive Life means as I understand it. That much you and I disagree, and that's all there is to it

~

I think the idea that God is accessible in this life, would be regarded by a great many people as extreme "woo", what is, say, a ghost sighting, by comparison, but the merest nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

I think the idea that God is accessible in this life, would be regarded by a great many people as extreme "woo", what is, say, a ghost sighting, by comparison, but the merest nothing. 

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means, ghost sightings has nothing to do with God regardless of what sighting implies or how ghosts are defined, its a convoluted plot and it means nothing in terms of relating spirituality to religiosity.

~

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means, ghost sightings has nothing to do with God regardless of what sighting implies or how ghosts are defined, its a convoluted plot and it means nothing in terms of relating spirituality to religiosity.

~

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

~

I think not, "woo" is just a sarcastic slang term for the supernatural, or that which credits the supernatural as real.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

I think not, "woo" is just a sarcastic slang term for the supernatural, or that which credits the supernatural as real.

Then we don't share the same definition of Woo ... or anything that can be credited as 'real' in regards to the supernatural come to think of it

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

"the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural," often collectively referred to by Randi as "woo-woo."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

James Randi does his background research, and what he has proved as woo has been established as woo and worse

~

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
23 minutes ago, third_eye said:

James Randi does his background research, and what he has proved as woo has been established as woo and worse

~

Would he like reading your old friend, Mrs Underhill, do you think ? I'll go right out on a limb and say he'd call that a "woo-woo" manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

Would he like reading your old friend, Mrs Underhill, do you think ? I'll go right out on a limb and say he'd call that a "woo-woo" manual.

You overestimate Randi as much as you underestimate Ms Underhill

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You overestimate Randi as much as you underestimate Ms Underhill

~

I don't overestimate Randi one little bit, he is a guesser who has guessed wrong. End of story. And I don't underestimate Mrs Underhill one little bit. I don't know how much guesswork she employed, but she is on the right track, though I have yet to complete reading that book !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't overestimate Randi one little bit, he is a guesser who has guessed wrong. End of story. And I don't underestimate Mrs Underhill one little bit. I don't know how much guesswork she employed, but she is on the right track, though I have yet to complete reading that book !

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

As for your opinion about Ms Underhill, best reserve a bit more till you finish reading a few more of her titles ...

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

As for your opinion about Ms Underhill, best reserve a bit more till you finish reading a few more of her titles ...

~

Randi has been operating under an assumption, a basic premise, that gives every appearance to the uninitiated, in their many millions, of being correct. But isn't. And yet, he was never in any danger of having the million dollars lifted ! What a strange world it really is, where those conditions co-exist, and seemingly flawlessly. But that's the way it is, 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, third_eye said:

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means

 

and depending on what you mean by God ;)    

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
5 hours ago, Habitat said:

Waffle on, brother, you adhere to the "law of large numbers" theory that says if there are enough dreams, sooner or later, one will seem to be a "hit", and erroneously be interpreted as "prophetic".  And you, and the smug supporters of that idea, would be wrong, yet again. Which is not to say people don't make these false connections, but that that is a cover-all, that can be applied to all, nope, incorrect.

No, the laws of large numbers are more about the ways in which large samples (suitably drawn) come to resemble the populations from which they are drawn, the resemblances arising by "chance alone."  (It follows that small samples are prone to be unrepresentative, which has some relvance to the anecdote thread nearby.)

I am comfortable that the cognitive apparatus of many warm-blooded species can anticipate the future, with better than haphazard agreement, based on there being real patterns in phenomena and the possibility of learning those patterns. Like all fielded detectors and classifiers, such performance is governed by receiver operator characteristic constraints. If people (to name one warm-blooded species) ever make any correct connections, then they will also make some false ones.

I understand prophetic as either metaphorical (being correct about some event before it happened) or literal (being commissioned by a divine figure to discuss future events for the purpose of influencing an audience's present behavior). I don't see how anyone could reliably infer the latter status from merely getting some prediction correct, especially since some canonical prophecies didn't (Jonah, or some of Jesus'), but they are properly prophecies all the same, since they influenced audience behavior.

ETA on a point arising. since it's Randi's word, his usage is legislative. @third_eye is correct here:
 

Quote

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

Randi has fought on all those fronts and more (e.g. Sound system quality woo). What they all have in common is that people exploit other people, take their money, maybe even jeoparize their health, mental and physical, by making false claims in those domains. Randi very much sees himself continuing in the spirit of Harry Houdini, a stage magician who also exposed the frauds of his time.

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Randi has been operating under an assumption, a basic premise, that gives every appearance to the uninitiated, in their many millions, of being correct. But isn't. And yet, he was never in any danger of having the million dollars lifted ! What a strange world it really is, where those conditions co-exist, and seemingly flawlessly. But that's the way it is, 100%.

On the brighter note, it also means you can grab that cool million for yourself

~

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, third_eye said:

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

I'm not familiar with Underhill, but in what way, relevant to Randi's interest in the supernatural/paranormal, is he in over his head?  There are no established scholars really of the paranormal, just experts who are knowledgeable about paranormal claims.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
7 hours ago, danydandan said:

A literalist interpretation of that allegorical take from the Bible would have no other option but to assume Satan literally took Jesus up to the Highest hilltop. Where Jesus could see every single kingdom of the World. Logically how can one see all Kingdoms from one place on the World if the Earth wasn't flat?

Obviously it's a metaphor, one needs context for qouting content of the Bible. One interpretation of Matthew 4 is that it was probably a dream. Now whats the actual message? There are about four good theories.

It's completely impossible to determine the claims. Why? well, we don't know the Authors, we don't know of God existence, if God's there we don't know if he can communicate. Too many unanswerable questions to determine if the Bible is literally the word of God. Don't you think?

No....sorry.  Again I disagree.  Satan could have taken Jesus anywhere and shown him a vision of all the kingdoms of the world in a moments time.  The fact that it was on top of a mountain just gives a reader the opinion that it was a physical event rather than a spiritual.

And on your second point....it doesn’t matter who the authors are.  We can investigate the claims themselves.  If the claims themselves don’t withstand scrutiny, then it indicates the claim is false, regardless who made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not familiar with Underhill, but in what way, relevant to Randi's interest in the supernatural/paranormal, is he in over his head?  There are no established scholars really of the paranormal, just experts who are knowledgeable about paranormal claims.

Which is exactly my point, Mysticism in ye olde days and what Mysticism / Mystical is meant by today's standards are worlds apart, Ms Underhill documents the old chronicles of the lives of the Saints and well known revered Historical individuals and their experiences throughout Europe / England from their own perspectives, from their own words when available, and from accounts of the people familiar and those who were witnesses of their presence. No magic no paranormal no supernatural occurrences as we are so fond of associating with the mystical of the modern mass media age. In many ways Ms Underhill presents more of the philosophy of the metaphysical if it were a branch of Philosophy instead of the theology. I am no expert, I just read and from what I can understand, I know enough to say that those who try to associate it with what we call Mysticism today to what was the Mystic life two thousand years ago is going to be mighty disappointed.

Though there are references to what many would see as supernatural / paranormal characteristics, it was not all that clear cut to the many back in those days, someone pious and deeply devotional would be known as Saintly and revered as such. For example, Jean D' Arc, talking of hearing God speak to / command her was also burned at the stake and it was not all Politics and War, it was also who wants what from God. 

Randi clearly shows that he knows the difference with what Mysticism was and has devolved into in modern times, somewhat critically reminiscent with Transcendentalism / Zen and Meditation has been made marketable with Instant Nirvana with the times ... Or as Lennon / McCartney put it in a song ... Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play ...

Fun Trivia ... Prudence is Mia Farrow's sister ...

~

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No....sorry.  Again I disagree.  Satan could have taken Jesus anywhere and shown him a vision of all the kingdoms of the world in a moments time.  The fact that it was on top of a mountain just gives a reader the opinion that it was a physical event rather than a spiritual.

And on your second point....it doesn’t matter who the authors are.  We can investigate the claims themselves.  If the claims themselves don’t withstand scrutiny, then it indicates the claim is false, regardless who made it.

That's fine we can disagree all we want. There multiple different interpretation of Matthew 4. However it appears to be a dream scenario type of thing, in my opinion. Jump off a temple in the Holy City, turning stones to bread and all these tests being in a 'vision' only after a month and a half of fasting. I'd be delirious after fasting that long, actually I'd probably be dead.

Second point, we do need to know the Authors to see if they were inspired by God in some way. If not how can we ask them? If it was a case of God controlling their bodies and doing the writing then God makes an awful lot of contradictions depending on who's hand he was writing with. Maybe God's memory is as bar as our own?

I noticed that you didn't respond to the other points about how it's not possible to test if God exists this rendering the whole point moot in the first place.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Randi clearly shows that he knows the difference with what Mysticism was and has devolved into in modern times, somewhat critically reminiscent with Transcendentalism / Zen and Meditation has been made marketable with Instant Nirvana with the times

Thanks, that makes sense, I don't know much about 'mysticism' but it makes sense that it meant something significantly different in a pre-scientific society than today.  I think Randi is in 'over his head' with what Underhill knows concerning the history of mysticism in the same way they both are in over their head compared to Lennon/McCartney in songwriting; it's true, but the things that Underhill knows better than Randi are not necessarily things that are in Randi's wheelhouse anyway, it doesn't sound like Underhill says anything that is in conflict with Randi.

  • Like 2

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.