Religion

[Princess Artemis]

Well, it's interacting with the sun....

 

Whoa! Punctured right through the chariot and caused a coronal mass ejection!

 

Movement of the sun doesn't indicate intelligence either. It takes it 200+ million years to orbit around the Milky Way. Galaxies orbit around other bodies. Those orbit around other clusters. Relative to each, the expansion of the universe explains why they're moving away from each other. Nothing indicates that ours is special.

If it's interacting with the Sun in a spiritual way, what would science have to say about it? Would one expect to be able to photograph it being broken?

 

What does science's silence on Apollo's chariot have to do with intelligence or the specialness or lack thereof of the Sun?

[philpot123]

This is what I was referencing. Despite your refutation of the argument about light, the fact remains that there ARE things in the Bible that do not fit with evolution and the day-age theory.

 

 

How do you choose what you believe is figurative or metaphoric in the Bible and what is literal?

Hebrew has different text for what is literal and what is figurative. You don't decide, it's there in how the text is styled -- smaller connected letters, or larger disconnected ones.

Hmm... Interesting. I'll have to think about that.

 

I didn't mean to ignore your other post, I swear! I just now saw it, I must have scrolled by it before. Sorry about that. I'll reply in the morning if there's anything to reply to

[Alpha1]

The Jewish Virtual Library is run by trad. Orthodox donations, and thus a biased source.

 

Why did it get this award?

 

 

The site tries to be unbiased. In this case, it was a word for word copy from wikipedia, so if there's any problem, it's with what was inserted in there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution

 

Chaya 7 of the Talmud clearly states that creation did not happen in 24 hr periods.

 

Talmud is commentary starting from about 200 AD. I don't see how it can be used as proof of what was meant by the original writings.

 

But I'm curious. Does the above mention the small, disconnected letters?

 

If it's interacting with the Sun in a spiritual way, what would science have to say about it? Would one expect to be able to photograph it being broken?

 

What does science's silence on Apollo's chariot have to do with intelligence or the specialness or lack thereof of the Sun?.

 

Lets look at UFOs.

 

"The primary scientific arguments against ETH were summarized by Astronomer and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek during a presentation at the 1983 MUFON Symposium. During which time he outlined seven key reasons why he could not accept the ETH.[31]

 

"Failure of Sophisticated Surveillance Systems to Detect Incoming or Outgoing UFOs"

"Gravitational and Atmospheric Considerations"

"Statistical Considerations"

"Elusive, Evasive and Absurd Behavior of UFOs and Their Occupants"

"Isolation of the UFO Phenomenon in Time and Space: The Cheshire Cat Effect"

"The Space Unworthiness of UFOs"

"The Problem of Astronomical Distances""

 

The theory of the chariot totally fails the fourth reason, for one. Is there chariots for the other trillion trillion stars and all the new ones forming? They all move in the same mindless fashion.

 

 

Very large chariot needed -- Apollo's ain't big enough

Edited November 30, 2011 by Alpha1

[hazeh]

Since there's no evidence, at all, that Apollo pulls the sun in the chariot... how do you have faith in that? How do you know it's a chariot? How do you know it's Apollo? Or that he even exists spiritually?

 

I'm just confused here. It's a big reason why I don't have any faith in spiritual matters because it doesn't make sense to me one way or another, when science can explain it perfectly to me in a way that is obviously sensible. Spiritual matters don't. You are literally taking someone else's word for some invisible entity doing all these things when you already have evidence for why and how they already occur. You have to take their word for what this spiritual entity is and does, as per example, Apollo's chariot. Again, why are we thinking of chariots? Because someone said so? Why not a wheelbarrow or a backpack? What reason would anyone have to believe that there is this spiritual entity performing these actions beyond our comprehension when we already have an answer, with evidence, laid out before us?

 

@_@ Goodness. That confused me so much I don't know if all my questioning made sense either.

[skinst]

I'm just confused here. It's a big reason why I don't have any faith in spiritual matters because it doesn't make sense to me one way or another, when science can explain it perfectly to me in a way that is obviously sensible. Spiritual matters don't. You are literally taking someone else's word for some invisible entity doing all these things when you already have evidence for why and how they already occur. You have to take their word for what this spiritual entity is and does, as per example, Apollo's chariot. Again, why are we thinking of chariots? Because someone said so? Why not a wheelbarrow or a backpack? What reason would anyone have to believe that there is this spiritual entity performing these actions beyond our comprehension when we already have an answer, with evidence, laid out before us?

 

@_@ Goodness. That confused me so much I don't know if all my questioning made sense either.

The very basis of faith is letting go of the need to understand everything, or realising that there are some things out there that cannot be explained. It's hard to accept anything to do with faith if you can't first accept this.

 

Furthermore, in the case of Apollo, just because there is a perfectly logical scientific explanation for the sun moving across the sky doesn't mean people have to accept it as fact just because it's been tagged with the 'Scientific Truth/Fact' tag. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

Edited November 30, 2011 by skinst

[potterwolf]

That's rather.. rude and condescending, don't you think? Calling it useless and delusional and all

 

It really comes off as rude to say "Hey, you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt me. It doesn't matter to me one way or another, and has no bearing on my life. However, becasue I don't share this belief, you are delusional."

 

That claim is a two-edged sword, you know. People can, and do, believe that people who follow science are delusional and are being led astray by an evil entity. They, like you, are certain that they're right and the others who don't share their beliefs are delusional.

 

Oh dear. I honestly didn't mean delusional to be insulting anybody. Especially since I don't think anybody here actually does believe in Apollo. If you do, that's fine, but the point I was trying to make is that if you don't have any reason to believe in him, then you're beliefs are unfounded. Which means you are holding false or unrealistic beliefs. Which is what "delusional" means. I didn't intend to make it sound like I thought you were stupid or worse than I am if you believe in Apollo. I literally was describing that I thought you were deluding yourself or someone had deluded you. In my mind, that's not an insult. People are deluded about things all the time.

 

Secondly, the belief is useless in a material sense. If it has no meaningful effect on the world, then it has no use. I suppose, if you consider personal comfort a use, then I guess belief in Apollo can make you feel better, thus having a use.

 

I absolutely did not say that anybody who disagrees with me is delusional. I don't believe that, and I could never support a claim like that. We were talking about Apollo. And his spiritual impact on the world. That belief is unsupported, because it hasn't been demonstrated that Apollo has any impact on the world and what we know of the sun doesn't suggest a spiritual necessity.

 

However, becasue I don't share this belief, you are delusional."

 

Please don't misrepresent what I said.

 

I said that if you believe in Apollo, despite the fact that Apollo has no meaningful effect on the world, and we don't need to presuppose that he exists to cause the movement of the sun, it would be deluded to believe in him anyway. Now, if you have spiritual evidence (meaning that you've experienced Apollo in some way), maybe that works for you. But how do you know that the spiritual entity itself hasn't deluded you. Couldn't Zeus enter your presence and convince you that he was Apollo? Either way, I don't think the belief is supported.

 

I apologize that "delusional" was a bad word choice.

[ShinyTomato]

Why did it get this award? wink.gif

 

Awards don't mean anything.

 

The site tries to be unbiased. In this case, it was a word for word copy from wikipedia, so if there's any problem, it's with what was inserted in there.

 

On what are you basing that? They are by and large funded by Traditional Orthodox, and support equal Hebrew calligraphy in prints -- that's not unbiased.

 

Talmud is commentary starting from about 200 AD. I don't see how it can be used as proof of what was meant by the original writings.

 

But I'm curious. Does the above mention the small, disconnected letters?

 

The Talmud, however, is believed to have the force of scripture -- not commentaries. Further, it doesn't have too -- that's the way Biblical Hebrew worked. It's the way it worked outside of the Bible as well, we see that in the stele. Would you mention the rules of capitalization in a book?

 

 

[Princess Artemis]

Very large chariot needed -- Apollo's ain't big enough

You're not answering my questions.

 

It's a big reason why I don't have any faith in spiritual matters because it doesn't make sense to me one way or another, when science can explain it perfectly to me in a way that is obviously sensible.

 

Is there something science has not yet discovered the perfect, obviously sensible explanation for? One which has been shown by scientific method to be a working one? I'm not asking because I wish to convince you to have faith in anything outside the human capacity to learn, but to find out if there are, in your mind, any mysteries left, or if humanity has finally Figured It All Out.

 

If you do, that's fine, but the point I was trying to make is that if you don't have any reason to believe in him, then you're beliefs are unfounded.

 

Based upon your own judgment. If someone here does believe in Apollo, I would hazard a guess they think they have a reason to, regardless of whether or not you see any. Saying another person is deluded makes the claim about yourself that you know all the facts of the situation and can therefor judge the truth from the lie. You say faith in Apollo is false, but have admitted you have no way to prove this. Therefor you cannot say another is deluded in their belief and mean it in truth. What you are doing is not by intention condescending but is in effect, as you have, by saying a believer in Apollo is deluded, set yourself up as an absolute knower of this one truth, which is a superior position to that of the one you say is deluded. It isn't that the word is a bad choice, it's the attitude. You can change the word to 'fifflebiggles' and you'd still be condescending, mildly so. I don't mean that as an insult or censure upon you in the slightest, as typically, if one is firm in their conviction, they will tend to think they are right and others wrong, I'm saying it so you know where the reaction is coming from.

 

All that said, I don't think there's anything bad about thinking one is right and everyone who does not share one's worldview is wrong.

[prairiecrow]

Especially since I don't think anybody here actually does believe in Apollo.

Hellenic Reconstructionists honor Apollo, and so do some Wiccans (myself included). The "old dead faiths" aren't half as dead as you seem to think they are.

[philpot123]

Hellenic Reconstructionists honor Apollo, and so do some Wiccans (myself included). The "old dead faiths" aren't half as dead as you seem to think they are.

True. I don't know anyone (other than you) who worships Apollo specifically, but I do know a girl who worships Norse gods, and several who honor the Greek's deities.

[Fengari]

If it is not possible to gain evidence of spiritual events, then they must not have a demonstrable impact on the world. If they were affecting the world in a meaningful way, we'd be able to notice. Could a spiritual Apollo be causing the forces of nature to move the cosmos in a way that creates the movement of the sun across the sky? Sure. But since we can understand and predict the movements of the sun without knowing of Apollo's possible existence, he doesn't really matter at all.

 

Basically, no, I can't demonstrate with absolute certainty that spiritual events do not occur. But it doesn't matter. If you can't demonstrate that they do exist, if they have no meaningful impact on the world that we experience, and if the world functions in an understandable and predictable way without the presupposition of spiritual events, then it is reasonable to discard their existence as irrelevant. Might Apollo exist? Sure. But it wouldn't matter, so why entertain the idea in the first place. It's equally useful to just say that he doesn't.

This completely states my own feelings about most spiritual questions. However, I would not want to go as far as your next step:

 

I don't mind if people believe useless things, as long as they're harmless. But that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

You cannot come to the conclusion people are wrong, if you cannot demonstrate with absolute certainty that they are. You can think or believe they are wrong, but you cannot state it as a fact.

 

The very basis of faith is letting go of the need to understand everything, or realising that there are some things out there that cannot be explained.  It's hard to accept anything to do with faith if you can't first accept this.

 

I think this is a very interesting statement because I believe religions were originally formed out of just that: a need to understand and explain things that were above human understanding, and they evolved from there. Inexplicable events and occurences where explained by believing in 'spirits' that made them happen. Believing in spirits made it possible to attach a 'good and bad' aspect: you could do things that would please the 'spirits', or things that could displease them, which is why bad things would happen to people. As understanding of nature grew and dependence on it lessened, the first part became less important and the second became more important, which led to evolving into monotheïst religions because there was no need for all the different 'spirits' anymore.

 

I think modern day religions aren't needed to explain the workings of our world anymore (the 'how'), and as more and more people start understanding it is possible to have values for 'good and bad' and live according to them without the need for a religion telling them those things (and we have a justice system for those who don't), and now the most important aspect is explaining the 'why'.

I feel no need to explain the 'why' of the sun moving like it does, I have no problem accepting that it just does, but if people feel more comfortable believing it is because of a spiritual chariot of Apollo, I don't care that they do. They don't need to prove to me that it exists to respect their belief in it, as long as they're not trying to convince me it does.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Fengari

[KageSora]

I absolutely did not say that anybody who disagrees with me is delusional. I don't believe that, and I could never support a claim like that. We were talking about Apollo. And his spiritual impact on the world. That belief is unsupported, because it hasn't been demonstrated that Apollo has any impact on the world and what we know of the sun doesn't suggest a spiritual necessity.

 

 

 

Please don't misrepresent what I said.

 

I said that if you believe in Apollo, despite the fact that Apollo has no meaningful effect on the world, and we don't need to presuppose that he exists to cause the movement of the sun, it would be deluded to believe in him anyway. Now, if you have spiritual evidence (meaning that you've experienced Apollo in some way), maybe that works for you. But how do you know that the spiritual entity itself hasn't deluded you. Couldn't Zeus enter your presence and convince you that he was Apollo? Either way, I don't think the belief is supported.

 

I apologize that "delusional" was a bad word choice.

Ah, my bad, that's just how it came off to me. Text carries tone so poorly on the 'net. Sorry about reading your intention wrong.

 

But the thing is... This same argument can apply to things beyond Apollo. This can apply to any spiritual belief. Do you believe that all Christians are delusional, too? After all, there are plenty of non-spiritual explanations for the things God is said to have done or be able to do.

 

 

Delusional just tends to have a rather negative connotation to it, and I've never actually seen it used in a context that didn't imply an insult or inferiority or some degree of madness.

 

 

 

However, I would argue the "no meaningful effect" thing. Perhaps not on the physical world, but it may have a meaningful or comforting effect on the spiritual side of things. People often believe the "impossible" because it gives them comfort. I myself hold beliefs in a spiritual side of the world that likely cannot be proven one way or another. I won't force this on others, but I don't appreciate begin called "delusional" for my beliefs if science could provide an answer. I hold them because of personal experiences, not because any one person or text told me they were right.

[Alpha1]

You're not answering my questions.

 

I did. You weren't satisfied.

 

What does science's silence on Apollo's chariot have to do with intelligence or the specialness or lack thereof of the Sun?.

 

All those stars move in the same mindless fashion. Do they all have chariots? Of different sizes?

 

Maybe you thought I didn't answer because your first question asked, "If it's interacting with the Sun in a spiritual way, what would science have to say about it?"

 

What do you mean by "spiritual way", then? If it's interacting by pulling/carrying the Sun, wouldn't we notice a pattern of movement that suggests possible sentience? Instead, we've got trillions upon trillions of stars moving away from each other and following orbits that are roughly circular.

 

 

On what are you basing that? They are by and large funded by Traditional Orthodox, and support equal Hebrew calligraphy in prints -- that's not unbiased.

 

Here’s an example:

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...m/calendar.html

“The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").”

 

There is no time scale of yom in much of the Talmud, and that's always taken as an age. The idea of it being a literal 24 hours is a modern idea.

 

How is this not biased?

 

From the Talmud:

 

“Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 12a

 

Rab Judah further said that Rab said: Ten14 things were created the first day, and they are as follows: heaven and earth, Tohu [chaos], Bohu [desolation],15 light and darkness, wind and water,the measure of day and the measure of night.16

 

(16) I.e., night and day comprising together twenty-four hours. (Rashi, Jast.). Goldschmidt trans. ‘the nature of day etc.’;”

 

Then there is the kabbalistic tradition that maintains 1 day = 1000 years

 

Sanhedrin 97a

 

R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.32 Abaye said: it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.33

 

(33) Hosea VI, 2: the ‘two days’ meaning two thousand years. Cf. Ps. XC, 4. quoted below.

 

The Talmud, however, is believed to have the force of scripture -- not commentaries.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...d_&_mishna.html

 

“During the centuries following Rabbi Judah's editing of the Mishna, it was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis. Eventually, some of these rabbis wrote down their discussions and commentaries on the Mishna's laws in a series of books known as the Talmud. The rabbis of Palestine edited their discussions of the Mishna about the year 400: Their work became known as the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi, which literally means "Jerusalem Talmud").

 

More than a century later, some of the leading Babylonian rabbis compiled another editing of the discussions on the Mishna. By then, these deliberations had been going on some three hundred years. The Babylon edition was far more extensive than its Palestinian counterpart, so that the Babylonian Talmud”

 

Editing, commentaries, discussions....

 

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...n-to-the-Talmud

 

Opposition to the Talmud

 

“Despite the central place of the Talmud in traditional Jewish life and thought, significant Jewish groups and individuals have opposed it vigorously. The Karaite sect in Babylonia, beginning in the 8th century, refuted the oral tradition and denounced the Talmud as a rabbinic fabrication. Medieval Jewish mystics declared the Talmud a mere shell covering the concealed meaning of the written Torah, and heretical messianic sects in the 17th and 18th centuries totally rejected it. The decisive blow to Talmudic authority came in the 18th and 19th centuries when the Haskala (the Jewish Enlightenment movement) and its aftermath, Reform Judaism, secularized Jewish life and, in doing so, shattered the Talmudic wall that had surrounded the Jews. Thereafter, modernized Jews usually rejected the Talmud as a medieval anachronism, denouncing it as legalistic, casuistic, devitalized, and unspiritual.”

 

Couple reasons why the Karaite sect didn’t accept it (from Wikipedia):

 

1. The Mishnah quotes many conflicting opinions.

2. The Mishnah does not go on to say in which opinion the truth lies. Rather, the Mishnah sometimes agrees with neither one nor the other, contradicting both.

3. They argue that the truth of the oral law given to Moses could only be in one opinion, not many

 

Further, it doesn't have too -- that's the way Biblical Hebrew worked. It's the way it worked outside of the Bible as well, we see that in the stele. Would you mention the rules of capitalization in a book?

 

The Talmud is full of lawyer speak and commentary elaborating on verse after verse from the Torah. Why wouldn’t they?

 

About your comment about the traditional Orthodox being biased…. I found a Conservative site. The FAQ on the site illustrates why different sects call out others. Conservatives don’t even agree with Conservatives.

 

http://www.masortiworld.org/molami/Ideology

 

“The most frequently asked question of any Masorti rabbi is: What is Masorti Judaism? This is not an easy question to answer.”

 

Here it comes….

 

“On the one hand, Masorti Judaism is no more than a shade within Judaism itself. Given the many shades and differences to be found within Orthodoxy, within Masorti Judaism and even within Reform Judaism, it is hard to draw clear lines or borders between the movements.”

 

So many shades, so many opinions.

 

“These rules, the way of life of the observant Jew, are the halacha. The halacha is far from being a closed book, with everything being clear-cut and sealed in stone. There is not a page in the Talmud that is free from debate, not an issue over which there is not some difference of opinion.”

 

Not one page, Shiny!

[potterwolf]

Based upon your own judgment. If someone here does believe in Apollo, I would hazard a guess they think they have a reason to, regardless of whether or not you see any.

Of course. If somebody truly believes in Apollo pulling the sun across the sky, they probably think they have a reason to believe it. But if they can't tell me what that reason is or demonstrate that personal evidence, then I can't say that I believe them. I still think that they're wrong and have no real reason to believe in him.

 

You say faith in Apollo is false, but have admitted you have no way to prove this.  Therefor you cannot say another is deluded in their belief and mean it in truth.  What you are doing is not by intention condescending but is in effect, as you have, by saying a believer in Apollo is deluded, set yourself up as an absolute knower of this one truth, which is a superior position to that of the one you say is deluded. Saying another person is deluded makes the claim about yourself that you know all the facts of the situation and can therefor judge the truth from the lie.

 

Yes, as I've already stated, I could be wrong. I can't know for certain that Apollo doesn't exist. I don't mean to make it seem like I think I'm all-knowing, but if we want to talk about the world at all, we have to give ourselves some authority for knowing. Talking about knowing "for sure" or absolute certainty is silly, because we can't be absolutely certain about anything. I judge the truth as I see it, with the information that I know. What more do you expect me to do?

 

The heart of my point is that even if Apollo did exist, it wouldn't matter. The sun would still move across the sky. And since nobody has given me any reason to believe that he does exist, the most useful thing to do is to suppose that he doesn't exist at all. If anybody does have a reason to believe in Apollo, they have yet to share it with me.

 

Also, we, as a society, make judgements about whether or not people are deluded all the time. What about the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens? What about people who hallucinate and act dangerously as a result? What about people who go crazy and think they should kill everybody in sight? We lock them up. We get them help. We take them out of society. We do this because we recognize that their thoughts and actions aren't consistent with reality. Can we prove with absolute certainty that their beliefs are false? No, but it doesn't matter. For the sake of safety and meaningful understanding, we recognize that we know, as much as we can know, that they are wrong and deluded.

 

You cannot come to the conclusion people are wrong, if you cannot demonstrate with absolute certainty that they are. You can think or believe they are wrong, but you cannot state it as a fact.

 

Yes. Yes I can. See above.

 

Also, what you just said would mean that we couldn't state anything as a fact. Because you can't prove with absolute certainty that anything is true. You can't even prove math. 2+2=4? You can't prove that, because it could all be a delusion in your brain. The whole world could be a figment of your imagination. Absolute certainty just doesn't exist.

 

[ShinyTomato]

“The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").”

 

Not exactly accurate from what studies and classes I've taken -- and by that I mean classes outside of the synagogue. I have always heard from Jewish and non-Jewish sources that it referenced the epoch, not the time since creation. And again, unreliable website. You cannot use a website to prove a point that the website is reliable, or continue to use it without clearing up why it should be taken as reliable.

 

From the Talmud:

 

“Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 12a

 

Rab Judah further said that Rab said: Ten14 things were created the first day, and they are as follows: heaven and earth, Tohu [chaos], Bohu [desolation],15 light and darkness, wind and water,the measure of day and the measure of night.16

 

(16) I.e., night and day comprising together twenty-four hours. (Rashi, Jast.). Goldschmidt trans. ‘the nature of day etc.’;”

 

Then there is the kabbalistic tradition that maintains 1 day = 1000 years

 

Sanhedrin 97a

 

R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.32 Abaye said: it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.33

 

(33) Hosea VI, 2: the ‘two days’ meaning two thousand years. Cf. Ps. XC, 4. quoted below.

 

There is nothing in the Mishnah that suggests it is a 24 hr period, only the Gemara, since the Mishnah is the only part considered sacred, it doesn't really matter if the Gemara disagrees. You're referencing Gemara, not Mishnah.

 

The Talmud is full of lawyer speak and commentary elaborating on verse after verse from the Torah. Why wouldn’t they?

 

Lawyer speak, but not instructions on how to write -- modernized Hebrew came much later. It's not a dictionary, it's not a grammar primer -- they wrote it in the same language. The movement to standardize Hebrew came in the 18th century.

 

Not one page, Shiny!

 

ANd you're referring to a quote which uses the terms Gemara and Talmud interchangeably (check your darling wikipedia for that, Alpha.) Masaorti consider halacha (the Mishnah) binding, they do not the Gemara (the Talmud).

Edited November 30, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[potterwolf]

However, I would argue the "no meaningful effect" thing. Perhaps not on the physical world, but it may have a meaningful or comforting effect on the spiritual side of things. People often believe the "impossible" because it gives them comfort. I myself hold beliefs in a spiritual side of the world that likely cannot be proven one way or another. I won't force this on others, but I don't appreciate begin called "delusional" for my beliefs if science could provide an answer. I hold them because of personal experiences, not because any one person or text told me they were right.

Oops, missed this one.

 

But the thing is...  This same argument can apply to things beyond Apollo.  This can apply to any spiritual belief.  Do you believe that all Christians are delusional, too?  After all, there are plenty of non-spiritual explanations for the things God is said to have done or be able to do.

 

True, but we were talking about a specific example... To get to your question...I suppose if we're talking about delusional in the strict sense of the word meaning "having false or unreasonable beliefs", I suppose I have to say yes. Because I think that their beliefs are false in the same way that Christians think Muslims are wrong, and Jews think that Mormons are wrong, and whatever. But it doesn't exactly apply to what I was talking about before. If you remember, my argument hinged on the idea that Apollo's existence wouldn't affect the sun's movement. However, the Christian God's existence would affect the world. So it isn't exactly the same thing.

 

Delusional just tends to have a rather negative connotation to it, and I've never actually seen it used in a context that didn't imply an insult or inferiority or some degree of madness.

 

Yeah, I didn't really mean to imply madness. I just thought that the word delusional accurately described what I meant...perhaps I should have stated it differently, but it's too late now.

 

However, I would argue the "no meaningful effect" thing.  Perhaps not on the physical world, but it may have a meaningful or comforting effect on the spiritual side of things.  People often believe the "impossible" because it gives them comfort.  I myself hold beliefs in a spiritual side of the world that likely cannot be proven one way or another.  I won't force this on others, but I don't appreciate begin called "delusional" for my beliefs if science could provide an answer.  I hold them because of personal experiences, not because any one person or text told me they were right.

 

I did briefly discuss the "providing comfort thing" earlier, and I can see your point. But in an overarching, big-picture sense, Apollo's existence still wouldn't matter. And even on an individual level, the belief in Apollo's existence may be useful to people, but Apollo himself is not. The belief is independent of the thing itself. So...

[Princess Artemis]

All those stars move in the same mindless fashion. Do they all have chariots? Of different sizes?

 

Maybe you thought I didn't answer because your first question asked, "If it's interacting with the Sun in a spiritual way, what would science have to say about it?"

You believe you would know what it would look like if a star moved with purpose? How would you know? How do you know they all aren't moving with purpose?

 

When I say spiritual I mean, at the very least, immaterial. What would science have to say about that? That is the question I asked.

 

Of course. If somebody truly believes in Apollo pulling the sun across the sky, they probably think they have a reason to believe it. But if they can't tell me what that reason is or demonstrate that personal evidence, then I can't say that I believe them. I still think that they're wrong and have no real reason to believe in him.

 

And that is perfectly fine! I don't think anyone's taking issue with you thinking others are wrong.

 

Yes, as I've already stated, I could be wrong. I can't know for certain that Apollo doesn't exist. I don't mean to make it seem like I think I'm all-knowing, but if we want to talk about the world at all, we have to give ourselves some authority for knowing. Talking about knowing "for sure" or absolute certainty is silly, because we can't be absolutely certain about anything. I judge the truth as I see it, with the information that I know. What more do you expect me to do?

 

I expect you to walk softly and speak carefully in a Religion thread : ) I understand this, and I don't think there's anything bad or wrong about doing that.

 

The heart of my point is that even if Apollo did exist, it wouldn't matter. The sun would still move across the sky. And since nobody has given me any reason to believe that he does exist, the most useful thing to do is to suppose that he doesn't exist at all. If anybody does have a reason to believe in Apollo, they have yet to share it with me.

 

Fair enough.

 

Also, we, as a society, make judgements about whether or not people are deluded all the time. What about the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens? What about people who hallucinate and act dangerously as a result? What about people who go crazy and think they should kill everybody in sight? We lock them up. We get them help. We take them out of society. We do this because we recognize that their thoughts and actions aren't consistent with reality. Can we prove with absolute certainty that their beliefs are false? No, but it doesn't matter. For the sake of safety and meaningful understanding, we recognize that we know, as much as we can know, that they are wrong and deluded.

 

I have an aunt with schizophrenia. She has been treated (not locked up nor taken out of society, mind), but to her, all her delusions she had before she was treated were very, very real. Yes, we as a society can say she had delusions. We as a society cannot say they were not real to her, did not affect her, did not have the full brunt of experience for her. The reason we can say that what she had were delusions is because there were people there who did know that no one attempted to invade her house that time she thought they did. Guess what? There's no one to independently corroborate that Apollo isn't real, so you don't get to compare believing in Apollo with schizophrenia. If you aren't, please explain just exactly what you are trying to do by bringing up this justification here, and please while you are doing so, wield the 'crazy' word carefully--you don't know how many 'crazy' people are reading this.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[potterwolf]

I have an aunt with schizophrenia. She has been treated (not locked up nor taken out of society, mind), but to her, all her delusions she had before she was treated were very, very real.

I did include helping them in my list of things that we do. "get them help". I believe that schizophrenics like your aunt would fall into that category.

 

Yes, we as a society can say she had delusions.  We as a society cannot say they were not real to her, did not affect her, did not have the full brunt of experience for her.

 

Exactly. She was affected by these things and experienced these things, but they weren't objectively real. They happened in her mind, and only in her mind. A belief in Apollo, likewise, can affect people's minds. This has no impact on the existence of a real Apollo, and we acknowledge that her delusions did not actually occur outside of her mind, just like I acknowledge that Apollo doesn't exist out of our imaginations.

 

The reason we can say that what she had were delusions is because there were people there who did know that no one attempted to invade her house that time she thought they did.  Guess what?  There's no one to independently corroborate that Apollo isn't real, so you don't get to compare believing in Apollo with schizophrenia.  If you aren't, please explain just exactly what you are trying to do by bringing up this justification here,

 

Really? Well, how can anybody prove that a spiritual entity didn't attempt to invade her house when she thought they did? I am only making the comparison to establish that we can, and often do, make judgments about whether or not personal experiences are real or delusional. The difference is that the Apollo belief could be a voluntary delusion, while schizophrenic experiences are not voluntary.

 

and please while you are doing so, wield the 'crazy' word carefully--you don't know how many 'crazy' people are reading this.

 

Notice that I only used the word crazy in reference to murders and serial killer type people. Not the UFO believers or schizophrenics or others. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if somebody kills people based on delusions, I think that's pretty crazy, and it needs to be taken care of in some way. I'm not sure if you're implying that murderers are reading this post, but if you are, then I'm not sure why you're worried about me offending them.

[Aingeal]

Exactly. She was affected by these things and experienced these things, but they weren't objectively real. They happened in her mind, and only in her mind. A belief in Apollo, likewise, can affect people's minds. This has no impact on the existence of a real Apollo, and we acknowledge that her delusions did not actually occur outside of her mind, just like I acknowledge that Apollo doesn't exist out of our imaginations.

 

So, how then do you explain someone experiencing an encounter with something like a goddess, and coming away with knowledge that is provable, but that they had no way of knowing before?

 

Are they crazy, or is the ability to actually go and prove that what they were told is accurate enough to prove that something, divine or not, happened?

[skinst]

I think this is a very interesting statement because I believe religions were originally formed out of just that: a need to understand and explain things that were above human understanding, and they evolved from there. Inexplicable events and occurences where explained by believing in 'spirits' that made them happen. Believing in spirits made it possible to attach a 'good and bad' aspect: you could do things that would please the 'spirits', or things that could displease them, which is why bad things would happen to people. As understanding of nature grew and dependence on it lessened, the first part became less important and the second became more important, which led to evolving into monotheïst religions because there was no need for all the different 'spirits' anymore.

 

I think modern day religions aren't needed to explain the workings of our world anymore (the 'how'), and as more and more people start understanding it is possible to have values for 'good and bad' and live according to them without the need for a religion telling them those things (and we have a justice system for those who don't), and now the most important aspect is explaining the 'why'.

I feel no need to explain the 'why' of the sun moving like it does, I have no problem accepting that it just does, but if people feel more comfortable believing it is because of a spiritual chariot of Apollo, I don't care that they do. They don't need to prove to me that it exists to respect their belief in it, as long as they're not trying to convince me it does.

Very true, but for religions to work in the modern world, I think that a certain amount of freedom has to be allowed by the believer for it to work, you know? It's kinda complex to explain, but for me at least when I struggle with trying to understand how something can be, I just let myself go and think "maybe a spirit did it" and that's it. No more thinking. It's as you say in that religions were created for people to find an answer to things.

 

But with science now, it provides the answers to a lot of things that religions did in the past, as in the case with Apollo. So those who still choose to believe in Apollo (as an example) would probably have to retain that ignorance if you will, or choose to reject the science behind why the sun moves across the sky, in order for their beliefs to still be valid.

[Princess Artemis]

Really? Well, how can anybody prove that a spiritual entity didn't attempt to invade her house when she thought they did? I am only making the comparison to establish that we can, and often do, make judgments about whether or not personal experiences are real or delusional. The difference is that the Apollo belief could be a voluntary delusion, while schizophrenic experiences are not voluntary.

We can't, but I am very much not prepared to get into a philosophical 'what if your aunt was a mystic rather than a schizophrenic' discussion, because she's my aunt. If you wish to discuss that possibility with a less personal example, go right ahead.

 

You've not given reason why you brought this up other than as an attempt at justification, so I will assume that was what it was and leave it at that.

[potterwolf]

So, how then do you explain someone experiencing an encounter with something like a goddess, and coming away with knowledge that is provable, but that they had no way of knowing before?

 

Are they crazy, or is the ability to actually go and prove that what they were told is accurate enough to prove that something, divine or not, happened?

...I am not aware of anytime that this has happened, so I'm not sure what you want me to say.

 

@Princess Artemis:

 

A justification was exactly what it was. The thought came to my mind as I was typing my response to another question, so included as an example of other times when we judge whether people are 'delusional' or not.

[Aingeal]

...I am not aware of anytime that this has happened, so I'm not sure what you want me to say.

 

That's what happened to me, that switched me from die-hard atheist to polytheist.

 

But speaking in pure theoreticals, in that case, then what?

[hazeh]

....Does this mean that if I'm thinking about a song and it's the next one that comes on the radio, that I'm psychic?

o_O

 

(This was not intended to be sarcastic, it's an actual question, since it's happened on several occasions. But I believe it ties in [somehow] to your comment, Aingeal)

[potterwolf]

That's what happened to me, that switched me from die-hard atheist to polytheist.

 

But speaking in pure theoreticals, in that case, then what?

Well...it's not necessarily any sort of special knowledge or premonition. The problem would be that you can't prove where you got the knowledge. So it probably could never be proof of divinity. Especially because, even if you got special knowledge, it wouldn't have to have come from a divine being.