Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

JayJay · July 16, 2019, 4:32pm

Rurudyne:

It’s amazing how you can be so close and yet so far.

Did you know that one of the objections that the grammarian Greek philosophers raised against the contention that men could learn Sophia, or that particular wisdom whereby a man could know for sure what it means to be Man – which was advanced by the Sophists – was that you could not know for sure that the souls of men were immortal.

Now, the likes of Socrates offered what they thought to be strong arguments that human souls persisted, but a strong argument is not knowing for sure.

As a consequence, if one could not know that they would say how could one really know what it is to be Man?

Now, it goes without saying that the grammarians, whose teaching of virtue could be learned by rote, were successful at replicating themselves where the Sophists who used rhetoric as their vehicle to try to teach virtue had great difficulty … and frankly rhetoric isn’t the best vehicle to teach wisdom.

These two methodologies to teach excellence / virtue / wisdom are not the only forms. Other have used parables, riddles, law, stories … all sorts of things have been used to try to teach wisdom.

But among the Greeks it was rhetoric or grammar, both using argumentation of course, just differently.

Now, I would be remiss to ignore that the grammarians did infact use rhetoric, and in The Phaedrus (for example) we see that Socrates as presented was a master of rhetoric and that he used it rather ruthlessly.

So, let’s roll forward a few centuries shall we?

When Paul spoke to the assembled elites of Athens at the Areopagus this was the set up: he had been preaching in the city and some had heard him, saying: “You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” Acts 17:20

So then Paul proclaimed to them, using their own religion as a starting point, the Gospel. And he was able to speak uninterrupted UNTIL it became clear that he was teaching the resurrection of the dead.

Please recall exactly whom Paul was addressing: these were the disciples of the grammarians, the educated people who understood every objection against the Sophist (who, btw, the grammarians despised which is why they posthumously abused their memory and why we have the term “sophistry”) that had been raised.

So what is teaching the resurrection of the dead other that teaching that one could know for sure that the souls of men were immortal?

Of course most there mocked just as Acts reports! They must have been chuckling among themselves to find a living, breathing Sopist in their midst.

But some from their number, once Paul had been laughed off the stage (maybe literally by some) would want to know more … also as reported by Acts.

Here’s the thing: you may reject Acts, the Gospel and even the Greek accounts given by the grammarians about the Sophists, just as you may likewise reject koans or parables or wisdom literature from all across human experience … but here Acts is in fact spot on about how we should expect that the disciples of the grammarians would have acted under such circumstances. And that makes the account itself more believable … not less.

So you ask why should I believe and you and others maintain proof hasn’t been given … but the truth really is you don’t accept the proofs that have been offered, or maybe you just will not accept them. But they are there … they may not be what your likely naturalist philosophy demands, they may be legal or historical or whatever, they may require you to accept a different sort of evidences than it seems you’ve been willing to accept.

And, like most of the disciples of the Greek philosophers that Paul spoke to … well you are simply not in a unique situation. As Solomon said, nothing new under the sun.

That Paul was actually in Athens and preaching the Gospel is in no ways is proof that what he was preaching about was actually true.

Rurudyne · July 16, 2019, 4:41pm

Was that my argument?

No.

But I did say what should be seen as historical consistencies make the account of Paul’s presentation more believable, not less.

Here’s the thing about Scripture that is at least true, and undeniably so, when contrasted with personal experiences: that Scripture is equally open to inspection by others whereas things I may have experienced simply are not.

I can say, and be 100% truthful in saying it, that I’ve “experiences” of the Lord in my life. I could tell you about them but they aren’t open to you inspection … unless you’re a telepath I suppose.

So if, just for argument’s sake, you or anyone will not accept the sorts of evidences that are open to inspection by you no different than to me or anyone else, well, there’s really what to say to you?

JayJay · July 16, 2019, 4:44pm

Rurudyne:

Was that my argument?

No.

But I did say what should be seen as historical consistencies make the account of Paul’s presentation more believable, not less.

Here’s the thing about Scripture that is at least true, and undeniably so, when contrasted with personal experiences: that Scripture is equally open to inspection by others whereas things I may have experienced simply are not.

I can say, and be 100% truthful in saying it, that I’ve “experiences” of the Lord in my life. I could tell you about them but they aren’t open to you inspection … unless you’re a telepath I suppose.

So if, just for argument’s sake, you or anyone will not accept the sorts of evidences that are open to inspection by you no different than to me or anyone else, well, there’s really what to say to you?

I get that…and I also appreciate the trip down Greek Philosophy Memory Lane, BTW…but your response was to an OP whose entire post was focusing on the existence of the supernatural, not about the consistency of some parts of the Biblical account.

So I wasn’t sure of the point you were trying to make.

Rurudyne · July 16, 2019, 4:51pm

Actually, my response was about that evidences have in fact been offered. You may note that I mentioned that just because he may want to use a standard that eliminates them that doesn’t mean they haven’t been offered.

I likewise did not limit myself to just one tradition but included mention of others (such as with koans, which, btw, are not found in Christianity).

And I gave an account of one bunch receiving (or not receiving) what has been offered.

Optrader · July 16, 2019, 11:37pm

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about here??

My response was about the invocation of names, and the name of the invoked getting blamed for the actions of the invoker… You lost me.

ImRightYoureWrong · July 17, 2019, 12:22am

Morals in the name of your God are absolute. But a suicide bomber doing it in the name of their God is wrong. It really just boils down to “my God”. Nothing absolute/objective about it.

Optrader · July 17, 2019, 2:46am

There is only one God.

ImRightYoureWrong · July 17, 2019, 2:58am

Mohammad was the true prophet yes?

Tangible08 · July 17, 2019, 10:26am

While I agree that religion is a typically a scam, I don’t think there is anything inherently unintelligent about having a sense of spirituality. In the “natural” world, there are so many things beyond our understanding that to be confident in the non-existence of something that could be considered “supernatural” requires you go beyond what could be deduced through evidence.

So while I definitely don’t put faith in mythology, I don’t find spirituality absurd.

Optrader · July 17, 2019, 10:34am

No…

JayJay · July 17, 2019, 10:59am

Even many non-theists have a sense of spirituality.

To me, being a conscious being is a mixture of bizarreness and wonder.

Most times people take being alive and conscious for granted but in reflective moments I think of just how “weird” it kind of is that physics and chemistry in the right mixture and structure produces a conscious experience.

ImRightYoureWrong · July 17, 2019, 12:30pm

This is why I am a property dualist

Meriweather · July 17, 2019, 12:37pm

How do you differentiate between religion and spirituality? Are the religious people those spiritual people who go to church versus spiritual people who do not go to church?

ImRightYoureWrong · July 17, 2019, 1:17pm

Mythology

Borgia_dude · July 18, 2019, 9:07am

If there is an all-powerful all-knowing God, then are we really at fault considering God designed our curiosity and knowing ahead of time what Eve’s choice would be. He could have made her less curious.

Eagle-Keeper · July 18, 2019, 12:38pm

One who is very religious follows a set of rules, dictates or routines typically as outlined by a specific religion. Muslims are very religious for example. There are many people who believe in God or some form of a metaphysical higher power who either are not involved in any particular religion or only occasionally. Many people like that consider themselves spiritual. They may pray or meditate often and typically have a reverent view of nature and life since that would be how they experience God.

Meriweather · July 18, 2019, 12:47pm

Are you saying spirituality only people do not follow any rules? Does not following any rules/disciplines make people more spiritual; following rules make people less spiritual?

Tangible08 · July 18, 2019, 2:47pm

JayJay:

Tangible08:

While I agree that religion is a typically a scam, I don’t think there is anything inherently unintelligent about having a sense of spirituality. In the “natural” world, there are so many things beyond our understanding that to be confident in the non-existence of something that could be considered “supernatural” requires you go beyond what could be deduced through evidence.

So while I definitely don’t put faith in mythology, I don’t find spirituality absurd.

Even many non-theists have a sense of spirituality.

To me, being a conscious being is a mixture of bizarreness and wonder.

Most times people take being alive and conscious for granted but in reflective moments I think of just how “weird” it kind of is that physics and chemistry in the right mixture and structure produces a conscious experience.

True. I don’t believe in any bearded man in the sky waiting to send me to heaven or hell because I believe some ancient text, but I don’t think that being non-religious means you need to be an overzealous atheist.

If scientists are open the idea that there may be parallel universes or that we might be living in a simulation, I can’t understand being totally closed off to anything “supernatural” or spiritual.

Tangible08 · July 18, 2019, 2:58pm

You can be an agnostic or a “soft” atheist and still have some sense of spirituality. I take it as meaning that you are open to the existence of things beyond our understanding, but you don’t necessarily believe in any formal religion or doctrine.

ImRightYoureWrong · July 18, 2019, 7:39pm

True loving fathers follow “keep away from children” guidelines. Too bad God didnt raise adam and eve lovingly and thoroughly enough befire sending them out to the wild. It’s like leaving a loaded gun on the floor.