a literal "god" in a metaphorical interpretation of the religion?

We learn to ask, what is it for? The god discipline is for the mitigation of anxiety. Why is that practical, because anxious people do things we all regret.

Here is a god prediction that is absolutely reliable. The formula determines the degree of value that you perceive in any situation. The prediction is, the measure you give is the measure you will receive. There is no innate value beyond the measure we give. What there is, is a capacity for appreciation.
The thing that inhibits appreciation in a positive sense is accusation against, or critical language. We are justified in this sense, by our words.

 

As a matter of fact, I've had good success following the god theory. I've made a number of decisions in my life that were really counterintuitive based on it, and it's led to good results for me and others. Certainly not scientific, but then again, scientists don't ever test such theories. Have you seen any reliable predictions from M theory? Should scientists discard it? Is the main thing in life making reliable predictions, or should we get by on less than reliable ones if no alternatives are available?

 

not scientific in what way? the James Randi Educational Foundation has been doing scientific tests of supernatural claims and none have passed. but the burden of proof is not on scientists.

maybe it will be discarded at some point. i expect them to adapt it at the very least. i don't expect people involved with "god" theories to do much of this.

making reliable predictions is certainly important. it's allows better control of ones actions. something some people take for granted. what good is a reality where no reliable predictions can be made? (it's like an axiom)

 

i disagree. especially when the "god" discipline is spoon-fed to children. against what anxiety? then indeed it makes sense that there would be anxiety without this habit.

formulas can alter "preception" of values. but formulas are normally also based on previous "perceptions".

this is a prediction but not what prediction is. i certainly wouldn't consider this out of the ordinary.
ex: when i insert a coin into an empty coke machine, then it gives back my coin. the input is the output.

there seems to be nothing to distinguish "god" predictions from non-"god" predictions. and if that is really the case, there is no meaning to the phrase: "god" predictions.

we tend to learn more from negative feedback.

 

I would be wary of linking the concepts god and theory as it may give the impression that this particular belief has a coherence and rationality that I do not think it does possess.

 

What does being wary look like? You are certainly welcome to expose the incoherence and irrationality that I suggest.

 

We should be clear that rational and provable are not synonyms.

 

There are two entirely different treatments of the information in question.
There is the cultural interpretation where the information is married to and interpreted by, cultural practice, the spoon fed to children, you refer to.
The other is the apprehension of esoteric principles. This last treatment attends to personal transformation, toward ones own desired aim. The former is used for social conditioning which is what culture is.

Religion is the cultural co-option of esoteric teachings of the nature or self, our creaturehood, and our relationship to experience. Jesus, one teacher of this information had a core following who had access to hidden information, keys to the kingdom. Further such information is not sought nor is it useful to some. Let those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

You ask what anxiety. Come unto me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. The well have no need of a physician. The purpose of the instruction is to have more abundant life.
More abundant life is an abstract principle from the outset.

If you embrace the formula the measure you give is the measure you get, in all your conceptions, withholding nothing, then you will no longer perceive yourself as a victim of any clime and have mastery over the quality of your own life's experience. Perception is not knowledge, but this perception will lead you to knowledge of your own capacities and is supported by observation and experiment.

If I conceive god to be all and everything then there is no dichotomy. What is my advantage in this? I am never without my good.

The only thing you learn from negative feed back is that you don't want it. It is not the problem that teaches but the solution that teaches.

 

Coherence then is a good measure.

 

Agreed.

 

Honesty means consistency.

 

Do you mean honesty with oneself? I mean it isn't unusual for someone to be honest and yet contradict themselves. Is confirmation bias, for instance, a symptom of dishonesty or just a gap in rational behavior?

 

When what you say and what you do are the same. When your premises result as described. Or when your premises are by definition contradictory to themselves they do not perform at all.

 

Some people "involved with God"do it all the time. I and most of my co-religionists have far different beliefs than we grew up with, on the basis of reality testing, which I am doing on a daily basis. In fact, process theology, which I've been influenced by, thinks God does it as well.[/Quote]

Ah, but you posit either-or. We don't have to accept that dichotomy. Science is the gold standard, and the scientific enterprise is alive and well. Yet there are some questions science won't touch with a ten foot pole because: there's no funding for them, they're not in vogue with the editors and reviewers of refereed journals, they don't lend themselves readily to empirical testing or refutation, etc. Also, scientists are mainly concerned with eliminating Type One errors (false positives) at the risk of Type Two errors (false negatives). In other words, science won't accept something as true unless there is scientific proof (thus eliminating the Type One error) at the expense of rejecting things that are true but unproven by rigorous tests. This can make a difference to the terminal cancer patient who can't get an experimental drug that hasn't been shown to be safe and effective even though the patient might be convinced by available evidence that it holds promise and might be worth taking a chance on. I see God in the latter category.

Most decisions concerning our exposure to hazardous substances are made not on the basis of scientific proof but on substantial evidence that is less than even courtroom proof but enough for a reasonable bureaucrat to adopt. People can be detained on "reasonable suspicion" and arrested for "probable cause", which is always a judgment call. Would you require scientific proof? By doing that, you'd expose the public to risk while waiting for scientists to come back with definitive results, if they ever do. That's life in a world of uncertainty.

 

Not scientific in the sense of not being based on rigorous testing of refutable hypotheses. It's not practical for most of my decisions, and I'd guess yours. Randi is useful in exposing charlatans like Uri Geller and his mental spoon bending. To my knowledge, he hasn't tackled the big questions, like the existence of God or an afterlife. As for the burden of proof, that may get you point on a debate team, but in the rough and tumble game of reality, the unprovable can come back to bite us. The important question is what are you willing to take responsibility for or bet your life on? Kierkegaard is entitled to his leap of faith, as long as he's willing to deal with the mess below if he's wrong.

Ah, but you posit either-or. We don't have to accept that dichotomy. Science is the gold standard, and the scientific enterprise is alive and well. Yet there are some questions science won't touch with a ten foot pole because: there's no funding for them, they're not in vogue with the editors and reviewers of refereed journals, they don't lend themselves readily to empirical testing or refutation, etc. By the way, how are the scientists doing on the God question? I haven't seen anything in the peer reviewed journals on the subject, have you? Also, scientists are mainly concerned with eliminating Type One errors (false positives) at the risk of Type Two errors (false negatives). In other words, science won't accept something as true unless there is scientific proof (thus eliminating the Type One error) at the expense of rejecting things that are true but unproven by rigorous tests. This can make a difference to the terminal cancer patient who can't get an experimental drug that hasn't been shown to be safe and effective even though the patient might be convinced by available evidence that it holds promise and might be worth taking a chance on. I see God in the latter category.

Most decisions concerning our exposure to hazardous substances are made not on the basis of scientific proof but on substantial evidence that is less than even courtroom proof but enough for a reasonable bureaucrat to adopt. People can be detained on "reasonable suspicion" and arrested for "probable cause", which is always a judgment call. Would you require scientific proof? By doing that, you'd expose the public to risk while waiting for scientists to come back with definitive results, if they ever do. That's life in a world of uncertainty.[/QUOTE]

 

i didn't say they don't do it at all. the appearence of new relgions pretty much proves this. i don't think they do it sufficiently. because the constraint of making it about "god" is not justified.

i don't see "god" in the category of experimental medication. i expect a sufficently reasoned basis to consider it experimental medication, where testing is the only thing missing. i never suggested that science is the only way to make an decisions. it's not always practical. but that doesn't mean it never is (unlike the either-or/black-white you seem suggest). you make it seem as though things are never disproven in science. the either-or seems to be your own straw-man/fallacy. this isn't necessarily a discussion about science

Type 1 vs 2 errors: it's better to have a system in which everything that is proven is true, but in which you might not be able to proof everything. than a system in which you can prove everything but it might not be true. soundness is more desirable than completeness. the very fact that you are trying to maked reasoned arguments is evidence for this.

i never suggested that there is absolute certainty. infact, you will probably find, that it is usually accounted for in science in some form. but, uncertainty is not a means to justify your own agenda, "god".

 

the burden of proof may be something you consider cliche but it is reasonable. i encounter this pattern everywhere in the real world. ex: when you have to identify yourself, it is you that has to prove your identity. just imagine if it were the other way around. it's not practical.

i also don't agree with all the subjects that are being researched and their dependancy on currency. but again, this is not necessarily a discussion about science. it is about "god". the either-or of science and "god" is your own fallacy.

 

there may exist different treatments of the information (i don't deny this). but the cultural bias is much stronger and more common.

and there is no purpose to this definition of "god". it's meaningless.

without negative feedback (the problem), there can't even be a solution.

 

I agree. Is that fact meaningful. Which is more meaningful, fact or fiction?

What part of my statement do you find without meaning? The purpose is endemic to human being, there is good in the world and we must have it.

Why is a problem necessary? It is not necessary to experience darkness in order to see light.

 

My point was that in the game of life, it might be irrelevant, because of the problem of false positives. Just when you think it's safe to go into the water, the Flying Spaghetti Monster might drown you in a bucket of Ragu. But in arguments and discussions, as in these forums, burden of proof is important. And in trying to figure out our own position on things, it's the best we can do.

i also don't agree with all the subjects that are being researched and their dependancy on currency. but again, this is not necessarily a discussion about science. it is about "god". the either-or of science and "god" is your own fallacy.[/QUOTE]