I choose to feel God’s blessing in small things. Sunset, sunrise, the flight of geese - etc (not so small really when you think about it!)
Is this self-delusion?
I think it's lovely. And one doesn't choose delusion surely?
Not in this case but I think some do, sadly.
Self-delusion isn't pathological per se, and we're all on that colloquial spectrum, which seems to map to the psychological one of self-deception. Despite delusion per se being clinical and unchosen and deception being chosen, even to the point where it deceives the self.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”
…I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years.
Or in the next five minutes, or any other future time.
I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
Should I assume everyone else knows what au fait means? I assume it’s not a dessert. One moment.
(Googles.)
Ah, okay, “familiar with.” I actually thought it might be something like “a fan of.”
Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours. And sorry you weren't au fait with au fait.
Re "Self-delusion isn't pathological per se," we will disagree here.
Re "Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours," I didn't say Nature has (or doesn't have--if there is a "spirit of nature," she might have preferences, in my view--we will find out later, when the time comes, if there is an overall spirit to Nature, not a being to be worshipped like God, but a fellow creature) preferences--I referred to God having preferences: 'Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”'
Humans, or some of them, may prefer "simplicity, minimalism, parsimony," but that doesn't mean God does. Maybe He loves complexity, maximalism, etc. Maybe He loves both in their proper places and proportions.
Re "au fait," thank you.
Please find me any reference to a clinical definition of self-delusion. It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'.
As for QM, it doesn't matter whether we find it simple or not. God can have no meaningful preference in the matter of the relativity of simultaneity, stellar nucleosynthesis, evolution. Nature has no spirit by definition. It does what it can. And neither needs nor manifests any whatsoever.
God can love (prefer) what he likes, like nature's spirit, that has no impact on nature at all.
It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'.
Guess we disagree (no scare quotes needed), then. Oh well.
God can have no meaningful preference in the matter of the relativity of simultaneity, stellar nucleosynthesis, evolution.
When did He tell you this? It’s news to me. Just because He did things one way in our universe/multiverse, doesn’t mean He might do things very differently in some other created world He made.
Nature has no spirit by definition.
Whose definition? We literally do not know this. The Creation might have a spirit, or each rock and tree and steam may have a spirit, or each subatomic particle may have a spirit, for all we know. Or all of them at once.
God can love (prefer) what he likes, like nature's spirit, that has no impact on nature at all.
Except in Christian theology, and in others, He has had the very critical impact of making the whole shebang, and how it works, out of nothing. I’d say that’s pretty sizable.
Quote yourself back to me, then, so I can appreciate what you actually said.
Ok. Context is everything.
You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. That may well be my fault for not expressing myself more clearly. I will attempt to do so now.
I was riffing on an idea expressed by C S Lewis to the effect that 'miracles are for the immature.'
I take this to mean that the more 'mature' a believer becomes in their faith, the less likely they are to want to have that 'confirmed' by reassuring 'proofs' such as miraculous signs and wonders or special providences and the like.
I then introduced the idea that none of us - believers that is - are fully 'mature' in their faith and have a long way to go. Something the Apostle Paul himself seems to have believed and applied to himself also.
You then misinterpreted that as self-deprecation on my part and then compounded that by accusing me of displaying a patronising and paternalistic attitude to humanity as a whole, which wasn't what I was actually doing or saying.
I wasn't saying that the bulk of adult humanity are immature in their behaviour and act like children or adolescents. Besides, children and adolescents can and do act more 'maturely' than many adults.
I was making an observation in the context of a theological debate and quoting a popular Christian writer as part of the discussion. I did not apply the observation to people of other faiths or of none or to humanity in general.
Had I wanted to do so I would have chosen a more generally applicable quotation or example.
For whatever reason, you missed the context and missed the meaning. I hope I have made myself clearer now.
It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'.
Guess we disagree (no scare quotes needed), then. Oh well.
God can have no meaningful preference in the matter of the relativity of simultaneity, stellar nucleosynthesis, evolution.
When did He tell you this? It’s news to me. Just because He did things one way in our universe/multiverse, doesn’t mean He might do things very differently in some other created world He made.
Nature has no spirit by definition.
Whose definition? We literally do not know this. The Creation might have a spirit, or each rock and tree and steam may have a spirit, or each subatomic particle may have a spirit, for all we know. Or all of them at once.
God can love (prefer) what he likes, like nature's spirit, that has no impact on nature at all.
Except in Christian theology, and in others, He has had the very critical impact of making the whole shebang, and how it works, out of nothing. I’d say that’s pretty sizable.
Nature does what nature deterministically minimally has to do. It has no option. We can only ever superficially know our gobsmackingly queer 5% baryonic back yard. The 95% is in the impenetrable dark. There is no spooky signature in the key of 'c', which will be utterly deterministic by a phase change we can never know. One can project all the Gods one likes, one has to, on that for sure. 'We are here' precipitates out of the 5-11-17D multiverse to the right, where the ground being, if null then not null, ultimately operates.
I literally know of no essences whatsoever. Synergies, emergence, yes.
Nature has been achieving itself infinitely without theology forever. That the majority need theology is entirely natural. That the minority can do without it, against their natural desire even, is too: Any scientific evidence of any God at all, let alone Love, including any anomaly in any attested text, would make all non-believers knowers. Any text based moral argument for Love would do the same. There is no moral argument for God. There is a moral vacuum for Love. But unlike nature, nothing can emerge.
: ) I love the playfulness. From a distance I can imagine some seminaries etc looking like penguin colonies. Or even quite close up. Objectively, i.e. boringly, the nature story needs no theology. Most humane beans obviously do. Whatever gets you through the day.
Penguin seminaries: I remember, from long ago, reading a letter in Picture Post from a mother who was surprised to see her little daughter chatting happily to two nuns on a bus. She remaked on this to the sisters as they alighted at their stop. 'Oh, that's all right,' said the senior nun, 'But don't tell her. You see, she thinks we're penguins.'
@Martin54, as you know I am a bear of very little brain, and what brain I do have tends to focus on Victorian women.
I am struggling to understand: We can only ever superficially know our gobsmackingly queer 5% baryonic back yard. The 95% is in the impenetrable dark. There is no spooky signature in the key of 'c', which will be utterly deterministic by a phase change we can never know. One can project all the Gods one likes, one has to, on that for sure. 'We are here' precipitates out of the 5-11-17D multiverse to the right, where the ground being, if null then not null, ultimately operates.
Do you mean that our current understanding of physics only explains 5% of the mass of the observable universe. 95% is made up of dark matter or dark energy, which are not understood. God does not exist, anything deemed spiritual is explained by physical laws we will never know (yet somehow you do know this). Everything we are is explained fully as a result of one of a set of rival string theories (all of which are derived from our current limited understanding of the universe, and are untestable by experiment despite 50 years of effort and billions spent on particle accelerators).
If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
@Martin54, as you know I am a bear of very little brain, and what brain I do have tends to focus on Victorian women.
I am struggling to understand: We can only ever superficially know our gobsmackingly queer 5% baryonic back yard. The 95% is in the impenetrable dark. There is no spooky signature in the key of 'c', which will be utterly deterministic by a phase change we can never know. One can project all the Gods one likes, one has to, on that for sure. 'We are here' precipitates out of the 5-11-17D multiverse to the right, where the ground being, if null then not null, ultimately operates.
Do you mean that our current understanding of physics only explains 5% of the mass of the observable universe. 95% is made up of dark matter or dark energy, which are not understood. God does not exist, anything deemed spiritual is explained by physical laws we will never know (yet somehow you do know this). Everything we are is explained fully as a result of one of a set of rival string theories (all of which are derived from our current limited understanding of the universe, and are untestable by experiment despite 50 years of effort and billions spent on particle accelerators).
If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
Brilliant. But it doesn't matter what we don't and can't know. Nature explains everything, including 'anything deemed spiritual'. Fully. Never to us beyond our 5% view of an infinitesimal of the multiverse. No God gaps. There is never any need to look beyond the physical. Nature, with all of Popper's and Turbayne's limits accepted, physicalism, with Strawson's and List's, can only fail in the face of a universally attested miracle.
Bring the earth slowly to a stop on its axis. Take a day to decelerate from a 1000mph at the equator. Then fully reverse the process. Leave it for a day spinning backwards. Reset. Starting at midnight at Greenwich on midsummer's eve. Say nowt of course. The reset in the blink of an eye of course. 23.59.59 rotating E-W, 00.00.00 W-E.
"Nature explains everything, including anything spiritual. Fully. But not to us" is an argument supporting the existence of Nature.
But
"God explains everything, including anything spiritual. Fully. But not to us" is an argument denying the existence of God.
Originally posted by @Martin54: @North East Quine didn't seem to find riddles in what I said.
I did find riddles in what you said. I quite clearly said I am struggling to understand and Do you mean that ... and If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
How you parse any of that to suggest I found your post comprehensible is a mystery to me.
Originally posted by @Martin54: @North East Quine didn't seem to find riddles in what I said.
I did find riddles in what you said. I quite clearly said I am struggling to understand and Do you mean that ... and If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
How you parse any of that to suggest I found your post comprehensible is a mystery to me.
It's often said that science and religion answer different questions. Science the 'how', religion the 'why'.
When religion has tried to answer the 'how', it can fall wide of the mark. Young Earth Creationism for instance.
The problem is that we can't 'prove' or tell for sure whether religion answers the 'why' correctly - if indeed there is a 'correct' answer - or whether this religion answers it better than that religion ...
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold religious convictions but neither does it mean that we should use those convictions to oppress other people.
But you all know that already ...
I agree that it's all fascinating, Martin and it's great to see you happy and enthusiastic about things.
It would help though if you didn't post in cryptic crossword mode.
Perhaps then we could share your enthusiasm and joie de vivre even if we don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
That's nice. Not relevant, however. I didn't say that at least some self-delusion being pathological meant it was necessarily "clinical." As you yourself said, "It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'." Again, we disagree.
Nature does what nature deterministically minimally has to do.
Sorry, not a determinist here. Oh well.
I literally know of no essences whatsoever.
You've made that abundantly clear. Sorry, not an existentialist here. Oh well.
Any scientific evidence of any God at all, let alone Love, including any anomaly in any attested text, would make all non-believers knowers.
That's nice. Not relevant, however. I didn't say that at least some self-delusion being pathological meant it was necessarily "clinical." As you yourself said, "It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'." Again, we disagree.
Nature does what nature deterministically minimally has to do.
Sorry, not a determinist here. Oh well.
I literally know of no essences whatsoever.
You've made that abundantly clear. Sorry, not an existentialist here. Oh well.
Any scientific evidence of any God at all, let alone Love, including any anomaly in any attested text, would make all non-believers knowers.
Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you, and you're not disagreeing with me as far as I can see. You're disagreeing with the dictionary. I'm not involved here.
And you are deterministically non-deterministic.
You shouldn't be sorry for that.
As long as my knowing is believed.
It would convince me. If my Mum or Dad or Nan came back, knowing only what they could know about us, or if the earth did a reverse pirouette. He was wrong. In the story in the story.
Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you, and you're not disagreeing with me as far as I can see. You're disagreeing with the dictionary. I'm not involved here.
Sorry, you're wrong about this. Have a nice day.
And you are deterministically non-deterministic.
Please knock it off. Is this just to needle or bait me? I'm no such thing. You know we effing well disagree about determinism.
As long as my knowing is believed.
It's not, at least by me. I don't believe you "know" there is no God, as we've discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If I thought you genuinely "knew" it, then I'd believe atheism is true.
And I genuinely, personally, do hope that you see evidence that convinces you of your lost faith again. But I'm not going to play these sorts of games with you.
None of us are beyond deceiving ourselves. Such self-deception, which in its most extreme and pathological forms we deem delusional, is much more pervasive than most imagine.
Puh-leese! Can't you see you've pushed @ChastMastr a little too far?
I've no room to talk because I've upset him and other Shipmates by being inconsiderate at times and I'm conscious that I shouldn't play Junior Host and I stand to be admonished for that.
But we've heard it all before, Martin. You no longer believe. We know. You've told us. Again and again and again.
I'm not asking you to recover your lost faith. That's your business not mine. But yet another thread ends up at the impasse of Martin and his lost faith.
@Gamma Gamaliel. A thread about questions I can't answer, to my disadvantage with those that can? But no one can ask one? Let alone answer mine, which emerges here, and is about being atheistic of any fundamentalist, 'revealed', text-bound God. Because that God is not Love (or coherent). You are a person of faith, a follower of the Jesus of faith. You never deny science and its naturalistic assumptions.
And what has self-deception got to do with self-delusion?
What part of “I'm not going to play these sorts of games with you” do you not understand?
At least part of the issue, @ChastMastr, is that you do put yourself onto the field where these sorts of games are played. You engage with @Martin54 pretty regularly, and then get frustrated pretty regularly. @Gamma Gamaliel is wrong that @Martin54 has pushed you a little too far -- you keep pulling yourself up next to him in these conversations. I'm not suggesting you don't post -- just that you reconsider engaging @Martin54.
The dove descending breaks the air
With flame of incandescent terror
Of which the tongues declare
The one dischage from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre or pyre-
To be redeemed from fire by fire.
Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire.
None of us are beyond deceiving ourselves. Such self-deception, which in its most extreme and pathological forms we deem delusional, is much more pervasive than most imagine.
Surprise!
Can you explain why this is relevant? I mean you don't have to, but as far as I can see you are backing up the atheist position that believers (of various types) are deceiving themselves. It's not usually/often pathological if that means it is part of a diagnosis of mental illness (and I'm not sure what else 'pathological' could mean in that context). But I think it is a form of self-deception.
In recent days I have been increasingly concerned about someone I know. They live too far away to have a chat over coffee, but they've been phoning / video calling. I don't know if the crazy is concentrated into these calls, or whether this is part of a larger issue.
I've been praying about it.
And then I read KoF's post There must be people that you (individually, collectively) have heard report experiences that you understand are honestly held but make no sense in your worldview.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
This is exactly the issue I've been praying about! (Aliens from space, rather than small magical wood dwellers). How do I react?
I'm uncomfortably aware that if a Christian friend said something similar, but about "God" rather than "aliens" I probably wouldn't even blink. I might not fully believe them, but I wouldn't question it.
The alien message involves spending money, but not a huge amount. Probably, in terms of affordability, on a par with our monthly standing order to our church....
Well, at least this is a practical problem to sink our teeth into!
I don't think it's wrong to respond from your own personal understanding of what reality is--which for some of us on this thread includes God, for some doesn't, and probably for all doesn't include space aliens demanding money. I mean, if you want to help someone, you can only give them what you have--the best of what you have--and hope that turns out to be enough.
I think my personal reaction would be to focus on the fact that said "people" (aliens, whatever) are demanding money--which would be a red flag even if they were not aliens and instead called themselves the Society of St. Whatsit. If I don't know you and you are begging for money from me, it's on you to demonstrate first that you are a reliable person or organization. Who vouches for you? What are your credentials, and who are your references who will tell me you do good work?
And I think you could recommend that strategy to your friend without even addressing the question of whether these are space aliens or something else.
[tangent]
If someone’s beliefs or behaviour change very suddenly, it’s always worth considering what has changed in the same time frame - and double check they are ok physically as our mental state is strongly affected by our physical health, especially for older or less able people.
[/tangent]
None of us are beyond deceiving ourselves. Such self-deception, which in its most extreme and pathological forms we deem delusional, is much more pervasive than most imagine.
Surprise!
Can you explain why this is relevant? I mean you don't have to, but as far as I can see you are backing up the atheist position that believers (of various types) are deceiving themselves. It's not usually/often pathological if that means it is part of a diagnosis of mental illness (and I'm not sure what else 'pathological' could mean in that context). But I think it is a form of self-deception.
This was exclusively and specifically to make the point that the word “pathological” can indeed be used in reference to self-delusion, in response to @Martin54’s claim that we can’t use the word “pathological” that way. It’s solely about word usage. Whether it applies correctly to any particular concept or belief is another matter.
The aliens are not asking for money. It is much closer to a standard religious experience of becoming aware of a worthy cause and feeling that God has laid it on your heart to respond with a gift.
I am taking Doublethink's excellent advice to check that they are ok physically.
We've been talking about 'experiences' on these boards.
One of the most profound I can remember is pulling up at the chapel at Little Gidding to find it exactly as Eliot described. There was no-one there but me and I found myself wishing I'd brought a copy with me.
Then, lo and behold, there was a copy on one of the pews. It's a narrow chapel and the pews face one another like choir stalls. So, not caring whether anyone came in and heard me, I stood and read 'Little Gidding' aloud as if it were a prayer or piece of liturgy.
To read the poem in the place where it's 'set' - or largely based - was electrifying. Talking about hair standing up on the back of the neck ...
When I finished I just stood there in silence. I didn't want to move. I wept.
Comments
Please find me any reference to a clinical definition of self-delusion. It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'.
As for QM, it doesn't matter whether we find it simple or not. God can have no meaningful preference in the matter of the relativity of simultaneity, stellar nucleosynthesis, evolution. Nature has no spirit by definition. It does what it can. And neither needs nor manifests any whatsoever.
God can love (prefer) what he likes, like nature's spirit, that has no impact on nature at all.
Guess we disagree (no scare quotes needed), then. Oh well.
When did He tell you this? It’s news to me. Just because He did things one way in our universe/multiverse, doesn’t mean He might do things very differently in some other created world He made.
Whose definition? We literally do not know this. The Creation might have a spirit, or each rock and tree and steam may have a spirit, or each subatomic particle may have a spirit, for all we know. Or all of them at once.
Except in Christian theology, and in others, He has had the very critical impact of making the whole shebang, and how it works, out of nothing. I’d say that’s pretty sizable.
Ok. Context is everything.
You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. That may well be my fault for not expressing myself more clearly. I will attempt to do so now.
I was riffing on an idea expressed by C S Lewis to the effect that 'miracles are for the immature.'
I take this to mean that the more 'mature' a believer becomes in their faith, the less likely they are to want to have that 'confirmed' by reassuring 'proofs' such as miraculous signs and wonders or special providences and the like.
I then introduced the idea that none of us - believers that is - are fully 'mature' in their faith and have a long way to go. Something the Apostle Paul himself seems to have believed and applied to himself also.
You then misinterpreted that as self-deprecation on my part and then compounded that by accusing me of displaying a patronising and paternalistic attitude to humanity as a whole, which wasn't what I was actually doing or saying.
I wasn't saying that the bulk of adult humanity are immature in their behaviour and act like children or adolescents. Besides, children and adolescents can and do act more 'maturely' than many adults.
I was making an observation in the context of a theological debate and quoting a popular Christian writer as part of the discussion. I did not apply the observation to people of other faiths or of none or to humanity in general.
Had I wanted to do so I would have chosen a more generally applicable quotation or example.
For whatever reason, you missed the context and missed the meaning. I hope I have made myself clearer now.
I don't disagree with this being non-clinical.
Nature does what nature deterministically minimally has to do. It has no option. We can only ever superficially know our gobsmackingly queer 5% baryonic back yard. The 95% is in the impenetrable dark. There is no spooky signature in the key of 'c', which will be utterly deterministic by a phase change we can never know. One can project all the Gods one likes, one has to, on that for sure. 'We are here' precipitates out of the 5-11-17D multiverse to the right, where the ground being, if null then not null, ultimately operates.
I literally know of no essences whatsoever. Synergies, emergence, yes.
Nature has been achieving itself infinitely without theology forever. That the majority need theology is entirely natural. That the minority can do without it, against their natural desire even, is too: Any scientific evidence of any God at all, let alone Love, including any anomaly in any attested text, would make all non-believers knowers. Any text based moral argument for Love would do the same. There is no moral argument for God. There is a moral vacuum for Love. But unlike nature, nothing can emerge.
Theology is for us human beans.
I think penguins might do it better at times.
They do.
I am struggling to understand:
We can only ever superficially know our gobsmackingly queer 5% baryonic back yard. The 95% is in the impenetrable dark. There is no spooky signature in the key of 'c', which will be utterly deterministic by a phase change we can never know. One can project all the Gods one likes, one has to, on that for sure. 'We are here' precipitates out of the 5-11-17D multiverse to the right, where the ground being, if null then not null, ultimately operates.
Do you mean that our current understanding of physics only explains 5% of the mass of the observable universe. 95% is made up of dark matter or dark energy, which are not understood. God does not exist, anything deemed spiritual is explained by physical laws we will never know (yet somehow you do know this). Everything we are is explained fully as a result of one of a set of rival string theories (all of which are derived from our current limited understanding of the universe, and are untestable by experiment despite 50 years of effort and billions spent on particle accelerators).
If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
Brilliant. But it doesn't matter what we don't and can't know. Nature explains everything, including 'anything deemed spiritual'. Fully. Never to us beyond our 5% view of an infinitesimal of the multiverse. No God gaps. There is never any need to look beyond the physical. Nature, with all of Popper's and Turbayne's limits accepted, physicalism, with Strawson's and List's, can only fail in the face of a universally attested miracle.
Bring the earth slowly to a stop on its axis. Take a day to decelerate from a 1000mph at the equator. Then fully reverse the process. Leave it for a day spinning backwards. Reset. Starting at midnight at Greenwich on midsummer's eve. Say nowt of course. The reset in the blink of an eye of course. 23.59.59 rotating E-W, 00.00.00 W-E.
That'd do it. No alien tech could do that.
Martin54 finds it difficult not to communicate in riddles.
What he says is quite simple, really. I don't believe in God. There is no evidence. Because I don't believe, nobody else should either.
Is that a fair assessment @Martin54?
Not at all. There's no ethical dimension to it. It fascinates me, the riddle of how good, clever people believe.
@North East Quine didn't seem to find riddles in what I said.
Of course. Goo on Love, or even some lesser God, prove me wrong.
Which is not what this thread is about, nor is it shipmates’ job to be your metaphysics experiment.
But
"God explains everything, including anything spiritual. Fully. But not to us" is an argument denying the existence of God.
@North East Quine didn't seem to find riddles in what I said.
I did find riddles in what you said. I quite clearly said I am struggling to understand and Do you mean that ... and If that is not what you mean, could you explain what you do mean?
How you parse any of that to suggest I found your post comprehensible is a mystery to me.
I disagree, if I may. It's implicit in the OP. To me. And I find the latter to be an 'interesting' take, beyond fascinating.
Sorry! Your synopsis did so well.
When religion has tried to answer the 'how', it can fall wide of the mark. Young Earth Creationism for instance.
The problem is that we can't 'prove' or tell for sure whether religion answers the 'why' correctly - if indeed there is a 'correct' answer - or whether this religion answers it better than that religion ...
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold religious convictions but neither does it mean that we should use those convictions to oppress other people.
But you all know that already ...
I agree that it's all fascinating, Martin and it's great to see you happy and enthusiastic about things.
It would help though if you didn't post in cryptic crossword mode.
Perhaps then we could share your enthusiasm and joie de vivre even if we don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
That's nice. Not relevant, however. I didn't say that at least some self-delusion being pathological meant it was necessarily "clinical." As you yourself said, "It's a colloquial term subject to idiopathic hermeneutic I'm sure, allowing for 'disagreement'." Again, we disagree.
Sorry, not a determinist here. Oh well.
You've made that abundantly clear. Sorry, not an existentialist here. Oh well.
I'm not convinced of this, actually. “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you, and you're not disagreeing with me as far as I can see. You're disagreeing with the dictionary. I'm not involved here.
And you are deterministically non-deterministic.
You shouldn't be sorry for that.
As long as my knowing is believed.
It would convince me. If my Mum or Dad or Nan came back, knowing only what they could know about us, or if the earth did a reverse pirouette. He was wrong. In the story in the story.
I'd die happy.
Sorry, you're wrong about this. Have a nice day.
Please knock it off. Is this just to needle or bait me? I'm no such thing. You know we effing well disagree about determinism.
It's not, at least by me. I don't believe you "know" there is no God, as we've discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If I thought you genuinely "knew" it, then I'd believe atheism is true.
And I genuinely, personally, do hope that you see evidence that convinces you of your lost faith again. But I'm not going to play these sorts of games with you.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/200811/essential-secrets-psychotherapy-truth-lies-and-self-deception#:~:text=power of psychology.-,None of us are beyond deceiving ourselves.,more pervasive than most imagine.
Surprise!
And what has self-deception got to do with self-delusion?
I've no room to talk because I've upset him and other Shipmates by being inconsiderate at times and I'm conscious that I shouldn't play Junior Host and I stand to be admonished for that.
But we've heard it all before, Martin. You no longer believe. We know. You've told us. Again and again and again.
I'm not asking you to recover your lost faith. That's your business not mine. But yet another thread ends up at the impasse of Martin and his lost faith.
What part of “I'm not going to play these sorts of games with you” do you not understand?
At least part of the issue, @ChastMastr, is that you do put yourself onto the field where these sorts of games are played. You engage with @Martin54 pretty regularly, and then get frustrated pretty regularly. @Gamma Gamaliel is wrong that @Martin54 has pushed you a little too far -- you keep pulling yourself up next to him in these conversations. I'm not suggesting you don't post -- just that you reconsider engaging @Martin54.
Nope. People engage @Martin54's posts. Zero percent of that action is on @Martin54.
"Who then devised the torment? "
I suspect not, at least with the answer:
"Love. Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove."
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/5992/martin54-there-s-a-hell-call-for-you-on-line-1/p1?new=1
Can i get the attribution? I’m not near a keyboard or i’d do it myself.
T.S. Eliot.
https://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html
Relevant excerpt:
http://www.davidgorman.com/4quartets/4-gidding.htm
Indeed. I’ve never been much into Eliot’s poetry, though I very much liked his play Murder in the Cathedral.
Can you explain why this is relevant? I mean you don't have to, but as far as I can see you are backing up the atheist position that believers (of various types) are deceiving themselves. It's not usually/often pathological if that means it is part of a diagnosis of mental illness (and I'm not sure what else 'pathological' could mean in that context). But I think it is a form of self-deception.
Well, at least this is a practical problem to sink our teeth into!
I don't think it's wrong to respond from your own personal understanding of what reality is--which for some of us on this thread includes God, for some doesn't, and probably for all doesn't include space aliens demanding money. I mean, if you want to help someone, you can only give them what you have--the best of what you have--and hope that turns out to be enough.
I think my personal reaction would be to focus on the fact that said "people" (aliens, whatever) are demanding money--which would be a red flag even if they were not aliens and instead called themselves the Society of St. Whatsit. If I don't know you and you are begging for money from me, it's on you to demonstrate first that you are a reliable person or organization. Who vouches for you? What are your credentials, and who are your references who will tell me you do good work?
And I think you could recommend that strategy to your friend without even addressing the question of whether these are space aliens or something else.
Not forgetting how often religious bodies have been cheating finances.. and doing much worse stuff.
If someone’s beliefs or behaviour change very suddenly, it’s always worth considering what has changed in the same time frame - and double check they are ok physically as our mental state is strongly affected by our physical health, especially for older or less able people.
[/tangent]
This was exclusively and specifically to make the point that the word “pathological” can indeed be used in reference to self-delusion, in response to @Martin54’s claim that we can’t use the word “pathological” that way. It’s solely about word usage. Whether it applies correctly to any particular concept or belief is another matter.
*perhaps even in honor of an alien missionary who came to Earth and was martyred by humans who just called the mysterious creature a “whatsit”*
*really, this just writes itself *
*soon to be a major motion picture*
But get your grading done first!
Yeah, I'm no fun.
lol! I think I did all I’m going to with that.
Though I’m also reminded now of the excellent Adrian Plass book An Alien at St. Wilfred’s.
I am taking Doublethink's excellent advice to check that they are ok physically.
We've been talking about 'experiences' on these boards.
One of the most profound I can remember is pulling up at the chapel at Little Gidding to find it exactly as Eliot described. There was no-one there but me and I found myself wishing I'd brought a copy with me.
Then, lo and behold, there was a copy on one of the pews. It's a narrow chapel and the pews face one another like choir stalls. So, not caring whether anyone came in and heard me, I stood and read 'Little Gidding' aloud as if it were a prayer or piece of liturgy.
To read the poem in the place where it's 'set' - or largely based - was electrifying. Talking about hair standing up on the back of the neck ...
When I finished I just stood there in silence. I didn't want to move. I wept.