Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

In the Name of George, Nolan et al--and Personal Objectivity... . \:-)

Expand Messages
  • NEFILIM001@aol.com
    I know our Faith Syndrome is important to each of us. Whether it be Religious or NonReligious (I would like to use a different term than NonReligious, but
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 2 8:52 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I know our "Faith" Syndrome is important to each of us. Whether it be
      Religious or NonReligious (I would like to use a 'different' term than
      NonReligious, but such a general term embracing [the 'other' view] is difficult to
      define.)

      My 'Faith' factor began (as did most Humans on the Planet), with my being
      Told What/Whom to Believe In. I am not stating our Parents should not pass-on
      to us--what they Believe In. But only that none of us really choose early on
      to NOT believe in A GOD. It is OK for some of us--those few who work hard
      to break-off and can Speak clearly Beyond Our Early Training; but others of us
      are Caught Up solidly in what we have been 'Given' by our Parents, Community
      & Religious Leaders--FOREVER!

      Yes. It is very difficult for most folks - in any culture or society to
      Change from what we were taught early in our childhood. Perhaps this is OK.
      Only the person experiencing the phenomenon in-the-moment; at a youthful or
      older Moment-In-Time can say.

      I will not state the above is either Good or/nor Bad. I will however say
      those few who can look at their lives at (at least) twenty-five years old or
      so, and say they truly are Objectively OK and Free to continue in the vein they
      find themselves--are lucky -- and rare. ((In my modest opinion most of us
      will not admit to our particular/peculiar 'condition' at such a point,
      regardless the circumstance or conversation with others in Groups like the one we
      are 'lucky' to find here.

      Objectively Yours,
      Frank
      ========================= ||

      In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
      > <existlist1@t...> wrote:


      "...Many, if not most, "existential" thought was generated by theists
      > and
      > > agnostics, not atheists. If you wish to debate the flaws in
      > > Kierkegaard, Frankl, Jaspers, Tillich, May, and others, that's
      > fine --
      > > but faith is not "debatable" by its very definition. In fact, that
      > was
      > > a major point of Kierkegaard -- what makes faith special is that it
      > > demands more than rationalism. Frankl and Buber definitely reject
      > > atheism and considered a lack of faith a problem caused by the
      > > Enlightenment project and blind faith in "scientific" analysis... ."


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ||||

      "...No one can "prove" there is a Creator. Most people want to believe
      > in
      > > one because they theorize something greater than the universe must
      > have
      > > started things. Einstein and Pasteur suggested there was something
      > > beyond infinity and that something was a "creative" or Creator's
      > force.
      > >
      > > I have no idea if Einstein, Pasteur, Buber, Tillich, or Kierkegaard
      > > were right. I have no way to test what is beyond infinity, or what
      > was
      > > before everything else. All I know is I cannot "talk" to the
      > Creator
      > > and he/she/it does not seem involved in this one tiny spec of space
      > > dust. We are left on our own, as Kierkegaard suggested -- apart
      > from,
      > > isolated from, whatever Creator there might be. We are on our own
      > and
      > > what we do with that isolation, freedom, and potential is up to us.
      > >
      > > So drop the personal and the nonsense about "proving" faith. You
      > can't
      > > prove it and you can't demonstrate it through science. More
      > > importantly, most existentialists rejected the "scientific" and
      > > "rational" as empty of morality and unable to guide ethics... ."



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Trinidad Cruz
      There is no requirement for faith or pragmatism in scientific practice. It is the theory of the probable and the study of the possible. It is a human endeavor,
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 3 6:47 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        There is no requirement for faith or pragmatism in scientific
        practice. It is the theory of the probable and the study of the
        possible. It is a human endeavor, and individual scientists are likely
        to be of diverse views, but just for the record 93% of scientists
        considered by peer review to be at the top of their specific field are
        atheists; this though the majority of scientists in the US are
        Christian. I suspect this has something to do with clear thinking, not
        propaganda.

        Conscience must precede faith for an existentialist to act in
        good-faith. That is the basis for the existentialist view of faith,
        and why faith in a God is not an existentialist stance, unless such
        faith is developed as an "after the action" fact in evidence.Faith in
        God cannot precede any existentialist act of faith without being
        bad-faith.

        Trinidad



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, NEFILIM001@a... wrote:
        > I know our "Faith" Syndrome is important to each of us. Whether it be
        > Religious or NonReligious (I would like to use a 'different' term than
        > NonReligious, but such a general term embracing [the 'other' view]
        is difficult to
        > define.)
        >
        > My 'Faith' factor began (as did most Humans on the Planet), with my
        being
        > Told What/Whom to Believe In. I am not stating our Parents should
        not pass-on
        > to us--what they Believe In. But only that none of us really
        choose early on
        > to NOT believe in A GOD. It is OK for some of us--those few who
        work hard
        > to break-off and can Speak clearly Beyond Our Early Training; but
        others of us
        > are Caught Up solidly in what we have been 'Given' by our Parents,
        Community
        > & Religious Leaders--FOREVER!
        >
        > Yes. It is very difficult for most folks - in any culture or
        society to
        > Change from what we were taught early in our childhood. Perhaps
        this is OK.
        > Only the person experiencing the phenomenon in-the-moment; at a
        youthful or
        > older Moment-In-Time can say.
        >
        > I will not state the above is either Good or/nor Bad. I will
        however say
        > those few who can look at their lives at (at least) twenty-five
        years old or
        > so, and say they truly are Objectively OK and Free to continue in
        the vein they
        > find themselves--are lucky -- and rare. ((In my modest opinion most
        of us
        > will not admit to our particular/peculiar 'condition' at such a point,
        > regardless the circumstance or conversation with others in Groups
        like the one we
        > are 'lucky' to find here.
        >
        > Objectively Yours,
        > Frank
        > ========================= ||
        >
        > In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
        > > <existlist1@t...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > "...Many, if not most, "existential" thought was generated by theists
        > > and
        > > > agnostics, not atheists. If you wish to debate the flaws in
        > > > Kierkegaard, Frankl, Jaspers, Tillich, May, and others, that's
        > > fine --
        > > > but faith is not "debatable" by its very definition. In fact, that
        > > was
        > > > a major point of Kierkegaard -- what makes faith special is that
        it
        > > > demands more than rationalism. Frankl and Buber definitely reject
        > > > atheism and considered a lack of faith a problem caused by the
        > > > Enlightenment project and blind faith in "scientific"
        analysis... ."
        >
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ||||
        >
        > "...No one can "prove" there is a Creator. Most people want to believe
        > > in
        > > > one because they theorize something greater than the universe must
        > > have
        > > > started things. Einstein and Pasteur suggested there was something
        > > > beyond infinity and that something was a "creative" or Creator's
        > > force.
        > > >
        > > > I have no idea if Einstein, Pasteur, Buber, Tillich, or
        Kierkegaard
        > > > were right. I have no way to test what is beyond infinity, or what
        > > was
        > > > before everything else. All I know is I cannot "talk" to the
        > > Creator
        > > > and he/she/it does not seem involved in this one tiny spec of
        space
        > > > dust. We are left on our own, as Kierkegaard suggested -- apart
        > > from,
        > > > isolated from, whatever Creator there might be. We are on our own
        > > and
        > > > what we do with that isolation, freedom, and potential is up to us.
        > > >
        > > > So drop the personal and the nonsense about "proving" faith. You
        > > can't
        > > > prove it and you can't demonstrate it through science. More
        > > > importantly, most existentialists rejected the "scientific" and
        > > > "rational" as empty of morality and unable to guide ethics... ."
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.