Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast!


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Questions for Theists; If you believe in God...
Topic Started: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:45 am (946 Views)
Great
Member Avatar
Level 4
Great
Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:29 pm
Here is your answer solar:

Microcosm of the world:

Universal Truth

^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
| | |
A B C


A = any religion
B = agnosticism or atheism
C = an ideal that hasn't yet been created

Each has a percent chance of being correct (33.3 percent). Scale this to the actual world; a near impossible chance of you (or anyone else) being correct.

This scenario only holds "true" if you understand the subjectivity of your own beliefs and submit you have the possibility of being incorrect.

Really, there is no point discussing this. Its unknowable.


Read. Apparently you didn't understand the basis of this premise Neil...

Christ Jesus :P.

Why wouldn't they all be equally plausible? With regard to your view, you don't believe them to be equally plausible and may believe another to me more plausible. However, in another man's culture (different religion), he may believe the same as you (both are subjective beliefs, as are all beliefs). You obviously don't understand the definition of subjectivity; thus, you will never understand this concept...
Edited by Great, Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:45 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
He's right, you're not. Although each are plausible they are not all equally probable nor is there any reason to think that they would be.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
SOLAR
Level 9
What if I said, either the universe was created by god, by no god, by a fairy, a unicorn, a dragon, by our imaginations, bugs bunny, the ghost of Christmas past, the flying spaghetti monster, or aliens. Would that mean each has a 10% chance of being true? Lol, and I'm curious as to why you used 33% chance for each option. Why are all other options an equally weighted alternative to god creating the universe? When you want to say that it's equally plausible that the universe was created by a god, or that it wasn't created by a god, you must base your claim on something. Because it was told to you as a child is not valid evidence.

The instant you stop requiring evidence for your beliefs, and the instant you start ignoring the evidence which exists no matter where it leads, even if it's away from what you've always thought to be true, then that is the instant where you no longer are in pursuit of the truth. That is when someone is pursuing their own agenda. There's no reason to stop applying the same rules of thinking which brought you the technology you are using to read and respond to this message. The scientific method has consistently shown that supernatural claims are false, including the miracles within the bible. It has revealed the bible to be full of fallacious content, as well as all other holy texts. The scientific method, which is based on logic and reason is the same way of thinking that brought us the cure for small pox It shouldn't be forgotten that this cure was condemned by the church because it went against "god's will". The scientific method is an alternative to faith, and it is the only line of thinking that consistently provides us with food on our plates, entertainment, and free time. Rejection of faith enables you to freely think as you wish, and removes the boundaries that our miserable uneducated ancestors have set for us. There's a reason the dark ages were the times in which it was faith which guided the lifestyle of its people.

God having creating the universe is logically unsound, and completely unsupported by evidence. 33% is a gross exaggeration of the possibility for any god to have created this world. The thousands of religions divide god up into thousands of different options. Even if we only observe religion, there's maybe a 1/10,000 chance that someone's right about they believe, going by your logic of assigning equal probability to every option. If we take into account every other nutty idea that anyone's ever thought up, there are millions if not billions of ideas. I think it's conceited to think that human beings have to know all of the answers, and my guess is the people who are most correct are the ones that say, "There's no reason to think I know what I cannot possibly know at this time. There's no reason to take any claim seriously which is unsupported by evidence."
Edited by SOLAR, Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:03 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Great
Member Avatar
Level 4
SOLAR
Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:55 pm
What if I said, either the universe was created by god, by no god, by a fairy, a unicorn, a dragon, by our imaginations, bugs bunny, the ghost of Christmas past, the flying spaghetti monster, or aliens. Would that mean each has a 10% chance of being true? Lol, and I'm curious as to why you used 33% chance for each option. Why are all other options an equally weighted alternative to god creating the universe? When you want to say that it's equally plausible that the universe was created by a god, or that it wasn't created by a god, you must base your claim on something. Because it was told to you as a child is not valid evidence.

The instant you stop requiring evidence for your beliefs, and the instant you start ignoring the evidence which exists no matter where it leads, even if it's away from what you've always thought to be true, then that is the instant where you no longer are in pursuit of the truth. That is when someone is pursuing their own agenda. There's no reason to stop applying the same rules of thinking which brought you the technology you are using to read and respond to this message. The scientific method has consistently shown that supernatural claims are false, including the miracles within the bible. It has revealed the bible to be full of fallacious content, as well as all other holy texts. The scientific method, which is based on logic and reason is the same way of thinking that brought us the cure for small pox It shouldn't be forgotten that this cure was condemned by the church because it went against "god's will". The scientific method is an alternative to faith, and it is the only line of thinking that consistently provides us with food on our plates, entertainment, and free time. Rejection of faith enables you to freely think as you wish, and removes the boundaries that our miserable uneducated ancestors have set for us. There's a reason the dark ages were the times in which it was faith which guided the lifestyle of its people.

God having creating the universe is logically unsound, and completely unsupported by evidence. 33% is a gross exaggeration of the possibility for any god to have created this world. The thousands of religions divide god up into thousands of different options. Even if we only observe religion, there's maybe a 1/10,000 chance that someone's right about they believe, going by your logic of assigning equal probability to every option. If we take into account every other nutty idea that anyone's ever thought up, there are millions if not billions of ideas. I think it's conceited to think that human beings have to know all of the answers, and my guess is the people who are most correct are the ones that say, "There's no reason to think I know what I cannot possibly know at this time. There's no reason to take any claim seriously which is unsupported by evidence."
SIGH.

Subjective bro. Everything you've stated is subjective. Someone may give the Easter Bunny a high percent chance with regard to another ideology. And visa versa. The equal percent chance was stated for the sake of argument. No one will ever come to a consensus; moreover, I may claim a higher percent truth toward an ideology than another and another man may do the opposite. Who is correct? Even if there is "logical" backing and a strong scientific consensus for one state of mind, there will always be opposition to the other. If you make a claim, its subjective. There will always be differing perspectives. These perspectives, regardless of who backs them, remain subjective, thus, prone to error when this "error" is viewed by an opposing ideology.

The scenario was a microcosm for the sake of argument. I can assign any percent to anything (I assigned equal percents due to subjective claims). Even this is subjective, because I myself, am making a claim that all are equal. There is a percent chance you are wrong regardless. If you say one has a higher percent than another, someone will surely disagree with equal conviction. Who is correct? I can't say (oh shit this is a subjective statement because someone is bound to disagree). Circles my friend. Circles.

True objectivity does not exist (shit that is subjective :P).
Edited by Great, Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:37 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Great
Member Avatar
Level 4
However, I am by no means a religious zealot (re-reading my post, it seems that I may be).

I absolutely despise religion. >.>.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Oragami
Member Avatar
Level 24
Hahaha before u even get to relogion and such, answer this question. "what is real?"
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Cam
Member Avatar
Level 24
Because only reason is a good argument - This is a study I made about Spinoza's Preface. It's in french so, either your lucky and can read it, if not, go to google translator and you'll probably will be able to understand it.


Quote:
 
PREFACE.
(1) Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity.
(2) The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over - confident, and vain.
(3) This as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature; no one can have lived in the world without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by.
(4) No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair - if anything happens during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen.
(5) Anything which excites their astonishment they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice.
(6) Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they interpret her so fantastically.
(7) Thus it is brought prominently before us, that superstition's chief victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages; they it is, who (especially when they are in danger, and cannot help themselves) are wont with Prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God: upbraiding Reason as blind, because she cannot show a sure path to the shadows they pursue, and rejecting human wisdom as vain; but believing the phantoms of imagination, dreams, and other childish absurdities, to be the very oracles of Heaven.
(8) As though God had turned away from the wise, and written His decrees, not in the mind of man but in the entrails of beasts, or left them to be proclaimed by the inspiration and instinct of fools, madmen, and birds. Such is the unreason to which terror can drive mankind!
(9) Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. If anyone desire an example, let him take Alexander, who only began superstitiously to seek guidance from seers, when he first learnt to fear fortune in the passes of Sysis (Curtius, v. 4); whereas after he had conquered Darius he consulted prophets no more, till a second time frightened by reverses.
(10) When the Scythians were provoking a battle, the Bactrians had deserted, and he himself was lying sick of his wounds, "he once more turned to superstition, the mockery of human wisdom, and bade Aristander, to whom he confided his credulity, inquire the issue of affairs with sacrificed victims."
(11) Very numerous examples of a like nature might be cited, clearly showing the fact, that only while under the dominion of fear do men fall a prey to superstition; that all the portents ever invested with the reverence of misguided religion are mere phantoms of dejected and fearful minds; and lastly, that prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril.
(12) I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will therefore say no more on the subject.
(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope, hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely from the more powerful phases of emotion.
(14) Furthermore, we may readily understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to every form of credulity.
(15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and abjure them as humanity's common bane.
(17) Immense pains have therefore been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people - a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt with.
(18) But if, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them clown, with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honour to risk their blood and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted.
(19) Wholly repugnant to the general freedom are such devices as enthralling men's minds with prejudices, forcing their judgment, or employing any of the weapons of quasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring up, when law enters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are put on trial and condemned on the same footing as crimes, while those who defend and follow them are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to their opponents' hatred and cruelty.
(20) If deeds only could be made the grounds of criminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free, such seditions would be divested of every semblance of justification, and would be separated from mere controversies by a hard and fast line.
(20) Now, seeing that we have the rare happiness of living in a republic, where everyone's judgment is free and unshackled, where each may worship God as his conscience dictates, and where freedom is esteemed before all things dear and precious, I have believed that I should be undertaking no ungrateful or unprofitable task, in demonstrating that not only can such freedom be granted without prejudice to the public peace, but also, that without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the public peace be secure.
(21) Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish in this treatise; but, in order to reach it, I must first point out the misconceptions which, like scars of our former bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and must expose the false views about the civil authority which many have most impudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the mind of the people, still prone to heathen superstition, away from its legitimate rulers, and so bring us again into slavery.
(22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak presently, but first I will recount the causes which led me to write.
(23) I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith.
(24) Matters have long since come to such a pass, that one can only pronounce a man Christian, Turk, Jew, or Heathen, by his general appearance and attire, by his frequenting this or that place of worship, or employing the phraseology of a particular sect - as for manner of life, it is in all cases the same.
(25) Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument - in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics.
(26) The spread of this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God's religion degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition.
(27) Every church became a theatre, where orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle the ears of their congregation.
(28) This state of things necessarily stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices - aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark of reason!
(29) Piety, great God! and religion are become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all men, are thought, 0 lie most horrible! to possess light from on High.
(30) Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not insolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they were concerned for their opponents' souls, instead of for their own reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled with pity and compassion.
(31) Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from their doctrine.
(32) I grant that they are never tired of professing their wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to which (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy Writ conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture's Divine nature.
(33) The very vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and the fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine.
(34) Such a doctrine should be reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need no human factions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.
(35) As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down.
(36) With these precautions I constructed a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to inquire - what is prophecy?
(37) In what sense did God reveal himself to the prophets, and why were these particular men - chosen by him?
(38) Was it on account of the sublimity of their thoughts about the Deity and nature, or was it solely on account of their piety?
(39) These questions being answered, I was easily able to conclude, that the authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of morality, and that their speculative doctrines affect us little.
(40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen people, and discovering that it was only because God had chosen for them a certain strip of territory, where they might live peaceably and at ease, I learnt that the Law revealed by God to Moses was merely the law of the individual Hebrew state, therefore that it was binding on none but Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews after the downfall of their nation.
(41) Further, in order to ascertain, whether it could be concluded from Scripture, that the human understanding standing is naturally corrupt, I inquired whether the Universal Religion, the Divine Law revealed through the Prophets and Apostles to the whole human race, differs from that which is taught by the light of natural reason, whether miracles can take place in violation of the laws of nature, and if so, whether they imply the existence of God more surely and clearly than events, which we understand plainly and distinctly through their immediate natural causes.
(42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and easily to be grasped by all, and further, that they clothed their leaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons, which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on different footings. In order to set this forth categorically and exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which the Bible should be interpreted, and show that all of spiritual questions should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of ordinary knowledge.
(43) Thence I pass on to indicate the false notions, which have from the fact that the multitude - ever prone to superstition, and caring more for the shreds of antiquity for eternal truths - pays homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God.
(44) I show that the Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the mind, namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it willingly, and with their whole heart.
(45) Having thus laid bare the bases of belief, I draw the conclusion that Revelation has obedience for its sole object, therefore, in purpose no less than in foundation and method, stands entirely aloof from ordinary knowledge; each has its separate province, neither can be called the handmaid of the other.
(46) Furthermore, as men's habits of mind differ, so that some more readily embrace one form of faith, some another, for what moves one to pray may move another only to scoff, I conclude, in accordance with what has gone before, that everyone should be free to choose for himself the foundations of his creed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits; each would then obey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing would be publicly honoured save justice and charity.
(47) Having thus drawn attention to the liberty conceded to everyone by the revealed law of God, I pass on to another part of my subject, and prove that this same liberty can and should be accorded with safety to the state and the magisterial authority - in fact, that it cannot be withheld without great danger to peace and detriment to the community.
(48) In order to establish my point, I start from the natural rights of the individual, which are co-extensive with his desires and power, and from the fact that no one is bound to live as another pleases, but is the guardian of his own liberty.
(49) I show that these rights can only be transferred to those whom we depute to defend us, who acquire with the duties of defence the power of ordering our lives, and I thence infer that rulers possess rights only limited by their power, that they are the sole guardians of justice and liberty, and that their subjects should act in all things as they dictate: nevertheless, since no one can so utterly abdicate his own power of self-defence as to cease to be a man, I conclude that no one can be deprived of his natural rights absolutely, but that subjects, either by tacit agreement, or by social contract, retain a certain number, which cannot be taken from them without great danger to the state.
(50) From these considerations I pass on to the Hebrew State, which I describe at some length, in order to trace the manner in which Religion acquired the force of law, and to touch on other noteworthy points.
(51) I then prove, that the holders of sovereign power are the depositories and interpreters of religious no less than of civil ordinances, and that they alone have the right to decide what is just or unjust, pious or impious; lastly, I conclude by showing, that they best retain this right and secure safety to their state by allowing every man to think what he likes, and say what he thinks.
(52) Such, Philosophical Reader, are the questions I submit to your notice, counting on your approval, for the subject matter of the whole book and of the several chapters is important and profitable.
(53) I would say more, but I do not want my preface to extend to a volume, especially as I know that its leading propositions are to Philosophers but common places.
(54) To the rest of mankind I care not to commend my treatise, for I cannot expect that it contains anything to please them: I know how deeply rooted are the prejudices embraced under the name of religion; I am aware that in the mind of the masses superstition is no less deeply rooted than fear; I recognize that their constancy is mere obstinacy, and that they are led to praise or blame by impulse rather than reason.
(55) Therefore the multitude, and those of like passions with the multitude, I ask not to read my book; nay, I would rather that they should utterly neglect it, than that they should misinterpret it after their wont.
(56) They would gain no good themselves, and might prove a stumbling-block to others, whose philosophy is hampered by the belief that Reason is a mere handmaid to Theology, and whom I seek in this work especially to benefit.
(57) But as there will be many who have neither the leisure, nor, perhaps, the inclination to read through all I have written, I feel bound here, as at the end of my treatise, to declare that I have written nothing, which I do not most willingly submit to the examination and judgment of my country's rulers, and that I am ready to retract anything, which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws or prejudicial to the public good. (58) I know that I am a man and, as a man, liable to error, but against error I have taken scrupulous care, and striven to keep in entire accordance with the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.


Préface du Traité Theologico-Politicus
Baruch Spinoza



L’espérance du point de vue du christianisme est au cœur de la foi chrétienne au même titre que la charité. Dans la mesure où de surcroit l’espérance fusse avec l’inconstance comme une joie et elles sont refusés avec la crainte. Ce texte a une dimension politique indiscutable : on est dans une république qui est menacée par des rivalités violentes entre communautés religieuses. Elle est menacée aussi de l’extérieur par le Prince d’Orange.

La préface traite de la superstition : il la distingue de la religion et paradoxalement il ne fait pas différence entre la vrai et la fausse religion. La superstition prend le masque de la religion. Il y a une constante tension entre la religion superstitieuse et la religion qui s’affranchi de toute superstition. Dieu ne peut pas prendre une apparence sensible. L’idée qu’il y ait une religion raisonnable se heurte a celle de fonder la religion sur d’autres mobiles.

Spinoza veut déterminer la cause de la superstition. D’où vient que les hommes soient sujets à la superstition ? Spinoza va réfléchir à la vie affective des hommes : la psychologie de la vie affective de l’esprit. Son objectif est d’expliquer les croyances et les conduites. Il ne désigne pas seulement la conduite mais les jugements, les pratiques qui accompagnent ces croyances. Il donne une définition génétique de la superstition : non comment ce qui la forme, mais ce qui la concerne et la nourrit.

Qu’est ce que c’est la superstition ?

C’est la tendance humaine à la crédulité. Spinoza se propose à être incrédule à la croyance en la superstition. Etre incrédule c’est ne pas croire aux simples témoignages de l’imagination. Etre incroyant c’est n’avoir foi en aucun objet religieux, en aucune divinité religieuse. Mais il manifeste ici l’incrédulité et non l’incroyance. Le crédule se laisse abuser, il se fie aveuglement à ce qui est du témoignage, des signes. L’esprit crédule de l’homme superstitieux est dans un état d’extrême passivité. Pour Kant, préjugé c’est la tendance à la passivité de l’esprit et par conséquent à l’hétéronomie de la raison. La superstition c’est le préjugé de tous les préjugés. L’hétéronomie de la raison signifie qu’elle est déterminée du dehors, elle ne trouve pas sa loi en elle même : elle vit sous l’emprise des images. Cette emprise est assujettie à des effets de l’ordre affectif.

En quoi consiste toute superstition ?

Les hommes sont nécessairement déterminés à la crédulité extrême, la superstition, par « leur désir sans mesure des biens incertains de la fortune ». On voit ici le désir livré à lui même, indépendamment de toute raison : le désir aveugle. Il y a un contexte d’extrême incertitude qui caractérise l’esprit lorsqu’il espère, lorsqu’il craint, etc. La condition humaine rend la superstition nécessaire et apparemment sans remède. Les hommes sont des êtres capables de se donner des fins, trouver des moyens en fonction de ces fins, et cela s’appelle le désir en tant qu’appétit conscient. Mais il ne faut pas confondre le désir et la réalité. Il ne suffit pas de désirer pour satisfaire son désir : il est frustré, le bonheur n’est pas donné. D’où Spinoza dit que si les hommes étaient heureux, il n’y aurait pas de superstition. La superstition répond au désir, autant que celui si manque son objet. C’est, comme l’appelle Platon, l’intempérance. Il n’y a de bonheur possible que dans la recherche des règles de son désir. Le bonheur c’est d’abord la méthode qu’on donne au désir, il tient dans une règle de vie. Savoir ce qu’on désire c’est se demander ce qui est désirable. C’est une question qu’on nous ne posons jamais. Cette in interrogation sur le désirable à cette conséquence inévitable que l’objet du désir son des biens incertains qui relèvent de la fortune.

Quels sont ces biens de la fortune ?

Ce sont des biens sur lesquels nous n’avons pas une authentique certitude (l’authentique certitude est celle qui révèle de l’évidence rationnelle). On divague : de la durée des choses qui sont en dehors de nous l’esprit humain n’a qu’une connaissance inadéquate. Aux yeux de l’imagination toutes les choses sont contingentes, et par là même, périssables. De ce point de vue, jamais notre esprit ne peut atteindre cette parfaite tranquillité. Au mieux, ce que nous pouvons espérer c’est ou la sécurité ou le désespoir. Mais mêmes ces affects ce sont des affects qui restent influencés par l’instabilité de l’espérance et de la crainte. Dans mon esprit des représentations contraires vont se stabiliser pour un certain temps : c’est une instabilité relative. À tout moment des nouvelles images vont me faire bousculer vers l’espérance ou la crainte. Même dans le cas de ses affects on est impuissants, notre esprit est impuissant. « Une tristesse précède toujours la sécurité et le contentement qui sont des affects joyeux, et cette tristesse fondamentale est celle de l’espérance et la crainte. » Ici l’espérance est rabattue vers la crainte. On peut être joyeux dans la crainte, c’est l’espérance. D’où l’idée fondamentale de Spinoza : en définitive la superstition trouve sa cause dans un seul affect autour duquel tourne un complexe affectif : la crainte. Il n’y a pas de providence dans la nature : c’est anthropomorphisme de se représenter Dieu comme ayant des fins.

« La fortune n’est pas toujours favorable aux hommes » : il n’y a pas de fin dans la nature, pas de cause finale, il y a une contingence dans les événements, et il y a seulement des lois qui soulèvent une nécessité ; en aucun cas l’homme est au cœur de la nature. Il y a une nature qui est indifférente au désir. Mais l’homme est naturellement instable, qui a un désir aveugle qui est souvent paradoxale. De là découle que l’homme ait des affects instables, comme l’espérance et la crainte. Il est toujours possible que le doute caractéristique de ses affects d’espoir et de crainte se trouvent supprimés. La suppression du doute dans l’esprit de celui qui espère ou craint, ne représente pas un authentique passage à la certitude tranquille. L’espérance donne place au sentiment de sécurité : elle vient d’une persuasion née de l’apparente satisfaction donnée à l’espérance. Est-ce que pour autant l’esprit se trouve plus clairvoyant dans cet état ? Simplement, l’absence de doute se trouve redoublé par la conscience : « les hommes seront fats et gonflés d’orgueil ».
Le sentiment de sécurité engendre un autre affect : l’orgueil. L’image que l’homme se fait de lui même il l’a fait par la fortune. Cette estime de soi est en aucun cas adéquate : elle n’est pas totalement active et stable. Cet affect peut se blesser et peut devenir une tristesse : c’est le sentiment d’un abaissement, d’une humiliation. Spinoza refuse l’évidence cartésienne : il ne suffit pas ne pas ressentir le doute pour être certain.
Que se passe-il quand on enlève le doute à celui qui craint : il ressent le désespoir. Le sujet devient encore plus triste. Cette tristesse absolue ou tristesse plus grande (s’il s’agit d’espérance ou de crainte) se fonde elle en une certitude ? Non, car cela nous prouve en rien que ce qui est arrivé devait nécessairement arriver. L’esprit n’a pas accès a une nécessite de la nature, sous laquelle l’homme verrait son conatus mortifié. Le désir devient une connaissance fictive, l’esprit désire sans savoir ce qui est effectivement désirable.

Nous voyons pourquoi la joie de l’espérance n’est pas plus désirable. La joie sans raison qui résulte de la prospérité fortuite, d’une satisfaction dont nous ignorons la détermination réelle ne serait nous donner l’authentique sérénité de l’esprit. Car il suffit toujours qu’advienne fortuitement l’adversité d’un événement, ce qu’on ne saurait espérer, et cette joie va immanquablement se transformer en tristesse, la tristesse du désespoir. Ce n’est pas une vrai joie de ce qui ont une vie heureuse. On ne croira pas que toute joie participe d’une joie heureuse. Le bonheur n’est pas une affaire de fortune, de hasard. Il suppose une choix de vie réfléchie à l’opposé de la joie crédule, qui s’ignore comme tristesse latente, et par conséquent, source de tristesse à venir. En aucun cas nos images du passé ou du futur ne relèvent d’une véritable causalité interne de l’esprit : toute image du passé ou du futur est incertaine et ne peut être la base pour fonder la certitude nécessaire à des motifs rationnels. Les plus légers motifs suffiront toujours pour celui qui est suspendu entre l’espérance et la crainte.
Qu’est ce le présage ? Présence dans la nature des signes annonciateurs d’un destin. Le vulgaire appelle présage sa propre ignorance des lois de la nature. La vraie cause de cette croyance c’est la crainte. Dans cette crainte nous allons apercevoir une image présente qui fait écho à une image du passé. Il est clair que ce n’est pas parce que dans le passé, tel évènement heureux ou malheureux qui a succéder à un autre évènement qu’il y a un lien entre ces deux événements. Pour l’imagination il a un lien. C’est parce que l’esprit est dans un état de tristesse flottante qu’il croit. L’esprit craint une chose possiblement attristante.
Qu’en est il du miracle ? Croire au miracle c’est croire que la nature inverse l’ordre habituel : c’est croire au surnaturel dans la nature. Le préjugé par excellence est celui de la superstition. La superstition ne fait pas tomber l’esprit dans l’aveuglement du désir, elle exige comme obligation cet aveuglement : il n’y a pas de superstition qui se traduise par un fanatisme. Le sujet se rend complètement passif, mais aussi il s’inscrit dans un mouvement dont il ne peut pas sortir.

Il y a un complexe affectif qui unit l’admiration à l’espoir et à la crainte. Il y a surprise devant l’insolite, mais cette absence de rencontre ne prouve rien. Ce qui est surprenant n’est pas contraire aux lois de la nature. S’agissant au rapport aux biens (ou aux maux) incertains, nous pouvons avoir une surprise heureuse ou malheureuse. Ce que l’on n’a jamais vu mais que l’on espérait, ce que l’on n’a jamais vu mais que l’on craignait. Les hommes font de leur joie contingente (la bonne fortune) la marque miraculeuse des récompenses divines, et corrélativement fondent leur tristesse contingente des punitions divines. Le miracle introduit non pas du doute mais un changement de vecteur du doute. On reste fondamentalement dans l’absence de doute. On ne doutait pas que cela allait arriver, et du coup il n’est pas douteux que cela allait arriver. Si l’évènement arrive, il va satisfaire notre espoir ou attrister notre crainte. Toute religion n’est pas superstitieuse, mais toute superstition n’est pas religieuse. Il y a une distinction fondamentale entre la vraie et fausse religion.
Ce qui fonde la vraie religion c’est l’authentique piété. La vraie piété n’a pas besoin de reposer sur une connaissance vraie de Dieu, elle ne suppose pas qu’on comble l’ignorance, elle présuppose qu’on débarrasse l’esprit des préjugés théologiques ; des images du prétendu Dieu qui ne sont que des ajouts de l’opinion, qui peuvent être infirmés. La vraie piété est un acte affectif de joie, qui est celle de l’amour. Cette piété peut se manifester par l’obéissance aux commandements d’une église d’un Dieu d’amour. L’amour détermine l’obéissance : mais ce n’est pas un amour intellectuel. Ce que l’on demande à l’homme pieux c’est d’aimer son prochain.
L’affect joyeux qui a seul droit de cité au point de vue de la religion vraie est celui définit à la fin de la partie III, sous le nom de charité ou gratitude : le sentiment de bienveillance. C’est une joie plus solide, bien moins instable que la joie de l’espérance. Le salut passe maintenant par des actes de charité : ce sont le seuls critères pour juger la piété d’un homme. Le salut ne vient pas de l’espérance ou de la crainte d’un Dieu qui récompense ou punit : les sacrifices, les vœux sont étrangères à la vraie piété, elle font exprimer l’espoir et la crainte. L’humilité est un sentiment triste, c’est ne pas être digne de sa condition humaine. Si les hommes n’avaient jamais honte de rien, s’il ne connaissait pas l’abandon de l’orgueil, il n’y aurait pas de progrès. Il est préférable que les hommes jouissent de la joie de la bienfaisance que de celle de l’orgueil.


En quoi et comment la religion peut venir à servir la tyrannie ?

C’est possible car ce n’est pas la vraie religion mais une apparence : c’est une dérive religieuse, mais aussi parce que la superstition repose sur l’affect le plus efficace de tous : la crainte. Elle est capable de susciter de forts mouvements de la multitude, mais de mouvements d’opposition qui peuvent devenir violents et cruels. C’est naturel qu’un homme qui est dans la crainte d’un événement qu’il anticipe fuis cet événement. Ma nature est subie avant d’être comprise, et c’est cela qui fait que la crainte est le sentiment le plus répandu qu’il soit. La crainte n’installe jamais durablement ni la tristesse ni la joie : elle est une passion fondamentalement instable qui procède d’une même constance de l’imagination elle même sans remède. Mais si la crainte fonde la superstition, elle ne peut pas elle seule la nourrir : il faut qu’elle se mélange avec d’autres affects : la haine, la colère et la tromperie.
En quoi la crainte est la plus efficace de toutes les passions ? La crainte est la passion la plus efficace car elle trouve son origine dans un organisme affectif qui ne connaît aucune mesure et qui est l’expression la plus violente du désir humain. Cela on le comprend dans les autres affects qui suivent la crainte : s’il n’y avait pas la crainte au cœur de la superstition, alors la tristesse que nous éprouvons dans la crainte ne serait pas une tristesse ????????????????. L’absence de doute va rendre la haine plus violente, plus colérique. Plus il y a de doute et moins la haine coléreuse sera tromperie. Moins il y a de doute, plus la haine coléreuse serait vindicative, et par conséquent violente. L’espoir est un remède illusoire à la crainte : on espère quelque chose lorsqu’on voit un moyen de se protéger contre ce qui est craint. La colère est le désir de nuire de ce que l’on représente la cause extérieure odieuse. Nuire c’est amoindrir voire détruire.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
UnConquerable
Member Avatar
Level 9
Believe in Karma. Rest is history. Ease.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Cam
Member Avatar
Level 24
UnConquerable
Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:25 am
Believe in Karma. Rest is history. Ease.
So you think some evil god is going to punish you for doing something "bad"? Things like "karma" are just an excuse someone invented to make you act as a good boy, it's all about to inspire fear, if you do something bad, something bad will happen! Im sure every killer in history has paid for his crimes.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
Karma is just social contract theory. Either you subscribe or you don't.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
UnConquerable
Member Avatar
Level 9
I should clarify, I believe in Dharma, and Karma. Let me give you a explanation for both.

The term Dharma is an Indian spiritual and religious term that means one's righteous duty, or any virtuous path.

The Term Karma in Indian religions is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect. To me It basically means that no matter who you are, just do your Dharma and Karma, for different people it might mean different things, but that's what I believe.

Imo these 2 are the eternal truths of life,

I am not that religious or anything but I have read some Hindu and Buddhist scriptures and they make perfect sense to me. Wrong begets wrong, Good begets good. Good should destroy Evil, Only Truth wins in the end.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FalseLights
Member Avatar
Level 7
I was raised a Christian but I wasn't raised word-for-word by the bible, meaning I translate it myself and what I think is right. With that said this is my answer for Solar's first post

Quote:
 
1. Is there any way you could be convinced that god doesn't exist?

Many people loses faith if a disaster struck them or there family. As far as I'm concerned, no, I can't be convinced.

Quote:
 
(If not, then your opinion doesn't matter, since it's not based on reality)
(If so, you don't have faith in your god)

One person's reality is different than another.

Quote:
 
2. Assuming that God does exist, why does God deserve the power he is given?

"Power" was invented by man. Power used in this context is: "A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others". He has no control over us, not even the way we think. That's the beauty of free will.

Quote:
 
3. If God is all forgiving, or all loving, why is there a need for a hell? Why can't God forgive people after they've died?

God forgive those who ask it. Those who do not know of god (or Jesus) will not know to ask, therefore are sent in a world without God.

Quote:
 
4. How come there is no testable verifiable evidence that God exists?

Such "evidence" will never exist. Lets say you created biological Ants, in a few million years you will know these ants will flourish into greater beings. Would you really carve your name in the wall to have them know your the creator? In essence God will be breaking rule number 1: "Free Will", because he effected the rock on the wall. That's my take on free will anyhow, and I have different views of the creation of The Ten Commandments.

Quote:
 
5. How come every single religion says theirs is correct, and the others are wrong using the exact same reasons (such as that prophets said so, or you have to have 'faith', or you can discover God through 'prayer'?)

If you strongly believe in something, you will tell other people about your beliefs. Discovering God through prayer just translate to feeling. Praying is encouraging and it makes people feel centered as well as hope.

Quote:
 
6. God could certainly do a lot more to show us that he exists. Why doesn't he? (He has in the past, according to the bible.) Why doesn't he make it as obvious that he exists, as the fact that the sky is blue? Every religion says god "wants" you to worship and believe in him, and he is all powerful according to the monotheistic faiths, so how come he hasn't made it obvious to reasonable people like the majority of the world who don't believe in your specific dogma?

He has numerous times. The thing about God is that he is very trustworthy, in that if some one says there telling the truth, then why think otherwise. Therefore He passes his will to man in so that we can listen and believe, there is no reason to be here physically (see question 4).

Quote:
 
7. If the afterlife is eternal, and the current human life is only but a speck of time, then how come the lord bases how you spend eternity on what happens in this insignificant speck of time where people are ignorant of the truth?

Eternity is not based on how we live as long as you repent. If a person does not repent then they will be in a place without God and will endure his sins.

Quote:
 
8. Why don't Christians follow the bible, yet say it's the perfect book? (Such as stoning to death people who work on Sundays, or beating your slaves without damaging their eyes or killing them, for example)

There is nothing wrong with working on Sundays. Sundays is more of a celebration to God if anything. The church says to come to the house of God and pray, but in reality you can make any house The house of God given your faith. But being in a mass can be warming and encouraging. Bible doesn't teach about beating anyone and doing so is a sin.

Faith to me means Hope. That is the reason why people continue to believe what they believe in. A person can lose everything, but will never be without hope.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Cam
Member Avatar
Level 24
FaZ-
Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:16 am
Karma is just social contract theory. Either you subscribe or you don't.
That doesn't make it right. Racism could be also a contract theory.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Oragami
Member Avatar
Level 24
The world will work the way the world has always worked, things like humanity arnt big enough to change this.

THERE ARE ALIENS I THINK

That'd be cool :] + space travel! Then we could play real life starcraft, and then real life snipers :D
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
UnConquerable
Member Avatar
Level 9
You need a lot of growing up to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Oragami
Member Avatar
Level 24
UnConquerable
Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:55 am
You need a lot of growing up to do.
Dude ur not worth shit. I noticed u try and participate in a lot of things via snipers and u always get shunted to the side. Dude even i joined 3oD and u couldnt get in.

nuff said.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
You trying to prove his point?
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Great
Member Avatar
Level 4
FalseLights, you don't have free will if an all knowing all powerful god exists.

In Rabbinic literature, there is much discussion as to the apparent contradiction between God's omniscience and free will. The representative view is that "Everything is foreseen; yet free will is given" (Rabbi Akiva, Pirkei Avoth 3:15

Wiki-

Based on this understanding, the problem is formally described as a paradox, beyond our understanding.
“ The Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows everything that will happen before it has happened. So does He know whether a particular person will be righteous or wicked, or not? If He does know, then it will be impossible for that person not to be righteous. If He knows that he will be righteous but that it is possible for him to be wicked, then He does not know everything that He has created. ...[T]he Holy One, Blessed Be He, does not have any temperaments and is outside such realms, unlike people, whose selves and temperaments are two separate things. God and His temperaments are one, and God's existence is beyond the comprehension of Man… [Thus] we do not have the capabilities to comprehend how the Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows all creations and events. [Nevertheless] know without doubt that people do what they want without the Holy One, Blessed Be He, forcing or decreeing upon them to do so... It has been said because of this that a man is judged according to all his actions. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuva 5:5[33]) ”

The paradox is explained, but not resolved, by observing that God exists outside of time, and therefore, his knowledge of the future is exactly the same as his knowledge of the past and present. Just as his knowledge of the past does not interfere with man's free will, neither does his knowledge of the future.

This distinction, between foreknowledge and predestination, is in fact discussed by Maimonides' critic Abraham ibn Daud; see Hasagat HaRABaD ad loc.

(One analogy here is that of time travel. The time traveller, having returned from the future, knows in advance what x will do, but while he knows what x will do, that knowledge does not cause x to do so: x had free will, even while the time traveler had foreknowledge.

However, one objection raised against this analogy – and ibn Daud’s distinction – is that if x truly has free will, he may choose to act otherwise when the event in question comes to pass, and therefore the time traveller (or God) merely has knowledge of a possible event: even having seen the event, there is no way to know with certainty what x will do; see the view of Gersonides below. Further, the presence of the time traveller, may have had some chaotic effect on x's circumstances and choice, absent when the event comes to pass in the present.)


End Wiki.

The last two paragraphs make an attempt to explain free will; however, if x is left to circumstantial decision (two choices to make) and the time traveler (or god) saw one event and not the other, then god, by definition, is no longer omniscient; moreover, with the loss of this omniscience, god loses omnipotence.

Circles ;/.
Edited by Great, Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:23 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Oragami
Member Avatar
Level 24
FaZ-
Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:59 pm
You trying to prove his point?
What that i can type a whole bunch of non sense, and in the end you partake in it as well. Good Job Faz-
point well made.
Edited by Oragami, Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:51 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FalseLights
Member Avatar
Level 7
Quote:
 
FalseLights, you don't have free will if an all knowing all powerful god exists.

That statement is unsubstantial.

Nothing in that paragraph explains why I don't have free will if an all knowing all powerful God exists. Its all postulations.
Edited by FalseLights, Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:39 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2