"Believe in . . ? or "Believe that . . ."

[realthinker]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

[Slopeshoulder]

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

Maybe.
Perhaps I'll just stick with what I do understand. Chillies and chocolate. Or that which I kind of understand around the edges, justice and democracy.

Put chili (touch of cayenne) in hot chocolate and you will experience heaven.

[cnorman18]

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

Maybe.
Perhaps I'll just stick with what I do understand. Chillies and chocolate. Or that which I kind of understand around the edges, justice and democracy.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it -- and alluding to my post on the "Sects within Religions" thread -- that seems to me to be yet another instance of an intelligent and rational, and not all that uncommon, approach to religious belief being dismissed as irrelevant, insignificant, and unworthy of consideration or comment.

I can only speak for myself, but when I run into a concept that I find difficult to understand -- particularly if I've been in the habit of denigrating and dismissing it without much reflection -- I tend to think on it a bit before I shrug and move on.

Your mileage may vary, of course; no one is obligated to give serious consideration to the legitimacy of ANY approach to religion -- or reality, for that matter. But don't be surprised that I feel, once again, vaguely patronized and definitely marginalized.

[bernee51]

Thanks for you thoughtful response Charles

I don't know about "spiritually complete," but properly prepared, they're a delicious experience.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. There are keys to wisdom, and there are also lox...

{{{chuckle}}}...set myself up for that...

I make a pretty mean gravalax myself.

Have you ever read Krishnamurti? He wrote (or said) that if there were such a thing as "enlightenment," it ought not take 20 years of working toward it; one ought to be able to step into in in a single moment. I can tell you from experience that he was right.

very familiar with Krishnamurti...in aprticular Fredom from the Known. We both agree with him.

In brief, here's what I learned: that which we call the "ego" or the "self" does not exist, but consists only of the intersection of memory and the present moment, which is both infinite and eternal. But there IS a true self beyond or above that; when one is watching one's thoughts, it is that which watches -- and it is profoundly connected to, or a part of, or one with, everything. There is, of course, much more which is not expressible in language.

If this were a recipe, I would now say, "BAM!"

If only....

You were not completely truthful in a previous post...you claimed NOT to be a mystic.

The ocean is not the drop, and the drop is not the ocean; but superstring theory applies. Particles on opposite sides of the universe are not only connected -- they are the same particle, and change in one results in instantaneous and simultaneous change in the other. We are at once separate and the same, and the whole, aka "God," is at once profoundly known and profoundly unknowable. Silent, because there is nothing that needs to be said.

Well knock me over with a feather...here I was, all these years, believeing I was an atheist...

In the satori state, that is true; but it is precisely the virtue, as well as the drawback, of normal consciousness that we can move outside the "now" and access the past and the future through verbal and visual thought and imagination. We experience all that in the now, but the now is not the object of it. That is what makes creativity possible. Enlightenment is a wonderful source of insight into the nature of reality and existence, but you have to leave it in order to DO anything, including actually THINK about it. That's my take, anyway.

And mine. As I stated...being able to carry over realization of the nature of being into day to day existence is the challenge (at least my challenge)

The Ein Sof isn't a matter of a concept that one needs -- it is the opposite of "concept," the negation of the possibility of a perspective. The Terra Incognita of the mind. If you understand that idea -- you don't understand it.

neti, neti.

I'll freely admit that you lost me with that.

Not this, not that.

Yeah. I like "integral" better.

Now that I know what love is, I feel more centered than I've ever been. Rather remarkable, really. And I don't claim to understand love, either. I'm feeling things I've never felt before, don't BEGIN to understand, am totally unable to analyze or comprehend, and I don't much care. Analysis isn't necessary. Again: Silent, because nothing needs to be said.

I have moments 'in the centre'...but am also in a relationship with a wonderful person who has a centre of their own....which, it turn, means the relationship too has a centre of its own.

[cnorman18]

Thanks for you thoughtful response Charles

I don't know about "spiritually complete," but properly prepared, they're a delicious experience.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. There are keys to wisdom, and there are also lox...

{{{chuckle}}}...set myself up for that...

I make a pretty mean gravalax myself.

Just made dinner for my client and myself; biscuits with sausage & black pepper gravy. About as kosher as a bag of pork skins, but sublime in its own Southern redneck sharecropper way.

Have you ever read Krishnamurti? He wrote (or said) that if there were such a thing as "enlightenment," it ought not take 20 years of working toward it; one ought to be able to step into in in a single moment. I can tell you from experience that he was right.

very familiar with Krishnamurti...in aprticular Fredom from the Known. We both agree with him.

The Flight of the Eagle did it for me.

In brief, here's what I learned: that which we call the "ego" or the "self" does not exist, but consists only of the intersection of memory and the present moment, which is both infinite and eternal. But there IS a true self beyond or above that; when one is watching one's thoughts, it is that which watches -- and it is profoundly connected to, or a part of, or one with, everything. There is, of course, much more which is not expressible in language.

If this were a recipe, I would now say, "BAM!"

If only....

You were not completely truthful in a previous post...you claimed NOT to be a mystic.

I'm not. It was an experience as real as...

As biscuits with sausage gravy.

The ocean is not the drop, and the drop is not the ocean; but superstring theory applies. Particles on opposite sides of the universe are not only connected -- they are the same particle, and change in one results in instantaneous and simultaneous change in the other. We are at once separate and the same, and the whole, aka "God," is at once profoundly known and profoundly unknowable. Silent, because there is nothing that needs to be said.

Well knock me over with a feather...here I was, all these years, believeing I was an atheist...

Like I keep saying; God is undefined, and there's a reason for that. It's not a tactic, and it's more than a confession of ignorance.

In the satori state, that is true; but it is precisely the virtue, as well as the drawback, of normal consciousness that we can move outside the "now" and access the past and the future through verbal and visual thought and imagination. We experience all that in the now, but the now is not the object of it. That is what makes creativity possible. Enlightenment is a wonderful source of insight into the nature of reality and existence, but you have to leave it in order to DO anything, including actually THINK about it. That's my take, anyway.

And mine. As I stated...being able to carry over realization of the nature of being into day to day existence is the challenge (at least my challenge)

That's the river I mentioned. Ram Dass put it in three words that I'm sure you remember. All there is to it, really.

The Ein Sof isn't a matter of a concept that one needs -- it is the opposite of "concept," the negation of the possibility of a perspective. The Terra Incognita of the mind. If you understand that idea -- you don't understand it.

neti, neti.

I'll freely admit that you lost me with that.

Not this, not that.

Not what? (beatific grin)

Yeah. I like "integral" better.

Now that I know what love is, I feel more centered than I've ever been. Rather remarkable, really. And I don't claim to understand love, either. I'm feeling things I've never felt before, don't BEGIN to understand, am totally unable to analyze or comprehend, and I don't much care. Analysis isn't necessary. Again: Silent, because nothing needs to be said.

I have moments 'in the centre'...but am also in a relationship with a wonderful person who has a centre of their own....which, it turn, means the relationship too has a centre of its own.

That's what I'm learning about now. I thought I knew what love was -- but it's the difference between watching a movie of a roller coaster ride and actually being on the thing. When you have the reality, dreams and fantasies blow away like smoke. A whole new level of that ineffable Something... or Someone.

....We should open an ashram, man.

[bernee51]

Just made dinner for my client and myself; biscuits with sausage & black pepper gravy. About as kosher as a bag of pork skins, but sublime in its own Southern redneck sharecropper way.

Just got back from a month in the US0fA...{{{hasty generalization following}}}...you folks do have somw weird eating habits.

The Flight of the Eagle did it for me.

Will follow it up...remembering always that "Truth is a Pathless Land"

Like I keep saying; God is undefined, and there's a reason for that. It's not a tactic, and it's more than a confession of ignorance.

I happy to not claim to be atheistic WRT an 'undefined' god.

In fact, it would be, IMHO, impossible to claim such a position.

In the satori state, that is true; but it is precisely the virtue, as well as the drawback, of normal consciousness that we can move outside the "now" and access the past and the future through verbal and visual thought and imagination. We experience all that in the now, but the now is not the object of it. That is what makes creativity possible. Enlightenment is a wonderful source of insight into the nature of reality and existence, but you have to leave it in order to DO anything, including actually THINK about it. That's my take, anyway.

And mine. As I stated...being able to carry over realization of the nature of being into day to day existence is the challenge (at least my challenge)

That's the river I mentioned. Ram Dass put it in three words that I'm sure you remember. All there is to it, really.

I'm 'here' - why aren't you?

I have moments 'in the centre'...but am also in a relationship with a wonderful person who has a centre of their own....which, it turn, means the relationship too has a centre of its own.

That's what I'm learning about now. I thought I knew what love was -- but it's the difference between watching a movie of a roller coaster ride and actually being on the thing. When you have the reality, dreams and fantasies blow away like smoke. A whole new level of that ineffable Something... or Someone.

Like being willing to be told, and to tell, that dreams and fantasies are so much smoke.

Doing that has been, and continues to be, painful.

....We should open an ashram, man.

or perhaps it is already 'open'.

Someone once wrote that the next Buddha will be a sangha

[cnorman18]

Just made dinner for my client and myself; biscuits with sausage & black pepper gravy. About as kosher as a bag of pork skins, but sublime in its own Southern redneck sharecropper way.

Just got back from a month in the US0fA...{{{hasty generalization following}}}...you folks do have somw weird eating habits.

Let me tell you about the Texas State Fair, going on as we speak.

Chocolate-Covered Bacon, 14-inch Corn Dogs, and Deep Fried Beer...
And I'm NOT making that up.

The Flight of the Eagle did it for me.

Will follow it up...remembering always that "Truth is a Pathless Land"

I sometimes laugh at all the talk about "objective reality" around here -- in the same breath as the most theoretical and abstract of ideas.

Like I keep saying; God is undefined, and there's a reason for that. It's not a tactic, and it's more than a confession of ignorance.

I happy to not claim to be atheistic WRT an 'undefined' god.

In fact, it would be, IMHO, impossible to claim such a position.

That WOULD be a bit difficult. "I don't know what it is, but I don't believe in it..."

In the satori state, that is true; but it is precisely the virtue, as well as the drawback, of normal consciousness that we can move outside the "now" and access the past and the future through verbal and visual thought and imagination. We experience all that in the now, but the now is not the object of it. That is what makes creativity possible. Enlightenment is a wonderful source of insight into the nature of reality and existence, but you have to leave it in order to DO anything, including actually THINK about it. That's my take, anyway.

And mine. As I stated...being able to carry over realization of the nature of being into day to day existence is the challenge (at least my challenge)

That's the river I mentioned. Ram Dass put it in three words that I'm sure you remember. All there is to it, really.

I'm 'here' - why aren't you?

I WAS there then, but this is now...

I have moments 'in the centre'...but am also in a relationship with a wonderful person who has a centre of their own....which, it turn, means the relationship too has a centre of its own.

That's what I'm learning about now. I thought I knew what love was -- but it's the difference between watching a movie of a roller coaster ride and actually being on the thing. When you have the reality, dreams and fantasies blow away like smoke. A whole new level of that ineffable Something... or Someone.

Like being willing to be told, and to tell, that dreams and fantasies are so much smoke.

Doing that has been, and continues to be, painful.

Dreams and fantasies are the menu. When the food comes, you don't need the menu any more.

....We should open an ashram, man.

or perhaps it is already 'open'.

Someone once wrote that the next Buddha will be a sangha

Or a Kabbalist. The Jew in the Lotus is on my reading list.

[scourge99]

guggghhhh BRAINS!!!.... incoming zombie thread!

You can existenstially affirm a belief IN god without propositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different. The fornmer does not imply or demand the latter.

I agree. One can affirm a belief in ANYTHING, even nonsense, without propositionally claiming anything related to factual existence.

I recommend the word knowledge when we can reasonably say we know (we never know god exists).

And I recommend using the word "justified belief" when we can attribute some rational reason for belief in something or in the existence of something. The reason need not be objective.

Anyone can lay claim to belief in gods, auras, chi, unicorns, and ghyzytfx. But belief in or belief that these things exist is not necessarily justified.

I recommend belief when we have a hunch or conclude something is true without evidence.

I agree. But wouldn't agree that "hunches" or "intuition" justify belief.

I recommend the word faith when we affirm and align with something that we cannot know. This is belief IN God.

I have issue with the wide scope of this definition.

E.G., I cannot absolutely "know" anything. But that does not mean there isn't reason or evidence to believe that some things are true. Your definition of "faith" does not appear to distinguish between such things. Thus, the vast differences are not made between "faith" in unicorns versus "faith" in objective reality.

Perhaps there are some assumptions I'm not making that you are?

Or are you just saying that "faith" only applies to concepts which relate to a disposition or attitude, and not to actual existence?

For now, can I ask, is there anything that would "justify" "belief" as you see it? (Recall in my scheme, no beliefs are justified. Only knowledge or faith.)

Yes. A belief would be justified, for example, if it conformed to the preponderance of evidence or experiences.

For example, believing that my pen will fall when I drop it. Believing my pen will fall upward would be unjustified in this regard (or sideways, or any other way for that matter).

Perhaps there are some assumptions I'm not making that you are?

Or are you just saying that "faith" only applies to concepts which relate to a disposition or attitude, and not to actual existence?

To answer your last question, yes, faith is a dispositional attitude that MIGHT MAYBE KINDA SORTA SOMEDAY turn out to have something to do with reality and wouldn't that be nice.

I question the rationale for belief in that which might have something to do with reality but does not have any (or little) indication that it does.

Perhaps it is beneficial, for example, from an entertainment or aesthetic perspective, but I don’t go around believing that the fantasy or science fiction that I read or watch is “maybe kinda sorta someday turn out to have something to do with reality.� I fully recognize the NON-REAL aspects within these captivating stories despite the fact that at times I can “transplant my mind� into these fictional worlds. When the movie turns off or the book closes, REALITY is what is left. I live that reality as it presents itself rather than as I wish it presented itself. I deeply question the psychology of those who continue to think and act as though the fantasy world is the real world once the book has closed or the curtains of a play come down.

Let me think about the rest of your post some more.

Done thinking yet?

[mgb]

Karen Armstrong in her writing reminds us that the original meaning of the word 'believe' means faith or loyalty. An intellectual acceptance of philosophical thinking or theology is not the same as belief/faith/loyalty in this sense. Intellectual assent to abstract ideas about God or loyalty to God is the difference, I think.

[cnorman18]

Karen Armstrong in her writing reminds us that the original meaning of the word 'believe' means faith or loyalty. An intellectual acceptance of philosophical thinking or theology is not the same as belief/faith/loyalty in this sense. Intellectual assent to abstract ideas about God or loyalty to God is the difference, I think.

I keep saying that there is a great deal more to this thing called "religion" than intellectual assent to a set of theological and even supposedly factual propositions. It sometimes -- nay, often -- seems to me that neither fundamentalists nor nontheists can see the forest for those rather peripheral trees.

I will be offline till sometime tomorrow. Going to a wedding -- not my own, alas, but I'm obliged to show up anyway.

[Cathar1950]

Karen Armstrong in her writing reminds us that the original meaning of the word 'believe' means faith or loyalty. An intellectual acceptance of philosophical thinking or theology is not the same as belief/faith/loyalty in this sense. Intellectual assent to abstract ideas about God or loyalty to God is the difference, I think.

I keep saying that there is a great deal more to this thing called "religion" than intellectual assent to a set of theological and even supposedly factual propositions. It sometimes -- nay, often -- seems to me that neither fundamentalists nor nontheists can see the forest for those rather peripheral trees.

I will be offline till sometime tomorrow. Going to a wedding -- not my own, alas, but I'm obliged to show up anyway.

I was think along the same lines the other day.
The social aspects as well as culture and social bonding should not be overlooked.