Quote from Corso482:
777,
Let's try to keep this discussion vaguely related to the OP...
You haven't mentioned anything about Jesus H. Christ or any other specific god in your post, so I assume you're talking about a deistic version of god. Fine, as I've said, such a view of god is completely reasonable in my opinion.
If, however, you're talking about a specific god, written about in a specific book, whom you think talks to you, then how is that any less sillily than being obsessed with the Matrix?
If you live your day to day life reading about Jesus in the Bible and discussing him and thinking about him, how is that any different than watching the Matrix all the time and trying to understand the subtle nuances in that story?
Listening to people like Pat Robertson talk and reading the OP's script was very similar. They both use their own esoteric language.
So, to not get sidetracked and make this a completely unrelated religious discussion, I'm asserting that there's no difference in reading the Bible and watching the Matrix, vis-a- vis being obsessed with a fantasy world.
Sure, you can tell me that *to you* it's very real and not a fantasy world. But why couldn't the Matrix be any less real of an experience *to him*? After all, your standards are completely subjective if you're not going to ask for empirical evidence.
If you're going to talk about who's being more ridiculous, then let's be frank: At least the guy who's obsessed with the Matrix realizes that it's a work of fiction and leaves it at that. On the other hand, the religious guy doesn't acknowledge his holy book as a work of fiction and talks to his invisible friend all day.
Who's more peculiar?
Does the fellow who invests himself in the Matrix, do so in an effort to find the answers to the questions of life, or does he do so to simply pass the time and remain in denial of his own inner reality?
Only he can answer.
These discussions of the practice of faith as a means of knowing, versus the scientific process are not possible without each side having had the exact same experiences.
Just as one who has tasted a particular fruit, not found in America could never begin to uderstand the experiences, the very best that one who had eaten that fruit and was trying to explain what the fruit tasted like could do would be to say or speak through analogy, that the fruit tastes like such and such, but is not such and such. People can get an idea what it might taste like, but they can never know until they have the direct experience of that fruit. He might offer the person a taste of the fruit, but if the person offered refused, what could he do?
The question I put to all pure intellectuals, who have dismissed the path of faith as invalid for all people as a means of knowing truth is this:
Have you ever truly practiced faith as I have describe it? Have you asked the God of your understanding to come to you and help you, and have you asked with all your heart and with full confidence that your God will appear before you and help you if you ask with 100% faith, trust and sincerity?
Until the answer is yes, until you have done the lab-work of faith, how can you know the truth or falsehood of such a path of knowing?
I have experienced the realms of the intellect, logic, senses, and know and accept their limitations. Those methods lack by their very nature, to see beyond their own finite limits in order to gain an understanding of that which is beyond their scope, to gain vision into the realm of the infinite. There is a common understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and even if all the knowledge of all the mechanics of physical existence were discovered, who would be able to hold them all in their mind at one time as to experience the totality of it?
Faith and trust in God is not something new. It is not my invention, not something I dreamed up. It is as old as mankind, as man has continually looked for the answers to the mysteries of life.
In life, that which doesn't work is discarded generation after generation, yet the need for spiritual answers has not diminished with the advance of modern science.
Those who are content that the scientific method will explain the whys of life, they accept that method as valid for themselves, and often suggest that it is the only valid way for others as well.
My experience is that those who reject faith in totality, and look to objective science also reject the important questions in life, and have never practiced faith as I have described it.
They never really address the important why questions, as I put them. Why are we here on this earth, what is our purpose?
Ask a scientist why the sky is blue, and he will give an explanation as to what factors cause the sky to appear blue, but ask the scientist why we are constructed in a manner as to be able to see colors, and he will become mute. Ask him why it is that particular shade of blue, and again, no answer.
We have labeled certain forces that influence material existence, but does any scientist know why they exist in the first place?
Scientists will forever discover the what about the universe, but will never fully know the whys.
Sure, they will have their theories as to why, but will forever remain unable to prove them. Somehow, that is enough for them, to have theories without proof. Evolution is just a theory, so is the big bang, etc. These materialists remain convinced on theory, not on direct perceptual evidence. We commonly accept what we cannot see or feel, as we can explain the consequences of the interaction of the material world as to predict future behaviors. Who has seen an atom, and who has felt X-Rays? So knowledge can come from methods beyond the sense alone.
The faithful, seeks proof beyond the prevailing scientific theories of the whys of life, and are willing to travel down a different avenue to find that proof.
You can evaluate that self reported proof as much as you will, in the same way you can comment on the fruit untasted, but you will never know if the person is gaining the proof they seek or not.
So, the agnostic has decided to chose the instrument of knowing, and has limited that instrument of knowing to the physical senses and linear logic. What cannot be proven via the senses and or scientific method does not exist for them as real. At best an agnostic can say they don't know, and can either have a curiosity to try different methodologies of gaining knowledge if the questions they are unable to answer matter to them, or not.
So, the agnostics set the boundaries and limits of their knowing, and proceed along that path. They know full well they cannot gain a possible understanding or potential relationship with the infinite in that way of living, but they are not inclined to seek that experience and they place their faith and trust in that path.
Are they right? I cannot say. I can say that implementing logic alone, and not knowing what the source of logic really is, is illogical to me. That path did not produce the results I was looking for, so I moved in a different direction.
If the Matrix "worshiper" is fulfilled, if deep in his heart and mind he had found everlasting peace and the answer to all of his questions of life, I am happy for him. Only he really knows if he is deluding himself or not if he is placing the Matrix on the same level as the spiritual aspirant. Those who I have seen and know in the past who substituted science fiction or modern fantasy for spiritual development, never seemed fulfilled to me...that is just my perception, I could be wrong. I do can say that it didn't work for me, as I did not hold science fiction or modern fantasy to meet my definition and understanding of the nature of a supreme, eternal God, and Divine realm beyond the limits of material existence.
One definition of God that was offered thousand of years ago is that God has no opposite, no condition possible of not existing. God is the sum total of everything that ever was and ever will be. God never came into being, never came into existence, no beginning, no ending, infinite, everlasting. So anything that comes into being, doesn't meet that definition of God, and as a result, ideas such as the Matrix, as defined, are not meeting that particular definition of God as laid out by the definition I have just suggested. However, if someone has a different experience with the Matrix, I am not in a position to argue with it. Only they know the truth of their own experiences and whether those experiences bring them the happiness they seek.
Now some will conclude that it is impossible to gain the answers that many seek via the path of faith, impossible to gain a direct experience of God, but how do they know that those experiences are not available on the path of faith?
They don't, they can only speculate. Until there is absolute proof that knowledge of God, as God is understood intellectually, is not, and cannot be gained via the path of faith, it remains merely as a comfort that they have made the right choice for themselves not to follow a path of faith. Obviously faith in God, or faith in agnosticism/atheism, it is a choice, not an involuntary human response, nor a requirement for human existence. We all have to eat, sleep, breathe air we have no choice but to do so if we want to live.....but the choice of what to believe as we live our lives is just that, a choice.
I cannot judge others as wrong per say, I can only say that leaving behind the limitations of logic, and seeking beyond the limit of intellect is what I made a decision to do.
