I had begun to wonder if "conversation" meant what I thought it did. I thought it was a two-party exchange. Then I remembered the contradictory term "one-way conversation," so I thought I should probably look it up. After reading the following, I realized what I really was hoping for when I started this blog was dialogue, not conversation.
conversation |ˌkänvərˈsā sh ən| - noun
the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words : the two men were deep in conversation.
• an instance of this : she picked up the phone and held a conversation in French.
THE RIGHT WORD
It is nearly impossible for most people to get through a day without having a conversation with someone, even if it's only a chat with the mailman.
Although conversation can and does take place in all sorts of contexts, both formal and informal, the word usually implies a relaxed, casual exchange.
A chat is the least formal of all conversations, whether it's a father talking to his son about girls or two women having a tête-á-tête (French for “head to head,” meaning a confidential conversation) about their wayward husbands.
Both men and women often complain that their partners don't understand the meaning of dialogue, which is a two-way conversation that may involve opposing points of view.
Argument is even more likely to play a role in a parley, which formally is a discussion between enemies regarding the terms of a truce.
A colloquy is the most formal of all conversations (: a colloquy on nuclear disarmament); it can also be used to jocularly describe a guarded exchange (: a brief colloquy with the arresting officer).
Communion may be a form of conversation as well, but sometimes it takes place on such a profound level that no words are necessary (: communion with nature).
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Faith
C.A., in response to your comment on my first post:
I, too, was particularly fond of the part of my post that you mentioned. It was pretty much the point of the whole post, anyway. And it was the most fun to write. However, I need to amend a bit of what I said earlier because of this part of your comment: “I used to have faith.... The contradictions in the Bible were the first thing to start hammering away at my faith.”
See, faith is not just believing what you have been told or what you have been raised to believe. Everyone does that, at least to an extent, but not everyone has faith. That’s why I need to take this thought further. My original theory was that people whose first way of finding truth was their religion-faith would try their best to overcome perceived logical fallacies in that religion-faith. In revising that theory, I would say this: Faith is continuing even when your belief wavers. It’s “daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.”
So, to revise what I said in my earlier post: Faith would require more than just trying to overcome perceived logical fallacies. After all, wouldn’t any sincere truth-seeker already be doing that? (It must have been what you were doing growing up.) I think real faith would require continuing to live according to one’s religion-faith, even when one is unable to overcome said logical fallacies.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that anyone from a religion with seemingly illogical beliefs must be a blind follower. I just know that faith absolutely has to be the first step to true conversion. Why? Because if, at first prayer, everything spiritual could immediately seem logical, every Christian mother's child would remain a Christian for life, right? (Actually, I am quite sure that even that would not be so, but I don’t have room to get into that now.)
I’d love to dig a lot deeper into this, but if I were to write everything I have thought while writing what I have thus far written, the result would be much too long a post. I guess what I want to communicate, is just this: Faithful people know what you have pointed out in your posts. At least, if they profess to believe the Bible, hopefully they have read it. And they know that there are many things that don’t make sense to them. That's where their faith comes in. So, while you and I do not believe many of the things that others do, we can still respect their faith – not their religion-faith – but the hope-faith they need in order to live life proactively according to an imperfect knowledge of their religion.
Although “evidence based thinking” is a wonderful tool, my knowledge of the religion I profess is not evidence-based. If it were, I could probably be persuaded out of it. Instead, the knowledge comes from deep within my heart, and the witnesses I have felt there have therefore been more powerful and convincing to me than any logic could have been. However, that does not mean that I have given up on logic either. Nor do I have a lack of evidence for my knowledge. I have encountered numerous miracles in my time and discovered myriads of hidden truths. But there are, as Einstein said, “two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is." It is for that reason – that I could live my life as if nothing were a miracle – that the foundation for my testimony cannot be logic or even miracles. As I said before, if it were, I could likely be persuaded to change my beliefs. If, however, I know the truth because I know it, in my heart as much as in my head, I cannot be persuaded.
Consider this. You trust your senses, right? Which do you trust more to tell you what is real – your eyes or your fingertips? If you see something, you assume it's real, right? Of course eyes can be fooled. But if you can touch something, if you can feel it, you know it's real. I suppose that is how I know what I know. My spiritual eyes can see miracles all around me if I look, but they can also be fooled. But even when that happens, I can rely on my spiritual feelings. Those are real. I have felt them, and I know.
My own point of the day:
Faith is things which are hoped for even when they are not manifest. So, a person of faith does not argue because he can't see.
And a doctrinal truth tidbit:
No one receives a witness until after his faith is tried. The rewards of faith are reaped only after a lot of diligence and patience.
C.A.W.
I, too, was particularly fond of the part of my post that you mentioned. It was pretty much the point of the whole post, anyway. And it was the most fun to write. However, I need to amend a bit of what I said earlier because of this part of your comment: “I used to have faith.... The contradictions in the Bible were the first thing to start hammering away at my faith.”
See, faith is not just believing what you have been told or what you have been raised to believe. Everyone does that, at least to an extent, but not everyone has faith. That’s why I need to take this thought further. My original theory was that people whose first way of finding truth was their religion-faith would try their best to overcome perceived logical fallacies in that religion-faith. In revising that theory, I would say this: Faith is continuing even when your belief wavers. It’s “daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.”
So, to revise what I said in my earlier post: Faith would require more than just trying to overcome perceived logical fallacies. After all, wouldn’t any sincere truth-seeker already be doing that? (It must have been what you were doing growing up.) I think real faith would require continuing to live according to one’s religion-faith, even when one is unable to overcome said logical fallacies.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that anyone from a religion with seemingly illogical beliefs must be a blind follower. I just know that faith absolutely has to be the first step to true conversion. Why? Because if, at first prayer, everything spiritual could immediately seem logical, every Christian mother's child would remain a Christian for life, right? (Actually, I am quite sure that even that would not be so, but I don’t have room to get into that now.)
I’d love to dig a lot deeper into this, but if I were to write everything I have thought while writing what I have thus far written, the result would be much too long a post. I guess what I want to communicate, is just this: Faithful people know what you have pointed out in your posts. At least, if they profess to believe the Bible, hopefully they have read it. And they know that there are many things that don’t make sense to them. That's where their faith comes in. So, while you and I do not believe many of the things that others do, we can still respect their faith – not their religion-faith – but the hope-faith they need in order to live life proactively according to an imperfect knowledge of their religion.
Although “evidence based thinking” is a wonderful tool, my knowledge of the religion I profess is not evidence-based. If it were, I could probably be persuaded out of it. Instead, the knowledge comes from deep within my heart, and the witnesses I have felt there have therefore been more powerful and convincing to me than any logic could have been. However, that does not mean that I have given up on logic either. Nor do I have a lack of evidence for my knowledge. I have encountered numerous miracles in my time and discovered myriads of hidden truths. But there are, as Einstein said, “two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is." It is for that reason – that I could live my life as if nothing were a miracle – that the foundation for my testimony cannot be logic or even miracles. As I said before, if it were, I could likely be persuaded to change my beliefs. If, however, I know the truth because I know it, in my heart as much as in my head, I cannot be persuaded.
Consider this. You trust your senses, right? Which do you trust more to tell you what is real – your eyes or your fingertips? If you see something, you assume it's real, right? Of course eyes can be fooled. But if you can touch something, if you can feel it, you know it's real. I suppose that is how I know what I know. My spiritual eyes can see miracles all around me if I look, but they can also be fooled. But even when that happens, I can rely on my spiritual feelings. Those are real. I have felt them, and I know.
My own point of the day:
Faith is things which are hoped for even when they are not manifest. So, a person of faith does not argue because he can't see.
And a doctrinal truth tidbit:
No one receives a witness until after his faith is tried. The rewards of faith are reaped only after a lot of diligence and patience.
C.A.W.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Oedipus Rex
C.A.,
Oedipus the King, if you haven't heard of it, is a Greek tragedy by Sophocles. I have enjoyed it both times I've read it, though it is most certainly tragic.
In the play, sophistic and mantic philosophies are contrasted by showing the final result of the play in prophecy and then putting together the unlikely puzzle logically throughout the play to show the same result. Oedipus's wife (and mother – hence the term “Oedipus complex”) represents the sophistic point of view, while Tiresias, a blind prophet, represents the mantic side. Both epistemologies are effective in showing the truth, but certain characters in the play will not believe the one until the other proves true. For example, although he fears the oracle which would make him so abominable, Oedipus still seeks to prove it wrong. His wife is even more skeptic, believing such oracles to be nonsense, not to be heeded, – believing it right up until the hour of her suicide. Creon, however, puts all his trust in the prophecies of oracles and seers, and even recommends Tiresias to Oedipus as his most trusted prophet.
In the end, though, both the prophecies of the gods and the reasoning of man draw the same conclusion. And those involved realize the mistake of denying one in favor of the other. Oedipus thought he had escaped his foretold destiny, but instead, he had stumbled right in it.
The play seems not to prefer one view over the other. It does show how painful it was for Oedipus's family when they disbelieved divination. On the other hand, had there been no prophecy, the result would have been the same, since Oedipus learned everything through his sophistic investigation.
Anyway, the reason our conversation made me think of this play was that I think I have found the difference between us. I believe we both want truth. We just have different default ways of obtaining it. My default method is my religion. If I hear reason that specifically contradicts something I know from my religion, I don't change my mind about my religion. Instead, I automatically look for a flaw in the reasoning. On the other hand, your default method is reason. If you hear religion that specifically contradicts something you know from your reasoning, you don't change your mind about the reasoning. Instead, you automatically look for a flaw in the religion.
For me, neither epistemology has ever had to be the right one. I have found that science and my religion do not contradict each other. I admit I used to be confused when they seemed to collide, but I just continued on in faith. And it has ALWAYS turned out that they coincide. In fact, the more I learn of one, the more I come to appreciate the other, and vice versa.
As for how I know how I know. Well, I don't really know how I know. How does anyone know anything? He perceives it. He is... aware of it. It is something about which he is absolutely certain or sure. How does a child know his mum loves him? Some parents tell their children so. But how could he possibly know if she's telling the truth? Actions maybe? Perhaps she shows her love. But some parents are not consistent in showing affection. Besides, how would he know it's genuine? Still, a child can know his parent's love, even though there is no way he could actually prove it to the rest of the world to the point of absolute certainty.
Anyhow, this is way too long for a comment box, so I'll start a new blog and direct you to it. Thanks for reading.
C.A.W.
Oedipus the King, if you haven't heard of it, is a Greek tragedy by Sophocles. I have enjoyed it both times I've read it, though it is most certainly tragic.
In the play, sophistic and mantic philosophies are contrasted by showing the final result of the play in prophecy and then putting together the unlikely puzzle logically throughout the play to show the same result. Oedipus's wife (and mother – hence the term “Oedipus complex”) represents the sophistic point of view, while Tiresias, a blind prophet, represents the mantic side. Both epistemologies are effective in showing the truth, but certain characters in the play will not believe the one until the other proves true. For example, although he fears the oracle which would make him so abominable, Oedipus still seeks to prove it wrong. His wife is even more skeptic, believing such oracles to be nonsense, not to be heeded, – believing it right up until the hour of her suicide. Creon, however, puts all his trust in the prophecies of oracles and seers, and even recommends Tiresias to Oedipus as his most trusted prophet.
In the end, though, both the prophecies of the gods and the reasoning of man draw the same conclusion. And those involved realize the mistake of denying one in favor of the other. Oedipus thought he had escaped his foretold destiny, but instead, he had stumbled right in it.
The play seems not to prefer one view over the other. It does show how painful it was for Oedipus's family when they disbelieved divination. On the other hand, had there been no prophecy, the result would have been the same, since Oedipus learned everything through his sophistic investigation.
Anyway, the reason our conversation made me think of this play was that I think I have found the difference between us. I believe we both want truth. We just have different default ways of obtaining it. My default method is my religion. If I hear reason that specifically contradicts something I know from my religion, I don't change my mind about my religion. Instead, I automatically look for a flaw in the reasoning. On the other hand, your default method is reason. If you hear religion that specifically contradicts something you know from your reasoning, you don't change your mind about the reasoning. Instead, you automatically look for a flaw in the religion.
For me, neither epistemology has ever had to be the right one. I have found that science and my religion do not contradict each other. I admit I used to be confused when they seemed to collide, but I just continued on in faith. And it has ALWAYS turned out that they coincide. In fact, the more I learn of one, the more I come to appreciate the other, and vice versa.
As for how I know how I know. Well, I don't really know how I know. How does anyone know anything? He perceives it. He is... aware of it. It is something about which he is absolutely certain or sure. How does a child know his mum loves him? Some parents tell their children so. But how could he possibly know if she's telling the truth? Actions maybe? Perhaps she shows her love. But some parents are not consistent in showing affection. Besides, how would he know it's genuine? Still, a child can know his parent's love, even though there is no way he could actually prove it to the rest of the world to the point of absolute certainty.
Anyhow, this is way too long for a comment box, so I'll start a new blog and direct you to it. Thanks for reading.
C.A.W.
Third Comment on C.A.'s Blog
C.A.,
I was going to keep up the conversation in the comment boxes, but this latest “comment” was much too long. So I have started a new blog and posted it there. Here’s the link:
http://caconversations.blogspot.com
C.A.W.
I was going to keep up the conversation in the comment boxes, but this latest “comment” was much too long. So I have started a new blog and posted it there. Here’s the link:
http://caconversations.blogspot.com
C.A.W.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Second Comment on C.A.'s Blog
C.A.
I guess I'm back. I'm glad you are always interested in opinions, and I'd love to have a conversation. Then again, I feel like the comments box is not the right place to do it, but I don't really know how this is supposed to work. I don't particularly want to cut your blogs into pieces and respond to each piece in my own post, like you did with Bill's. That seems a bit too presumptuous on my part, and not nearly genuine enough. Besides, I feel as if, no matter what I could ever say, you would not take it the way I would hope.
I wish there were some way to say it without sounding completely insincere or, worse, self-righteous. Would I sound too over-the-top in saying that I don't even consider my "religion" an opinion or even belief anymore? I KNOW it is true. Not only that, I know that my organized church is just as true as its gospel. Of course I also know I don't have all the answers, not even close. Fortunately I believe in faith. And the more I trust in what I do know, the more I come to know, and the more my faith turns into knowledge.
Have you ever read "Oedipus Rex?"
C.A.W.
I guess I'm back. I'm glad you are always interested in opinions, and I'd love to have a conversation. Then again, I feel like the comments box is not the right place to do it, but I don't really know how this is supposed to work. I don't particularly want to cut your blogs into pieces and respond to each piece in my own post, like you did with Bill's. That seems a bit too presumptuous on my part, and not nearly genuine enough. Besides, I feel as if, no matter what I could ever say, you would not take it the way I would hope.
I wish there were some way to say it without sounding completely insincere or, worse, self-righteous. Would I sound too over-the-top in saying that I don't even consider my "religion" an opinion or even belief anymore? I KNOW it is true. Not only that, I know that my organized church is just as true as its gospel. Of course I also know I don't have all the answers, not even close. Fortunately I believe in faith. And the more I trust in what I do know, the more I come to know, and the more my faith turns into knowledge.
Have you ever read "Oedipus Rex?"
C.A.W.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
First Comment on C.A.'s Blog
C.A.
I happened on your blog almost by chance. I was reading my sister’s blog, and, not really knowing what it would do, clicked “next blog,” which took me to a random blog – “Bill’s Thoughts,” I think. There I read one of his posts and one of your comments on his post. From there I went to your blog. And honestly I’ve spent the most time here because, well, it was the most interesting for me to read.
Let me tell you straight out that I am... well, let’s just say I’m not atheist. I grew up in a non-atheist home and have always centered my life around the things I learned growing up. As of now, I am not very old, nor am I qualified to expound on Biblical doctrine. However, as I continued to read, it fascinated me to realize I had answers to many, if not all, of your rhetorical questions.
So, although I’m sure you are probably not interested in my thoughts/opinions/beliefs, I just wanted you to know that, while your blog has got to be a lot of fun for you to write, and while it is a lot of fun for me to read, it has affected my beliefs probably about as little as reading the Bible again has affected yours... not that that was your purpose. I just found it interesting that you and I can both be so certain of such opposite things.
C.A.W.
P.S. If you ever did want to discuss some of these things, I would be open to it! I’m just not so good with the blogging.
I happened on your blog almost by chance. I was reading my sister’s blog, and, not really knowing what it would do, clicked “next blog,” which took me to a random blog – “Bill’s Thoughts,” I think. There I read one of his posts and one of your comments on his post. From there I went to your blog. And honestly I’ve spent the most time here because, well, it was the most interesting for me to read.
Let me tell you straight out that I am... well, let’s just say I’m not atheist. I grew up in a non-atheist home and have always centered my life around the things I learned growing up. As of now, I am not very old, nor am I qualified to expound on Biblical doctrine. However, as I continued to read, it fascinated me to realize I had answers to many, if not all, of your rhetorical questions.
So, although I’m sure you are probably not interested in my thoughts/opinions/beliefs, I just wanted you to know that, while your blog has got to be a lot of fun for you to write, and while it is a lot of fun for me to read, it has affected my beliefs probably about as little as reading the Bible again has affected yours... not that that was your purpose. I just found it interesting that you and I can both be so certain of such opposite things.
C.A.W.
P.S. If you ever did want to discuss some of these things, I would be open to it! I’m just not so good with the blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)