divine inspiration

[louis]

Can somebody explain just what people mean when they
speak of "divine inspiration" ?
The phrase would suggest an individual expressing ideas
that he CLAIMS are not a product of his own mind but
were implanted there by "something else".
It seems to apply mostly to people who lived thousands
of years ago - when people make such claims TODAY, many other people assume they are mentaly disturbed.
Why not make a similar assumption about the people
who wrote in the Judeo-Christian Bible...?
Do believers know and use some sort of TEST ?
that would VERIFY such a claim- demonstrate that it contains accurate information that could not possibly
have been "figured out" by any part of a human mind ?
We all "know" a lot more than we think we know - much
of our knowledge is buried in our subconscious - especially
the stuff we prefer NOT to know.

Louis...

[I, Brian]

I don't believe there is a test - there is simply belief.

Religious belief usually requires some form of heirarchical acceptance of "revelation revealed" by someone "divinely inspired" - or similar. That acceptance comes from various cues, but the result is usually reduced to the simple concept of "faith".

A more personal spiritual outlook may come from personal experience of different processes of Divine Inspiration. I'll tell you straight I've had quite a few mind-bending ones.

Ideas as to what actual physiological process is occuring is a repeated them in speculative science - I think a particular current favourite is "temporal lobe epilepsy", which is a rather nasty claim, backed by "faith" in reductionism thinking - a reductionist thinking that absolutely must denigrate the process - and the person - experiencing it.


The logical problem is that even the experience of consciousness is not theoreticaly or physically understood. And without that even basic level of understanding, can can scientific method make any firm conclusion as to what constitutes the phenomenon of consciousness known as "divine inspiration"? The simple logical fact is that it cannot.

Good question, though.

[louis]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I don't believe there is a test - there is simply belief.

Religious belief usually requires some form of heirarchical acceptance of "revelation revealed" by someone "divinely inspired" - or similar. That acceptance comes from various cues, but the result is usually reduced to the simple concept of "faith".

A more personal spiritual outlook may come from personal experience of different processes of Divine Inspiration. I'll tell you straight I've had quite a few mind-
bending ones.

Ideas as to what actual physiological process is occuring is a repeated them in speculative science - I think a particular current favourite is "temporal lobe epilepsy", which is a rather nasty claim, backed by "faith" in reductionism thinking - a reductionist thinking that absolutely must denigrate the process - and the person - experiencing it.


The logical problem is that even the experience of consciousness is not theoreticaly or physically understood. And without that even basic level of understanding, can can scientific method make any firm conclusion as to what constitutes the phenomenon of consciousness known as "divine inspiration"? The simple logical fact is that it cannot.

Good question, though.

From Louis...

I can't find my way back to your question regarding
"divine will v.s. free will", but it is a subject I'd like to address.
When I consider the possibility of God, the FIRST thing
I want to know is: where does God stop and where do I
begin ? If God was here first, then it's obvious His will
and whims take precednce over all others.
Of course, my ego bristles at such a thought and I
want to draw a line and say: God should stay on his side of it and leave me in charge on my side !
Not very practical, I admit - especialy if my very existence
depends on staying on God's "good side".
But, as an human individual, I do instinctively desire
INDEPENDENCE from God. ( and I suspect such a desire
is the real root of Atheism - a natural resentment of any
authority beyond one's own will ).
" If there is no God, then I am God " .

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by louis

where does God stop and where do I
begin ?

Indeed - is there even a substantial division in the first place?

Originally Posted by louis

But, as an human individual, I do instinctively desire
INDEPENDENCE from God. ( and I suspect such a desire
is the real root of Atheism - a natural resentment of any
authority beyond one's own will ).
" If there is no God, then I am God " .

There's a surpisingly large breadth of argument in so few words - that's very interesting comment.

[Marsh]

My opinion on the divine nature of the Bible: it is not the book that makes the Bible divine, but the wisdom in the book. Jesus said that his sheep know his voice. Jesus came to us as the word of God, which is truth. I interpret what he said as those who seek truth (his sheep) know the truth when they hear it (his voice). The test for divine inspiration, in my mind, is simple: deep down, we all know the difference between truth and lies; anything that is truth is, in its very nature, divine.

[louis]

Originally Posted by Marsh

My opinion on the divine nature of the Bible: it is not the book that makes the Bible divine, but the wisdom in the book. Jesus said that his sheep know his voice. Jesus came to us as the word of God, which is truth. I interpret what he said as those who seek truth (his sheep) know the truth when they hear it (his voice). The test for divine inspiration, in my mind, is simple: deep down, we all know the difference between truth and lies; anything that is truth is, in its very nature, divine.

From Louis...

Do we really know the difference between truth and lies ?
Do we really "know" anything ?
Just how does the human mind distinguish "truth" from
many things that resemble truth, such as perception or
assumption.
Science has suggested many methods for making that
distinction but those methods often lead to conclusions
that some people DON'T LIKE.
Such as : maybe the MATERIAL world is really ALL there is.
That possibilty doesn't bother me, but it seems to send
some people into a panic. It's as if they want to run and
hide behind a smokescreen made up of things they WANT
to be true - things they NEED TO THINK are true.
Is that what you meant when you referred to "lies" ?

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by louis

From Louis...

Do we really know the difference between truth and lies ?
Do we really "know" anything ?
Just how does the human mind distinguish "truth" from
many things that resemble truth, such as perception or
assumption.
Science has suggested many methods for making that
distinction but those methods often lead to conclusions
that some people DON'T LIKE.
Such as : maybe the MATERIAL world is really ALL there is.
That possibilty doesn't bother me, but it seems to send
some people into a panic. It's as if they want to run and
hide behind a smokescreen made up of things they WANT
to be true - things they NEED TO THINK are true.
Is that what you meant when you referred to "lies" ?

Not necessarily. By lies, I mean anything that is not truth, and by truth I mean anything that can be trusted all of the time. True wisdom can be trusted all of the time; otherwise it is not wisdom, but folly.

Can people distinguish truth? Certainly-- but as you've said many people would rather substitute their hopes for truth. But my position is, deep down, the person who has substituted truth for their hopes knows that they have done so, but is simply unwilling to accept it.

For example, people who believe that there is no spirit world, and that the natural world is all that exists have substituted what they believe for what can be trusted. Science does not better job of explaining the origins of life than any religion has done of explaining the origin of God, and hence life.

Yes, people hide behind religion because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is no God. In the same way, people hide behind science because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is a God (i.e. to face consequences for one's actions in life). To believe in a religion for the sake of hoping there is a God, just like believing in a religion for the sake of hoping there is no God, is indeed to live a lie. Where is the trust in either of these examples?

So how does my mind discern the truth? It seeks to understand things, and then questions those things, and doesn't stop questioning them because the moment that something proves to be unreliable even one time, it proves itself not to be true. JS Mill said that absurd ideas eventually destroy themselves. I believe the same is true for lies: once apparent, and subsequently avoided, all that's left is the truth. But yes, as you've said, it must then be accepted, no matter if it's what one expected it to be or not.

[louis]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I don't believe there is a test - there is simply belief.

Religious belief usually requires some form of heirarchical acceptance of "revelation revealed" by someone "divinely inspired" - or similar. That acceptance comes from various cues, but the result is usually reduced to the simple concept of "faith".

A more personal spiritual outlook may come from personal experience of different processes of Divine Inspiration. I'll tell you straight I've had quite a few mind-bending ones.

Ideas as to what actual physiological process is occuring is a repeated them in speculative science - I think a particular current favourite is "temporal lobe epilepsy", which is a rather nasty claim, backed by "faith" in reductionism thinking - a reductionist thinking that absolutely must denigrate the process - and the person - experiencing it.


The logical problem is that even the experience of consciousness is not theoreticaly or physically understood. And without that even basic level of understanding, can can scientific method make any firm conclusion as to what constitutes the phenomenon of consciousness known as "divine inspiration"? The simple logical fact is that it cannot.

Good question, though.

From Louis...

I'm not familiar with the term "reductionist". Does it
mean listening to something expressed in figurative
language - which makes it necessary to reduce it to
clear, un-adorned information in order to comprehend
it's meaning ? If so, that's me through and through.
I always have trouble understanding the terminology
used by believers.
Perhaps you could post a glossary ???

[I, Brian]

A reductionist point of view would see a human being perhaps as either just a bunch of cells, or else nothing more than an organised collection of atoms.

Although technically correct, it absotely refuses to address issues of consciousness - excepting by some vague dismissal that our own thoughts and ideas are nothing more than illusionary processes.

The problem is the fact there is no argument involved in this dismissal, other than that our thoughts and ideas cannot be directly quantified (ie, measured in amount), therefore they cannot be addressed or described in a theoretical manner.

[louis]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

A reductionist point of view would see a human being perhaps as either just a bunch of cells, or else nothing more than an organised collection of atoms.

Although technically correct, it absotely refuses to address issues of consciousness - excepting by some vague dismissal that our own thoughts and ideas are nothing more than illusionary processes.

The problem is the fact there is no argument involved in this dismissal, other than that our thoughts and ideas cannot be directly quantified (ie, measured in amount), therefore they cannot be addressed or described in a theoretical manner.

From Louis...
"Nothing more than illusionary" ....
Yes, that IS what I arrive at when I apply only RATIONAL
thought to the question "What am I ?" - as if my body
were like a drycell battery and my mind were like the
electricity produced by its chemical transfer process.
And when the process is complete (when my body dies), no more electricty will be produced (my mind will no
longer exist ).
Of course my EGO recoils from that idea ! Like most
humans, I am a VAIN creature - puffed up with notions
of my own significance to the universe. Some humans
think of themselves as apprentice "Gods" - can't wait
to join the original and help him run the universe.
Never mind that our existence is small and fleeting and we live on a mediocre planet on the outer edge of an average galaxy.

[I, Brian]

The trouble is, the Reductionist approach is neither rational nor logical. The logical approach would acknowledge that, with so many unknowns about the nature of consciousness, we can therefore make no absolute statements on the nature of human existence.

[louis]

For example, people who believe that there is no spirit world, and that the natural world is all that exists have substituted what they believe for what can be trusted. Science does no better job of explaining the origins of life than any religion has done of explaining the origin of God, and hence life.

From Louis....

"TRUST" ... I hear that word so often in connection with
religeous belief ! According to my understanding, it means
"to take a chance" - to make a choice in a situation where
one has insufficient data on which to base that choice.
Trust is always BLIND - as opposed to CONFIDENCE, which
is based on at least PARTIAL knowledge.
For example, "Science" DOES do a better job of explaining
things because it is always based only on FACT.
Determining what is true is not a matter of being ABLE TO
TRUST things - it's a matter of figuring out which things
are WORTH TRUSTING !

[I, Brian]

Ah, but science is so often based on interpretation of information, and thereby lies the flaw. At some point, with every major question on life and our place in it, we have to take a leap of faith of some kind and accept an interpretation from some authority beyond ourselves. We accept or reject that authority according to our own personal biases and beliefs, which in themselves are formed through our own life experience.

So on every major question of importance, some chance must be taken. After all, science has certainly not managed to adequately address any the key philosophical questions that ancient philosphers postulated - we merely have difference ways of phrasing those questions. We may say that the universe started as a Big Bang, but what was the Big Bang, and how did it form, and how did it proceed? These answers are actually mysteries.

Science is driven by theory and speculation - what most people outside science completely fail to appreciate is just how dynamic scientific theories actually are. There are literally dozens of scientifically valid theories on the fundamental structure of the universe. Outside of science, you will maybe hear some basic ideas of the most popular one. Too often the masses take that as a cue of scientific consensus, when in fact there actually is none.

And there is no facts in science - merely possibilities. And if it cannot be measured, then there can be no scientific statement on the matter.

[samabudhi]

Yes, people hide behind religion because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is no God. In the same way, people hide behind science because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is a God (i.e. to face consequences for one's actions in life).

I don't agree. I followed science and was an 'cynic' for a period of my life, but I have never thought of it as 'hiding'. The path of science is a search for the truth. It's just a bit one sided that's all.
The whole idea of being an atheist/scientist/reductionist is that you only believe what is proved. If God is not proved, then there is literally no fear of God. How can you fear something you don't believe in. It's like children watching TV. They are easily frightened because they believe what is being shown to be real, but we know better. We know it's fake, and when we realise that, the feal disappears.

The problem for atheists etc is the fear of the unknown, not God. God is a known quantity which has been examined and found wanting in too many departments to be taken seriously by atheists etc. The unknown is what brings a chill down one's spine.

You see, reality is infinite. Infinite sizes, distances, speeds, times, quantities etc. The scientists approach is empirical, and as such, he is not able to comprehend the true nature of things. Back when the Greek mathematicians were all the rage, they left out 0 and infinity, because it didn't fit in with their perfect rational world. But now, mathematicians have to battle with impossible concepts and solve unsolvable equations. I was reading a New Scientist or Scientific American magazine which had an article on numbers bigger than infinity. It said that the chief mathematician who spear-headed the project ended up having a nervous breakdown. You'll notice that anyone who deals with the absolute, with the...is it right brain?... too much, like accountants and computer geeks have a noticable maladaption to the world, like they're living in 2 dimensions when the rest of us are in 3.
I'm babbling, next topic...

A reductionist point of view would see a human being perhaps as either just a bunch of cells, or else nothing more than an organised collection of atoms.

Although technically correct, it absotely refuses to address issues of consciousness - excepting by some vague dismissal that our own thoughts and ideas are nothing more than illusionary processes.

The problem is the fact there is no argument involved in this dismissal, other than that our thoughts and ideas cannot be directly quantified (ie, measured in amount), therefore they cannot be addressed or described in a theoretical manner.

You know, the Buddhist approach is that of a reductionist.

What we know is like from 20-30 on a number line. The number line is infinite. The reductionist adds to the number line: 31,19,32,18, but he won't accept 40 until he has 39. This is fine. Perfectly logical and nothing wrong with it. Because really, what is the point of 40, if it is not connected to the other numbers that we already know. What's the point of God if it cannot be explained by the accepted numbers we use from day to day, ie science. What's the point of teaching a 6 year old calculus. Waste of time.
The limitation is not accepting that there is the possibility of 40 existing, that God exists, that calculus makes sense.

The Buddha analysed things in the reductionist way, but he didn't limit himself to what is observed. In India the trend was to examine the observer. This is more important. We are the observer, and so our efforts should be around understanding ourselves. Only that way, we can be sure of things and be happy.

If you ask a scientist why they do what they do, they'd probably say, 'Cause I'm good at it and it makes me happy.' The reason they continue in their endeavour, whether it is futile or not, is to be happy. I mean, who really cares what the hell is going on. We just want to be happy right? So we dive into different areas of investigation. The scientist thinks knowing about the material world is important. The western psychologist thinks knowing about thought processes is important. The philosopher thinks knowing about the way principles work, since principles are the forces of the material world. They are in fact, more definite than the materials themselves and they apply not only to materials. The religious man, like primitive man (no offense intended), sees things that are out of one's explanation, and resorts to 'divine inspiration' in an attempt to satisfy the burning curiosity and constant fear. They all are trying to fill a gap with understanding through whichever channel it may be. They are all trying in vain, because as long as they do not address the root of the problem, they will not succeed in filling the bottomless pit with the results of their explanations (which are impossible to prove absolutely.)

The problem is the bottomless pit in the first place. It is ignorance. It is defining and dividing things. It is the cause of all our suffering.
The Buddha used the reductionist approach to arrive at the understanding of 'sunyata', which is very roughly translated as relativity and infinity.
He looked up and saw no end to his sight. He listened forward and found no end to his hearing. We know of infinity because we know of finity.

In short, the reductionist point of view is fine, and it is required in everyday life, but one should never think that this is all. Always remember that there are things we don't know. And also, soften your approach to reductionism, because then you CAN accept that there are things that you don't know. If you make your life about knowing s**t, then you'll find it harder and harder to accept that there are things you don't know, which is obvious. Its the scientist/psychologist/philosophy/religioso who are afronted most when you criticise their insights. An artist can much easilier admit defeat.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

God is a known quantity which has been examined and found wanting in too many departments to be taken seriously by atheists etc.

God is very much an unknown - and unquanitifiable quantity. Atheists I encounter generally make a point of being highly critical of Christian theology. There's a big difference between criticising a single religious perspective on Divinity, than a wider perspective of what Divinity is in the first place.