And before anyone hackles with this - remember, you want to know. I don't. Knowing won't bring me bread tomorrow. Neither will it help me treat others more fairly, or make society more just, nor yet improve the condition of my soul. But I do want to believe. Why? Well I find it to be a very beautiful story - as I said before, the most beautiful that can be told. It inspires me - it does improve the condition of my soul. And that's that. — Agustino

Wonder upon wonder! For once we agree!

That passage I quoted is very similar to a passage in the Meditations on the Tarot on page 212. I had assumed they were from the same source, but I think the version I quoted is an altered version of the original. I found it in on a blog called One Cosmos, an odd mixture of perennialism and conservativism, here. Actually, he claims to have 'paraphrased our Unknown Friend', so I think that solves the origin.

Yes when I googled it that is where I found it as well. Immediately prior to quoting the passage the author writes: "Let us place our hand on a copy of Sam Harris's The End of Faith, and solemnly affirm:" so in my cursory reading I mistakenly thought he was quoting Sam Harris.

The original passage in Meditations on the Tarot, though, is given, not as Thomberg's own philosophical view, but as his formulation of the philosophy underpinning science. Thomberg writes, immediately before the passage,

"What. therefore, are the dogmas of the scientific faith? The following is the scientific creed:"

I went back and starting reading that chapter of the book after our exchange yesterday, and then began to realise (with a sinking feeling) what an undertaking it would be to read that whole book, and why I had laid it aside. I think the book has to be read as a whole, and deeply reflected on, and I don't think I'm able to give it the attention it warrants at this point in time, I'm too busy dashing between various things to really absorb it.

I agree it would be a major undertaking to read the whole book, but I think much may be gained by reading and meditating upon the individual 'letters'. Was the book you already had in your possession that book, or the Hoellor book, by the way? If the latter, is it in any way comparable to the anonymous text?

Well that's a nice way of rationalizing being prejudiced, by saying that you don't believe a lack of bias is possible. I suppose you could rationalize any form of immorality in this way, by saying that you don't believe restraining from such an immoral act is possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's just a matter of whether it's a fact or not. It's a fact that a lack of bias isn't possible. I'm not going to adopt some position that's factually incorrect just because people like it better, or just because I'd prefer if the facts were different than they are.

So you're saying that you believe things which are incoherent, — Metaphysician Undercover

No, "I believe that x is incoherent" is different than "I believe x, which is incoherent." If you're going to go with the snobby/we-disagree-because-you're-inferior-to-me approach to criticizing my views, at least have a handle on basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

It's just a matter of whether it's a fact or not. It's a fact that a lack of bias isn't possible. — Terrapin Station

Sure, and it's a fact that no human being is morally perfect, but that doesn't prevent us from trying not to be immoral. You are simply rationalizing bad behaviour by claiming that it is a fact that no one is perfect. Why don't you just admit that you do not believe that being prejudiced is wrong, that you think it's good, and we should all try to be this way?

If you're going to go with the snobby/we-disagree-because-you're-inferior-to-me approach to criticizing my views, at least have a handle on basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills. — Terrapin Station

This is what you said:

I deem things absurd or nonsense when I believe that they're incoherent, basically. It's not at all the case that just in case I disagree with something, I think it's incoherent. But some things I believe are incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Clearly your last sentence says that you believe some incoherent things, not that some things believed by others, you believe to be incoherent. I suggest that you quit attacking my reading skills, and pay some attention to your own writing skills. If you didn't say what you meant to say, so that I misunderstood you, that's not my fault.

Sure, and it's a fact that no human being is morally perfect, — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no facts about what (objectively) counts as perfection.

Right, so we should all take you lead, try to be as biased as possible, and deem those beliefs which people hold, that are inconsistent with our own, as incoherent, absurd nonsense? Is this what you think philosophy is, determining which beliefs are inconsistent with yours, and designating them as incoherent? Myself, I'd rather try to understand why people believe what they believe, and adjust my own beliefs to establish consistency wherever possible.

Furthermore, to truly determine whether a belief is incoherent requires understanding the conceptual structure which the belief exists within, the thought process which produced the belief. It does not suffice to say that the belief "feels", or "seems" to be incoherent, simply because it is inconsistent with your own beliefs. This does not constitute incoherency. The conceptual structure within which the belief exists must be understood in order to designate the belief as coherent or not. The belief must be incoherent within the conceptual structure which it exists, not simply inconsistent with your own belief. That is why you cannot determine incoherency by how a work "feels" to you. That is simply an expression of prejudice.

Right, so we should all take you lead, try to be as biased as possible, and deem those beliefs which people hold, that are inconsistent with our own, as incoherent, absurd nonsense? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd suggest first following my lead by practicing reasonable reading comprehension and not forwarding straw man arguments. Want to give it a shot?

No, I'm not about to start making my philosophical decisions based on what "I feel is good". So you might well forget about that suggestion of following your lead.

Any evaluative assessment you make, so aesthetic, moral, etc. assessments, are made based on how you feel about things, so whether you want to do that or not, you can't help it insofar as you're engaging in those sorts of assessments.

No, I'm not about to start making my philosophical decisions based on what "I feel is good". — Metaphysician Undercover

It is probably the case that you do, in fact, make philosophical decisions based on what you feel is good. This isn't a bug in you, it's a feature of human beings. Emotion WILL affect how we think whether we like it or not.

We are not exactly slaves to our feelings; feelings can be overridden, but overriding a feeling means that we have to deal with the feeling, and even in dealing with what we think is an emotional distortion, our thinking may be further affected by emotion.

Emotions are part of the way we think. We can't separate them out. We just have to deal with them.

Any evaluative assessment you make, so aesthetic, moral, etc. assessments, are made based on how you feel about things, so whether you want to do that or not, you can't help it insofar as you're engaging in those sorts of assessments. — Terrapin Station

That's not true at all, we can make judgements by referring to principles, such as moral principles. And often the principles will send us in a direction which is contrary to how we feel, like when I want to do something, but know that I should do something else. Perhaps you make your evaluative assessments based on how you feel, I always try to take the time to find the proper principles to refer to. We're two different people. Speak for yourself, and don't try to tell me how I proceed in making evaluative assessments unless you have some justification for your assertions.

It is probably the case that you do, in fact, make philosophical decisions based on what you feel is good. This isn't a bug in you, it's a feature of human beings. Emotion WILL affect how we think whether we like it or not. — Bitter Crank

Sure, emotion always "affects" the way that we think. But this does not mean that decisions are based on what you feel. The base of something, and to affect something are two distinct things. So how I feel may affect my choice of principles to refer to in making a philosophical decision, but this does not mean that my decision is based on what I "feel is good". In fact, most philosophical decisions which I make require days of rumination, and this time period mitigates the fluctuations in thought caused by feelings. Avoiding haste in important decisions helps to reduce the affects of feelings so that I can determine the appropriate principles.

Emotions are part of the way we think. We can't separate them out. We just have to deal with them. — Bitter Crank

I don't have much difficulty dealing with emotions in respect to philosophical decisions. I take my time, and think things through. In some other situations, it is more difficult to deal with the emotions.

My only question is, during your lifetime at least, have you seen anyone raise from the dead after days of being dead?
If this world is the best a GOD could do, then he failed horribly. However considering we have free will it is not any GOD's fault that we live like we do today. We are the only responsible beings for what our planet is going through, our lives, our society.

However I cannot hide from the beauty of life and creation itself, and all the wonders it brings, and I will always be confident that there is something better then us that is responsible for all existence. We are a mere manifestation of the universe in the quest of aquiring experience that gets hold in the universal consciousness cup :)

The curent lives we live are our own projection of how we should live, after we followed the plan more or less. If you ain't happy who keeps you from being? Could it be .... you ? :)

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred? — saw038

Probably. We also don't know how much of the bible that was meant as stories to deliver a message, rather than accounts of something real. With thousands of revisions throughout history, it's like the telephone child's play, in which you whisper in the ear of one person and that person does the same to the next and so on and then the last person says the message. That, in book form is the bible and that means a lot of stuff has gone missing and got scrambled throughout it's history.

2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them? — saw038

There's nothing that suggests this or supports this.

Another interesting thing is that almost every single well known figure throughout history has numerous accounts of records about their existence, Jesus only has the bible. If we accept that the bible can't prove the validity of itself, since that's a form of fallacy, then the evidence of him even existing seems seriously lacking. Did he exist at all? If we can't use the bible to prove the bible, then there's nothing to prove he existed. What if the teachings were something by a group of people and to make it easier to communicate to others, it was combined into a story of one singular person. The resurrection might then not have been physical, but about the teachings, that some of the group died, but the teachings was resurrected and passed on.

But I can't see any rational things supporting his death and resurrection or even his existence in history. I think the bible is being taken way too literary and that gets in the way of actually knowing what happened during the time of Jesus.

I also think our calculation of time should be counted by the start of civilisation and not a person that may or may not have existed and probably never have been birthed, died or resurrected. This year is the 12018:th year of our civilisation, loosely calculated.

Emotions are part of the way we think. We can't separate them out. We just have to deal with them. — Bitter Crank

Sure, that's why we use logical thinking, deduction / induction and proper argumentation in order to reach conclusions that aren't influenced by our emotions. Same goes for science, which aren't relying on emotions. If people just say their opinions, then yes, they can't get passed their emotions, but philosophy has powerful dialectic tools for arguing passed emotional responses.

But if it is bs then this is blind.

If we accept that the bible can't prove the validity of itself, since that's a form of fallacy, — Christoffer

The problem with this argument is that the Bible is a collection of writings, not one single writing by one single person. When we collect together a number of different accounts of the same event, and they corroborate each other, it may be argued that they prove the validity of each other. Such proof can never be absolutely conclusive though, as is evident from conspiracy.

The problem with this argument is that the Bible is a collection of writings, not one single writing by one single person. When we collect together a number of different accounts of the same event, and they corroborate each other, it may be argued that they prove the validity of each other. Such proof can never be absolutely conclusive though, as is evident from conspiracy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since the bible has been revised many times, even in it's entirety, as well as changed according to the norms of the times in which it was changed, it cannot validate itself since it's corrupted by the process. There are no facts to back up the claims, like when we read about historical events that are documented and that can actually be backed up. Claims of somethings existence cannot be validated by merely saying that a lot of people wrote the same book and that proves that it's true.

It's too corruptible and there's not enough evidence beside it to be able to confirm anything. It also becomes a fallacy in that it presents premises that's assumed true in order to conclude that itself is true.

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred?

2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them? — saw038

False dichotomy. The NT provides a basis for inferring the development of Christian beliefs, including the belief in a "resurrection." The basis of the belief in the resurrection is almost certainly not a work of "literature" - but was the consequence of experiences by some of Jesus' followers after his death. The nature of those experiences is a subject of speculation. The fact that some of his committed followers believed Jesus had (in some vague way) conquered death does not serve as evidence that he actually did. A Christian is free to continue believing it, since it can't be disproven - but the data is woefully inadequate to make a compelling case for it having occurred.