Yeah. He isn't grounded in anything really. He disavows religion of any sort and yet has a meditation app that puts faith in a practice that is supposed to bring one to a deeper sense of self-realization and thereby mitigate suffering. Faith in a practice isn't faith in a god, but it is belief in a particular interpretation of an experience that can be neither proven nor disproven. That puts it in the realm of an article of faith. By my estimation human beings are always living out of some kind of faith because I also believe that we are never entirely in contact with reality, some more than others, but none of us have a grip on it. Given this existential obstacle one can just deny their religious nature and bungle along blindly, one can wrestle with it and try to understand it or one can embrace an ancient religion as a kind of sextant to the stars along their path of life. We never escape or outgrow the need for what the enlightenment evolved into denying us, a source of knowledge and comfort that comes from beyond us. So I appreciate your article.
Yeah. He isn't grounded in anything really. He disavows religion of any sort and yet has a meditation app that puts faith in a practice that is supposed to bring one to a deeper sense of self-realization and thereby mitigate suffering. Faith in a practice isn't faith in a god, but it is belief in a particular interpretation of an experience that can be neither proven nor disproven. That puts it in the realm of an article of faith. By my estimation human beings are always living out of some kind of faith because I also believe that we are never entirely in contact with reality, some more than others, but none of us have a grip on it. Given this existential obstacle one can just deny their religious nature and bungle along blindly, one can wrestle with it and try to understand it or one can embrace an ancient religion as a kind of sextant to the stars along their path of life. We never escape or outgrow the need for what the enlightenment evolved into denying us, a source of knowledge and comfort that comes from beyond us. So I appreciate your article.
That's the whole point, none of us are omnipotent, therefore none of us have a handle on 100% objectivity. So, the Golden rule gives us a process instead of some objective ouhgt that doesn't exist outside of human imagination.
Christians have solid grounding, based in evidence, that an objective standard exists and is accessible. We have an “ought” based in the Lordship and character of Christ.
What you basically said is “there’s a subjective standard out there that someone can choose or not”
Why should anyone care about your opinion? is the question - where is the “ought”?
What do you think about the golden rule? Isn't that the missing variable? The reason the golden rule is so valuable is because it doesn't rely on modeling but instead functions independently to reground the model. It seems pretty simple to me, what is good is a function of what is good for the observer. It is using subjectivity to drive morality instead of using externally fixed rules. What am I missing?
Why should the golden rule be applicable? What grounds that in something objective? What if I don’t want to treat others as I treat myself? Where is the *ought*?
Yeah. He isn't grounded in anything really. He disavows religion of any sort and yet has a meditation app that puts faith in a practice that is supposed to bring one to a deeper sense of self-realization and thereby mitigate suffering. Faith in a practice isn't faith in a god, but it is belief in a particular interpretation of an experience that can be neither proven nor disproven. That puts it in the realm of an article of faith. By my estimation human beings are always living out of some kind of faith because I also believe that we are never entirely in contact with reality, some more than others, but none of us have a grip on it. Given this existential obstacle one can just deny their religious nature and bungle along blindly, one can wrestle with it and try to understand it or one can embrace an ancient religion as a kind of sextant to the stars along their path of life. We never escape or outgrow the need for what the enlightenment evolved into denying us, a source of knowledge and comfort that comes from beyond us. So I appreciate your article.
Yeah. He isn't grounded in anything really. He disavows religion of any sort and yet has a meditation app that puts faith in a practice that is supposed to bring one to a deeper sense of self-realization and thereby mitigate suffering. Faith in a practice isn't faith in a god, but it is belief in a particular interpretation of an experience that can be neither proven nor disproven. That puts it in the realm of an article of faith. By my estimation human beings are always living out of some kind of faith because I also believe that we are never entirely in contact with reality, some more than others, but none of us have a grip on it. Given this existential obstacle one can just deny their religious nature and bungle along blindly, one can wrestle with it and try to understand it or one can embrace an ancient religion as a kind of sextant to the stars along their path of life. We never escape or outgrow the need for what the enlightenment evolved into denying us, a source of knowledge and comfort that comes from beyond us. So I appreciate your article.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was a discussion about superstition.
That's the whole point, none of us are omnipotent, therefore none of us have a handle on 100% objectivity. So, the Golden rule gives us a process instead of some objective ouhgt that doesn't exist outside of human imagination.
Christians have solid grounding, based in evidence, that an objective standard exists and is accessible. We have an “ought” based in the Lordship and character of Christ.
What you basically said is “there’s a subjective standard out there that someone can choose or not”
Why should anyone care about your opinion? is the question - where is the “ought”?
What do you think about the golden rule? Isn't that the missing variable? The reason the golden rule is so valuable is because it doesn't rely on modeling but instead functions independently to reground the model. It seems pretty simple to me, what is good is a function of what is good for the observer. It is using subjectivity to drive morality instead of using externally fixed rules. What am I missing?
Why should the golden rule be applicable? What grounds that in something objective? What if I don’t want to treat others as I treat myself? Where is the *ought*?