At the age of 18 Leo Tolstoy dropped out of his university and lost his faith. He had been raised in an Eastern Orthodox home, but had never really believed what he had been taught about God. When he was 11 a friend came to his house and told him that they had discovered that everything that they had ever learned about God was an invention. When he and his brothers talked about it they discovered that it could be a possibility. This was the first major turning point for Leo Tolstoy.
His conversion occurred because religion simply seemed to thaw away with knowledge. When he gained new knowledge, religion seemed less and less important. Tolstoy figured that this was a very normal thing. He even says that religion begins to thaw away for most people as they get older. The wiser that Tolstoy became the less religious he became. That is why he turned away from religion.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Week 6 Post 4
Nicolas of Cusa believed that the wise man was a man of learned ignorance. His doctrine of learned ignorance says, a wise man, "is a man who has become aware of his ignorance regarding what the Divine Nature is and what the precise essence of any given finite thing is." Nicolas believed that the human mind was ignorant of God. That the human mind could never come to understand God because God was not a physical Being, but a spiritual one. Learned ignorance is knowing that one cannot understand God, or all of the reasons why God does the things that he does.
I believe that Nicolas was right. I think that there are certain things in this universe that will never be able to be explained, and I think that proves the existence of God. However, this is not a widely held idea by those in the field of science. Scientists believe that everything can be and eventually will be figured out. I personally believe and hope that there are things such as the human brain which will never be able to be solved.
I believe that Nicolas was right. I think that there are certain things in this universe that will never be able to be explained, and I think that proves the existence of God. However, this is not a widely held idea by those in the field of science. Scientists believe that everything can be and eventually will be figured out. I personally believe and hope that there are things such as the human brain which will never be able to be solved.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Week 6 Post 3
The Zahir was an interesting film. The Zahir is a being that can discretely place its image in the mind of the individual that views it. After that it can come back to haunt you forever. In this situation it was a coin. A coin with the markings of a few letters and the year 1929. It was given as change to the author and sure enough he was haunted by the image. He had to go to a psychiatrist and get professional in order to remove the image from his head. And finally the thing that worked was to think about it so much that it dulled the image.
I think this speaks to the idea that if you believe in something it can happen. If someone who had no idea what the Zahir was would not be haunted by the image. It has to do with belief. If you believe in God, then there are things that you might see that someone else will not. Beliefs can shape the consciousness.
I think this speaks to the idea that if you believe in something it can happen. If someone who had no idea what the Zahir was would not be haunted by the image. It has to do with belief. If you believe in God, then there are things that you might see that someone else will not. Beliefs can shape the consciousness.
Week 6 Post 2
The Cerebral Wave
This was a very interesting magazine. It was by far my favorite. I think it speaks to religious tolerance. It is about men in a coffee house who all have different beliefs. They begin to fight over who's god is the best and who has the best religion. In the end, it is a Confucius man who speaks up and tells the story of the sun. The idea is that no one god is any better than another, because it is ignorant to believe that one was better than another.
While I will always believe that my God is the one true God, I also believe in religious tolerance. I understand that there is no winning a religious debate. If I believe one thing and you believe another, that is an argument that cannot be won. It doesn't matter what two people are fighting, if they have different beliefs and they truly believe them, there is no persuading them to change. They will always think that you are wrong and they are right. Until there is physical proof that there is or is not a god, there will be no mass conversions.
This was a very interesting magazine. It was by far my favorite. I think it speaks to religious tolerance. It is about men in a coffee house who all have different beliefs. They begin to fight over who's god is the best and who has the best religion. In the end, it is a Confucius man who speaks up and tells the story of the sun. The idea is that no one god is any better than another, because it is ignorant to believe that one was better than another.
While I will always believe that my God is the one true God, I also believe in religious tolerance. I understand that there is no winning a religious debate. If I believe one thing and you believe another, that is an argument that cannot be won. It doesn't matter what two people are fighting, if they have different beliefs and they truly believe them, there is no persuading them to change. They will always think that you are wrong and they are right. Until there is physical proof that there is or is not a god, there will be no mass conversions.
Week 6 Post 1
Daniel Dennett fits the definition of being a "bright". The definition of a bright is in reference to somone who refuses to believe in supernatural explanations. This could be either Agnostics, or Atheists. When asked if Dennett would call himself an atheist he says that he feels atheists have a negative connotation. He says, "of course there is not a God, but so what?" What he means is that he does not believe that there is a God, but he does not make a big deal out of it.
Furthermore, Dennett goes on to say that he cannot prove that there is no god. The first reason for that is that no two people mean the same thing by "god". Some people believe that nature is a kind of god, and Dennett says that he believes in nature. The biggest problem with proving or disproving "god" is that no one believes the same thing about "god". There is no consensus for what god is or isn't. Everyone has their own definition. He also says that most people don't believe in god, they only believe in the belief that there is a god. All of these are reasons why he doesn't believe in God and therefore refers to himself as a bright.
Furthermore, Dennett goes on to say that he cannot prove that there is no god. The first reason for that is that no two people mean the same thing by "god". Some people believe that nature is a kind of god, and Dennett says that he believes in nature. The biggest problem with proving or disproving "god" is that no one believes the same thing about "god". There is no consensus for what god is or isn't. Everyone has their own definition. He also says that most people don't believe in god, they only believe in the belief that there is a god. All of these are reasons why he doesn't believe in God and therefore refers to himself as a bright.
Week 5 Post 5
Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence is that if we acted like we had to relive things over and over, we might live life a little differently. The myth says that what if a demon were to appear to you and tell you that you had to live your life over and over again countless times? Would you praise this demon, or would you go after him for this curse that he revealed to you? In other words, would you really want to live your life countless times?
I do not think that anyone of my age can successfully answer this question. I believe that to answer this question takes great wisdom. Life could suck for the first 25 years, and then you could meet the person of your dreams and have children and find true joy in life. Would that make the first 25 years worth it? My initial reaction was to say emphatically no. I do not want to live this life again, but it could be that with age I will find more happiness and the last 19 years could be worth it. It is also possible to go the opposite way. There are those that would embrace this with open arms. And yet twenty five years later they may think that the first 20 good years were not worth the last 25 bad ones. To respond to this takes great wisdom. Wisdom that only comes through experience.
I do not think that anyone of my age can successfully answer this question. I believe that to answer this question takes great wisdom. Life could suck for the first 25 years, and then you could meet the person of your dreams and have children and find true joy in life. Would that make the first 25 years worth it? My initial reaction was to say emphatically no. I do not want to live this life again, but it could be that with age I will find more happiness and the last 19 years could be worth it. It is also possible to go the opposite way. There are those that would embrace this with open arms. And yet twenty five years later they may think that the first 20 good years were not worth the last 25 bad ones. To respond to this takes great wisdom. Wisdom that only comes through experience.
Week 5 Post 4
The ironic theme in the movie Flame On is that we really don't know what our best and worst traits are. The narrator says, "We don't know what is our best or worst qualities, we simply know the varying reactions we get at different times. Including, our own reactions to it and our reactions can dramatically change over time. What could have been seen as a horrible sin at one time could be nothing but a past time at a different time.
The film uses the example of homosexuality. While it was viewed as horrible 150 years ago, it has now come to be more accepted. During ancient times, homosexuality was a common thing. It was not rare to find a tutor having a love affair with his student. In ancient Sparta, it was common for friends in battle to be lovers. There is a part of the movie 300 where two men are fighting back to back and killing off Persian after Persian, each one protecting the back of the other. In the real ancient Sparta, those two men were probably lovers. The video says that our education system is based on ideas put forth by Socrates, who was a homosexual. But the real purpose of this video is to show us how little we really know of ourselves. We do not know what our best and worst qualities are.
The film uses the example of homosexuality. While it was viewed as horrible 150 years ago, it has now come to be more accepted. During ancient times, homosexuality was a common thing. It was not rare to find a tutor having a love affair with his student. In ancient Sparta, it was common for friends in battle to be lovers. There is a part of the movie 300 where two men are fighting back to back and killing off Persian after Persian, each one protecting the back of the other. In the real ancient Sparta, those two men were probably lovers. The video says that our education system is based on ideas put forth by Socrates, who was a homosexual. But the real purpose of this video is to show us how little we really know of ourselves. We do not know what our best and worst qualities are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
