On Not Defining the Divine (a case for Ignosticism)
This started as a response to the "Three kinds of atheisms" thread, but went somewhat off the topic.
[i][From Wikipedia:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.][/i]
Now, that's a general outline of it. Personally, i don't take an absolutist view on it. I enjoy a good discussion about spiritual matters. Can be quite enlightening. Though a large part of the philosophical problem of religious claims may be their literalism and absolutism, imho. The "Two Truths" doctrine of Buddhism posits that there are two levels of reality or truth: the relative/provisional; and the absolute/ultimate. (One could substitute Plato's Ideals and get nearly the same result.) As I understand the theory, the two levels are not completely separate and unconnected. But let's just say in general that 99.9% of our time and our reality is spent firmly planted in the relative realm. So defining the Divine is problematic to say the least. (I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction.)
There is nothing necessarily anti-religion or anti-spiritual in this approach. I continue to respect and study the wisdom traditions. There is more in them than one person could probably ever need or understand. But like countless others, i seek to limit the downside of having spiritual or religious beliefs. Just look the news for endless examples. I roughly divide the whole of religious beliefs into two broad general categories: the devotional/personal and the Ontological/Theological. Which are not dissimilar from the earlier mentioned relative/absolute distinction.
As i see it, the devotional mode is very permissive and open. It is a personal experiential mode, and has much to do with feelings, aesthetics, therapies, and an overall spiritual balance. If a person has had an inner experience, and chooses to interpret it in a certain way, who is anyone else to say otherwise? If one doesn't cross into making absolute statements about the nature of Reality, then there is nothing to quarrel with. Of course, qualities like honesty, humility, clear-thinking, diligence, etc. will be extremely valuable to one's spiritual growth and overall maturity. If they decide to share their experiences (a risky endeavor), they would be wise to chose an understanding listener.
The Ontological is where it goes beyond the personal, and it gets legalistic in some ways. Making broad Theological declarations is not necessarily against the philosophical "law", but it is subject to it. Or at least subject to intense scrutiny and skepticism. This is not necessarily as negative as it sounds. A rough comparison would be the fact that everyone may have an opinion about the US Constitution, for example. But (thankfully) not everyone can change the US Constitution at will.
It seems that to make definitive declarations about the Supreme Being(s) presents potential problems on several sides. One is the lack of reverence/heresy risk. This is from the aspect of the believer relative to other believers. It may be difficult to grasp in our Twitterverse, but at one time the Divine Name was too sacred to even be spoken, or was spoken only in very special circumstances. One holdover is the prohibition against using the "Lord's name" in vain. (Although to me, g-o-d never seemed like an actual name because it was kind of general. More like a title or description. But i digress). One also risks being branded a heretic if their proclamations about the Creator are not "kosher".
And on the other end, concerning people that aren't practicing the same beliefs, Theological claims face an even tougher crowd: science, logic, competing religions, atheism, and psychologists both professional and amateur doubting your mental competence.
With all these obstacles, it might seem unlikely that a potential religious visionary would open their mouth at all. But of course, the TV, internet, and bookstores are bursting with helpful people trying to tell us the exact nature of the Creator, the wonderful realm in which they dwell, and what exactly one must do to one day bask in the divine glory. And not just from the mainstream religions either. New Age writers are even more verbose about the details of the Divine. You would think they get paid every time they use the big "G" word. Most of them may be well-intentiond, and some may even know what they are talking about. And if i tried to debunk them (no small task) i would risk violating the proposed admonition against defining the undefinable. But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. Free speech is definitely a treasure. But what to with all the competing and contradictory claims. Maybe they all have at least a grain of truth in them. Who is to say for sure? Maybe we could regard the Divine the way the Earth circles the Sun at a safe and respectful distance.
Thank you for reading and for your consideration. Please let me know of any feedback you may have.
[i][From Wikipedia:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.][/i]
Now, that's a general outline of it. Personally, i don't take an absolutist view on it. I enjoy a good discussion about spiritual matters. Can be quite enlightening. Though a large part of the philosophical problem of religious claims may be their literalism and absolutism, imho. The "Two Truths" doctrine of Buddhism posits that there are two levels of reality or truth: the relative/provisional; and the absolute/ultimate. (One could substitute Plato's Ideals and get nearly the same result.) As I understand the theory, the two levels are not completely separate and unconnected. But let's just say in general that 99.9% of our time and our reality is spent firmly planted in the relative realm. So defining the Divine is problematic to say the least. (I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction.)
There is nothing necessarily anti-religion or anti-spiritual in this approach. I continue to respect and study the wisdom traditions. There is more in them than one person could probably ever need or understand. But like countless others, i seek to limit the downside of having spiritual or religious beliefs. Just look the news for endless examples. I roughly divide the whole of religious beliefs into two broad general categories: the devotional/personal and the Ontological/Theological. Which are not dissimilar from the earlier mentioned relative/absolute distinction.
As i see it, the devotional mode is very permissive and open. It is a personal experiential mode, and has much to do with feelings, aesthetics, therapies, and an overall spiritual balance. If a person has had an inner experience, and chooses to interpret it in a certain way, who is anyone else to say otherwise? If one doesn't cross into making absolute statements about the nature of Reality, then there is nothing to quarrel with. Of course, qualities like honesty, humility, clear-thinking, diligence, etc. will be extremely valuable to one's spiritual growth and overall maturity. If they decide to share their experiences (a risky endeavor), they would be wise to chose an understanding listener.
The Ontological is where it goes beyond the personal, and it gets legalistic in some ways. Making broad Theological declarations is not necessarily against the philosophical "law", but it is subject to it. Or at least subject to intense scrutiny and skepticism. This is not necessarily as negative as it sounds. A rough comparison would be the fact that everyone may have an opinion about the US Constitution, for example. But (thankfully) not everyone can change the US Constitution at will.
It seems that to make definitive declarations about the Supreme Being(s) presents potential problems on several sides. One is the lack of reverence/heresy risk. This is from the aspect of the believer relative to other believers. It may be difficult to grasp in our Twitterverse, but at one time the Divine Name was too sacred to even be spoken, or was spoken only in very special circumstances. One holdover is the prohibition against using the "Lord's name" in vain. (Although to me, g-o-d never seemed like an actual name because it was kind of general. More like a title or description. But i digress). One also risks being branded a heretic if their proclamations about the Creator are not "kosher".
And on the other end, concerning people that aren't practicing the same beliefs, Theological claims face an even tougher crowd: science, logic, competing religions, atheism, and psychologists both professional and amateur doubting your mental competence.
With all these obstacles, it might seem unlikely that a potential religious visionary would open their mouth at all. But of course, the TV, internet, and bookstores are bursting with helpful people trying to tell us the exact nature of the Creator, the wonderful realm in which they dwell, and what exactly one must do to one day bask in the divine glory. And not just from the mainstream religions either. New Age writers are even more verbose about the details of the Divine. You would think they get paid every time they use the big "G" word. Most of them may be well-intentiond, and some may even know what they are talking about. And if i tried to debunk them (no small task) i would risk violating the proposed admonition against defining the undefinable. But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. Free speech is definitely a treasure. But what to with all the competing and contradictory claims. Maybe they all have at least a grain of truth in them. Who is to say for sure? Maybe we could regard the Divine the way the Earth circles the Sun at a safe and respectful distance.
Thank you for reading and for your consideration. Please let me know of any feedback you may have.
Comments (131)
I do too, and I think this is the point of departure for me. I agree that a spiritual experience is a deeply personal matter, and that what you call the "ontological" can get legalistic, or what I would call dogmatic. But I don't think this problem means we can't try to at least describe the divine, if not define. I almost think the emphasis on spiritual experience being subjective and personal can become a way to avoid having debates on spiritual topics that actually interface with those experiences (rather than just analyze them). In other words, it seems to be a common approach of those who haven't had any spiritual experiences; emphasize the personal nature of the experience so as to avoid the topic or tacitly dismiss it. Which is fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but I think insisting on the personal nature of the experience can ultimately lead to an idealism that robs the experience of value. Experiences, even personal ones, have value within a social context. "Keep your religion to yourself", while well intentioned, isn't actually how spiritual experiences play out in real life. It's a pesky fact, but it's true.
In fact, most open discussions I've had with people, on or offline about spiritual experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, and usually leave me more with a feeling of solidarity, rather than disagreement, even if they come from different perspectives of faith, or lack thereof. But these are spiritual discussions, not philosophical ones. It makes me wonder what types of discussions are actually worth having.
Quoting 0 thru 9
The problem is that spirit is "living", in the sense that it's closer to the chest than analysis. A spiritual experience is often something that seems to not be bound by linear time, and, by definition then, also extremely fleeting. We would think something that breaks linear time would feel "timeless", which we associate with "eternity", or something being endless, but the reality is that by the very nature of our experience of time, anything that challenges our perception of time (within experience) is by nature something fleeting. This often leads us to question the validity of the experience, especially with skeptics on the right and the left.
So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life.
Of course, I post in the threads, but because this board is so friggin slow with new topics. If I want to post I'll talk about what people are bringing up, but I'd much rather talk about just about anything else other than religion, and I'd never bring religion up if other people weren't talking about it.
Anyway, re time, which is something I'm much more interested in, it's identical to change on my view, so it's incoherent to say that one can have a timeless experience. To have an experience you must be aware of or think this, then that, etc., and those are changes, that is time.
Lol! Yes, there have been a number of recent threads on religious beliefs or the lack thereof. This started as a response to one, but mutated. Maybe it is because of what has going on with world events. Anyway, this point of view has been creeping up on me for a while, and it was helpful to just get it down on paper. And what I wrote in the OP could apply to non-spiritual and purely philosophical experiences, thoughts, and statements. But that could be taken for a given. Philosophy ideally has a rigor, a method of critique that is difficult to apply to spiritual statements. Not that i wish to play at being censor or thought police. Just hope that it could facilitate those type of discussions so they don't end in an impasse. I might edit to make it clearer. Anyway, thanks!
Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. :) I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. And i agree with much of what you say here. Dogmatism as you suggest is a good word to describe the hazard. Certainty is attractive, maybe it is even a human need. I think we need a core belief(s) to build on, or at least to refer to. And i tried to emphasize that i value experiences of a spiritual and/or religious nature. Definitely not intentionally dismissing, denying, or downgrading them. Many people have had enlightenment-type meditation events or near-death experiences. I am in no professional position to judge those, nor do i necessarily agree with those that say that it is all the result of neurotransmitters or something. And like it is suggested in the OP... who am i to say with any certainty that someone's experience either is or is not meaningful, transcendent, supernatural, or even miraculous? Entirely possible, and i'm secretly hoping for it to be true, or at the very least possible. After the experience, what to make of it? Maybe one could visualize a little Zen master saying "you just had a powerful spiritual experience? I believe you. Thank you for telling me. (bows) Best now to continue with your meditation." At least this type of thinking seems to help me integrate the "spiritual realm" with the rest of my life and being. YMMV. The work of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Carolyn Myss, Ken Wilber, Thomas Moore (Care of the Soul), and others, has been most helpful personally. And transpersonally (hee hee).
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain.
In the OP, i made mention that boldly defining the ultimate reality is a risky venture, and could possibly border on irreverence when expressed in religious terms. When expressed in philosophical terms even, it risks miscalculation, exaggeration, and potentially hubris. This could all be unintended. An objective and fair critique by a knowledgeable other may possibly be helpful. They may have relevant insight, or perhaps not. They may be simply trying to "tear down one's playhouse" (so to speak). Or instead, they may be acting like a female bird, pulling and tugging at the nest that the male bird has built. Not in wanton destruction, but to verify its usefulness as a nest. (If that is a relevant metaphor). This being a forum dedicated to philosophy, that is to be expected. Spirituality/religious themes may not be on their "home court", but have something to offer the discussion, imho.
Hoping there is some sense in my 2 cents worth. (Y)
I think this statement gets to the heart of the matter. It begs the question of why we are on the ice. It seems the human intellect has a preoccupation with the divine. Whether you are for – against – or just don’t care; is not the point. The point is why do we think about it at all? We think about it because we are insecure. Then we formulate and/or adhere to a formulation that addresses our insecurity. Well, why are we insecure? We are insecure, quite simply, because we do not know very much. What we do know is being bombarded by questions and accusations from every quarter. We even question ourselves – constantly – or we reassure ourselves - constantly. Hence, we are insecure by nature, circumstance, conditioning and disposition. The human intellect seems jittery or nervous about many things.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think this is a very fine point – well taken. Even if you are an atheist, you have expended a lot of energy developing an “anti-theology” to defend how you feel. The time and energy is very revealing. Is there anybody who never thinks about God – pro or con? I do not know, I have not run across such a person. The human intellect is consumed with organizing, classifying and defining itself – to itself – and then to others. We want to know who we are – and we don’t. Then, when we get a sense that we don’t know what we are telling ourselves is valid – we begin a dialog with others in an attempt to convince ourselves. Isn’t this what I am doing right now?
Quoting Terrapin Station
It seems you spend a lot of time and energy on something that you have little interest in?
Quoting 0 thru 9
No one wants to be homeless. We all seek shelter from the "storms" of life. The weather is constantly changing, just like our thoughts. We build intellectual edifices to shelter us from our own thought storms. Isn’t that why we are here now - talking?
I explain this in the post you're responding to:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Obviously I want to post. I enjoy philosophy discussions on the Internet. I just keep hoping that (a) we could be more (inter)active, and (b) we could talk about a much wider variety of topics.
I guess I am confused. You say you want to talk philosophy and yet you come into a discussion about Ignosticism and say you don’t want to talk about it. Are there not enough other subjects that you can dance with? You also have the prerogative to start another thread on anything you wish. Do you want to censor our discussion of Ignosticism? Or do you want to change the focus to “talk about a much wider variety of topics”? I have broadened the focus some on the idea of insecurity as it relates to God – human beings – life. Are you being insecure? Why do you think we talk about God too much?
I think about time a lot too. Do you really think it's identical to change? If we were totally indifferent to change, would time still elapse?
There's no reason for you to be confused. I explained everything you need to know already.
Yes.
And re your other question, I'm not primarily saying something about us.
A great video clip!
OK - what are you saying?
Quoting Terrapin Station
I guess I missed something - can you explain what it was?
Re what he asked me about, that time is identical to change.
I had to reread your first post in this thread to get a sense of what you are talking about - my bad. I think time and change go hand in hand; but the question arises - what is time - where does it come from? Who, what, when caused time – where does it come from? This seems like an ontological question. If it is ontological; are we not talking about God again? So, perhaps you do have an interest in God?
What is time? It is change.
Where does it come from? The fact that things aren't static. There's no reason to believe that something caused that in my opinion. It's just the way things are. It's a brute fact about the world.
If you'r comments about time are in reference to what I said about time in relation to spiritual experience, note that I was referring to our experience of time.
Okay, but re our experience, you can't have an experience that doesn't involve change. That doesn't really make any sense.
I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. Where is change happening for you? Physically? Metaphysically? Within space-time? Within experience?
You'd have to describe that in some detail in order for there to be any hope of it making sense to me. If you're saying that you even mentally got "stuck" so that there was just one thought (or one part of one thought) on "pause" say, how would it be an experience? You wouldn't be aware of it happening. Because A is happening and the next thing you know something else, B is happening. It seems the only way for it to make sense is if it seems like all sorts of other things went on "pause" but your thoughts continued to flow. However, that is change.
On my view, everything extant is physical, but that's not necessary for the view of time I'm forwarding.
Ok – time is change – no argument from me. It just is, the universe just is – is your argument that we should not ask why it is? In philosophy we ask incessantly – why? Or sometimes we ask – why not? Are you trying to say we should not ask why time exists? Or why things change? We always seem to be plagued with questions of ontology. I like the questions – I like the dance. The questions and answers give us pause and sometimes enrichment. The original thread is about Ignosticism. To quote:
“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.”
I think we should add your idea about time and change to this mix. However, Ignosticism insists that “any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.” And I would add and/or – explanation. So we are trying to explain or define a theology and/or anti-theology. So we are back to talking about God or anti-God.
I have had this experience too - I call it a still mind.
Not at all. It's just that I don't buy that there is necessarily a cause for everything. I don't think there's any good reason to believe that.
The part you're not saying anything about is the interesting part - the extent to which time is something about us. To me, that's more or less the distinction between time and change. Time is a specific category of change; changes we notice. How this mechanism of 'noticing' works, its thresholds, its limitations in either direction, seems like the key to understanding, and perhaps manipulating, time's "speed".
Why wouldn't changes we don't notice be time too?
I think that is a fair assessment, because most of the universe exists independent of our knowledge of how it got here. However, I think it is incumbent upon us to ask as much as we are able – and to continue to ask.
I find this to be a very good inquiry.
But again, I mean independent of us. Imagine we don't exist at all. I don't think it's the case that everything necessarily has a cause in that situation.
I find this “image” to be beyond my ability. Unless you mean something like what Noble Dust and I were talking about a still mind – outside of time. We don’t know about a lot of things and we certainly know nothing about – “nothing”.
I think words are whatever we want them to be insofar as they facilitate effective idea sharing. So, I don't like time=change because I find it limiting and maybe a touch disingenuous. Both words are useful, which hints that they aren't totally redundant. For example, how do you deal with the phrase/concept 'change over time'?
I don't know why that would be, unless you're conflating what you know about with how you know it.
It's simply change A relative to change B
Sure, which supports my position that time is a specific type of change. Squares are rectangles, but squares and rectangles aren't the same thing.
Anyway, you said you were interested in time. Would it have meant the same thing (to you) if you said you were interested in change? What is it about change that's interesting. I don't want to get too caught up in semantics, I just want to know more about the part you find interesting.
What? How?
Quoting Roke
Yes, since the two are identical on my view. This is a view I've been developing for decades, by the way.
I'm interested in ontology in general.
I don’t think it is a conflation because I can think about my thinking. Or I can think about not thinking which would be to me – not thinking. Not thinking is a still mind, however I am aware. I am conscious. I am aware of not having thoughts. I just am. I have never experienced – not being – or at least I am not aware of it. Perhaps I have been at some time in my life, but I am not aware of it. By definition it seems I should not be able to be aware of nothing.
I think if time were simply change, neither of us would be as interested in it as we are. Indeed, you've given a remarkably uninteresting account of it. Fair enough. If you'd like to elaborate, I'd like to consider. I think the concept includes something extra that is inextricably to do with us.
?? I don't think we're at all talking about the same thing. You can know about things that aren't you. That's not the same as how you know about them.
Time by itself does not seem to have awareness. However change implies a perceiver – a watcher.
Well, people get stumped by it, but what it is is really simple (namely, change). That the realization of that might make time uninteresting to folks isn't time's fault. ;-)
No, change is just things in motion/in process, etc. That would obtain whether there were any creatures to do any observing or not.
Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.
I know when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it – the tree still falls. However when I think of change in my life – it is things I observe.
You can know about something like a rock, say,. The rock isn't you. How you know about it--your perception, etc., isn't the same thing as what you know about (the rock.).
Yeah, when you think about change in your life, but don't be so self-centered. Not everything is about you, or about people in general.
Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.
From whose perspective do you want me to think from? Yours – the rock. I cannot get out of my skin. This is the only place I have to think.
As Thinker mentioned, the experience of a still mind, for instance. Meditation can lead to a state of perceived, momentary changelesness. Awareness and thinking are different states. They can overlap, or not.
Another way that time and change interact is through perception of time, like I've been saying. The more aware we are of the passage of time, the slower our perception of it; the less aware we are of the passage of time, the faster our perepction. You can think of spiritual experiences as an acceleration of that faster perception, to the point of indistinguishability.
Also, you haven't answered me this question:
Quoting Noble Dust
At which point my eyes simply roll.
The issue is the subject matter, not the perspective.
How would you know that you're in a state of changelessness? You couldn't be aware of it without it no longer obtaining.
So tell me about the tree falling in the forest that nobody knows about? What is the significance of this tree?
Why "that no one knows about"?
The tree is symbolic of the vast number of things happening in the universe of which we are unaware. Things that change over time which in relation to us is almost everything. What is the significance of these changes that we are not aware of ?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
I missed your question? My bad - I thought I was replying to Terrapin Station. Please answer both because I am not sure where we are going?
I have to walk my dog...............
Speaking anecdotally, I find that most people tend to employ the word God, whether in ordinary conversation or even in an academic setting, as if it were utterly translucent in meaning. If one were to ask the average person today to define the word "God," certain patterns to their answers might emerge, but one would still be left with as many vague, obscure, and possibly bizarre definitions as there were people whom one asked. As for the patterns that do tend to emerge when people are formally polled, sociologists have summarized them as amounting to a kind of moralistic therapeutic deism, which has very little to do with classical conceptions of God.
I now tend to view ignosticism more as a method than a fixed position with respect to all "God-talk." In other words, it's an invitation to employ and encourage Voltaire's famous dictum to define one's terms before a debate. It might be that some definitions of God are incoherent, but it doesn't follow that because some of them are incoherent, or that because those one has hitherto come across are incoherent, that they are all incoherent. Moreover, it could be that the charge of incoherency is made to hide an unwillingness or inability to try and understand certain conceptions presented. Difficulty of understanding does not equate to incoherence. Take Schopenhauer on this point, for example. Outside of reading a bit of Augustine and selections from Francisco Suarez, he never made any serious attempt to acquaint himself with the philosopher-theologians associated with classical theism of the ancient and medieval periods. It's one thing to dismiss the muddled beliefs of the masses with respect to God but quite another to ignore how the most philosophically sophisticated theists have conceived of the term, all the while pretending that one's exasperation about the term's apparent meaninglessness applies to all attempts that have been made to explain it.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I don't find that these terms are any more helpful or less vague than the term God.
What does talking about something that no one knows about have to do with what I was talking about though?
I had answered that, but I guess it wasn't clear that it was an answer. I said, "On my view, everything extant is physical, but that's not necessary for the view of time I'm forwarding." So change occurs physically (which is also a metaphysical truth about it--ontology being metaphysics). Changes occur in experience, too, of course, and experience is physical as well.
Ok – I am done having the dog walk me………….
I like the moniker of Noble Dust. It seems like a person that calls itself a small being in relation to the universe, but noble. However, I think of our entire planet as Noble Dust in relation to everything else – and noble - just a thought.
Time, by itself does not have volition or so most of us think. Change that happens coincidentally with time does not have volition – presumably for most change. Both are just things that happen everywhere. However, change which happens in relation to us may have volition connected with it. It is connected through our perception and/or initiation of action. So, change is a multidimensional thing. However time is still just time or so it seems.
However, what if change and time are initiated by God? Then our understanding becomes a bit more complex. Change and time are very handy phenomenon’s that have been placed in play. I don’t think we can definitively answer whether change and time are initiated by God or not. The puzzle, though, still remains before us. So, as philosophers what are we to do? I think the best rule of thumb is to work from what we know.
Did my dog walk me or vice versa? It is a matter of perspective – is it not? When I say - “do you want to go for a walk?” My dog says – ruff – ruff and wags her tail. I imagine she is thinking – “Oh, I going to take this guy on a long hard walk”. I get the leash and off we go, both of us content we are leading the adventure. I think both of us are right. Our phenomenology may be different, but both are valid respectively. My dog has great consciousness and intelligence – many times greater than mine. Should I lecture my dog that there is no God or that there is a God? What’s the point? I know I love my dog and that she loves me – I don’t care if she believes in God or not.
The answer to your dilemma is simple: don't post on the threads you are not interested in. Look for threads, here or elsewhere, that you are interested in, but if you can't find threads you are interested in, then either change your interests or stop posting. In any case, stop whinging.
What is the context for that comment? Was someone saying that change has volition?
I probably do what I do because that's what I want to do.
Ok that clarifies it, I see how that makes sense from a physicalist position. That wasnt clear to me before. I disagree, but it makes sense.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Knowledge in what way? Something like meditation is a direct, primary form of experience that's ontologically before analysis. The way to have knowledge about it is to experience it. We can analyze our experience after the fact, but in this context analysis without prior experience is ontologically fallacious.
Good! It's a lot better than doing what you don't want to do; and then there's also no cause for complaint.
First that we are defining the real gods of our own creation (which are all the real gods there are) and
second, that we are informed and think carefully about these gods
Such gods that we did not make up, can not see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or know anything about--those gods are entirely beyond our reach.
You want the Aged Patriarch? Hairy thunderer? Cosmic muffin? Take your pick -- but make it consistent.
The reason the real, made up gods can be discussed and understood is that they are our own creation, and the reason we need to be informed and think carefully is that our made up gods have significant flaws. For instance, a god described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is not really understandable. We made it up, but we can't understand our own creation. The god that is all good but allows evil to occur is another problematic matter. Why would an all good god allow truly appalling evil to exist? That is just another example of how we have not worked through the logic of our own creation. What happened to god when he became incarnate in Jesus? Did he leave heaven? Did some of him leave heaven? Did he stay in heaven? But then, how could he be Jesus here and god in heaven at the same time?
These problems can be resolved to our satisfaction if we have the nerve to stand up and say, "This doesn't make sense!" Clarify god as you wish, then prepare to be crucified.
As for the other gods -- the ones we know nothing about and didn't create -- I agree with you 100%. There is nothing we can say about them because we know nothing about them.
You can want to complain, obviously.
Knowledge by acquaintance, not propositional knowledge.
If you're familiar with Shoemaker's "Time Without Change" paper you'd have the same dilemma as inhabitants of Shoemaker's fictional world when a freeze occurs.
The description I made of meditation could pretty well be described as knowledge of acquaintance. An experience of momentary changlessness, then, fits within that.
I'm not familiar.
Time without Change
The section I'm talking about starts on the page marked 369. The paragraph begins with the word "Consider"
There's a difference between doing what you want and doing everything you want. ;)
I find this to be a pretty bold statement. I will tell you how God is clarified to me. God sets the stage for the universe. First and foremost it does not consult me. I am not sure if it has any buddies and/or friends. It does not communicate to me its existence directly. However, I intuit a very nicely formed universe. Things are very nicely and well put together – too well for it to be a coincidence. A nice planet, atmosphere, shinning sun, plenty of water – although it is getting a little foul in places and we are running out of fish that we want to eat. Is the water and fish God’s fault? No – anyway, in addition, we have this great facility called consciousness. Very convenient to have consciousness - and - to go along with it we have another great facility called emotion. Emotion seems to give us a degree of freedom to choose. Most things around us constrain our choices, but emotions allow a degree of choice. The greatest of emotions is of course love. What would be the point of living without love? My clarification of God is that all these things – given – are not coincidence. There is a divine hand – somewhere. I tell you – after I have had a prolonged still mind – I feel the presence of God. Can I prove God exists – NO – but I can feel it. I am now ready to be crucified.
I'm at work on my phone, I'll read through it when i can. This is pretty tangential to the op topic, though.
How many universes have you experienced? Only one? Same here. Of course it's "nicely and well put together", but not too well or not too nice for it to be a coincidence. It just is what it is, and as long as we feel good, it seems nice. When we get sick and start to die, however, it is the same universe but then we experience more of its features--like dying and death.
Quoting Thinker
Quoting Thinker
I like consciousness and emotion -- great stuff, they are. But many animals aside from us animals have emotions, and a few (so very few) have consciousness. Were it a blessing, wouldn't it be more broadly distributed?
Quoting Thinker
I have no desire to rattle the stillness of your mind. If you feel the presence of god after stilling your mind for a prolonged period of time, fine. But it could be that the presence you feel is the consequence of a thoroughly and deeply stilled mind.
Quoting Thinker
You are not!
For one thing, you haven't stated anything that is likely to get you crucified -- not around here, anyway. You have to threaten the powers that be, to start with, you know -- shake the foundations. And make people very uncomfortable. Plus you need more than the average charisma.
BTW, what do you think happened to god in the incarnation?
Meno asked Socrates if virtue can be taught and Socrates asked Meno 'what is virtue' then Meno asked Socrates, if you don't know what something is how do you expect to know it, even if you do stumble across it? Socrates did not like this argument, it stunned him as much as he had stunned Meno. Socrates then pulled a transcendental magic trick, the first instantization of an innate idea in history.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. You covered many aspects that I've been thinking about, but didn't get to in the OP. Such as your approach to ignosticism as a method more than a fixed position. Agree, good point. Because if it were simply another fixed position, it could turn into just be a belief wrestling match with others. A method, a tool of examination, now that is helpful! Just in my own mind, considering this or that belief, some way of even approaching spiritual or religious topics without feeling even more confused. And, as you mentioned, on internet forums it is almost a necessity to explain the terms one uses, and why. I still think attempts to pin down "G-d" are generally counterproductive. But if one can be transparent in their language, realistic in their ambitions, and ready for at least a little skepticism, then perhaps the subject can be carefully broached. Perhaps not unlike the fact that deep sea diving is possible, for example. But only with certain conditions and equipment. All of this is fine-print opinion of course. I definitely would not wish to impinge on someone's right to free speech or religious expression in the least.
About my use of "Divine, Source, etc"- lol! I know! I don't feel comfortable with any of them. I was actually trying to use somewhat vague terms that were still in the ballpark. The word "G-d" to some people might seem referential to a specific religious tradition. Or so it seems to me. Theory is still under construction. What do i know anyway? But one thing i know for sure... the first and second rules of Fight Club are: You Do Not. Talk. About. Fight Club! :D
If you are referring to Jesus - I don't think he knew more about God than other holy men. God does not talk to humans directly in my view - ever. All bibles are man-made. Most religion is not spirituality - it is a confidence game to get your allegiance and then your money. If you are spiritual you do not need a church or someone else’s thoughts to represent yours. Spirituality is an experience and can happen anywhere or time – to anyone. Anytime someone tells you they have talked to God – escape quietly – less they attack you with their delusional righteousness. God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? There are probably billions of other beings much more advanced than us. Do you think we are one of God’s favorites? People wish for heaven because they are not satisfied how they have lived this life. Heaven is here – now – don’t miss the boat. I don’t know much about God – what ethics and morals it has – I cannot say – other than to say I like the laws of physics. I know the ethics and morals of man – it is not always very pretty – many times sad.
Thanks!
Quoting 0 thru 9
For sure, I wasn't saying anything along those lines. I agree with your thoughts.
Were the earliest religions a scheme to get money? Sounds more like a description of a tendency seen in some forms of modern Christianity more than anything. Religion may require allegiance, but religion isn't an entity with motives like "get your allegiance" or "get your money". There is, maybe, a sort of hive or gang mentality; a lowest-common-denominator social pressure to conform. This is just the necessary tension between the subjective nature of a spiritual experience on the one hand, and the unity or "one-ness" that so many spiritual revelations call for or are imbued with, on the other. Spiritual revelation generally calls for something that brings people together, but the very attempt of those people to bring themselves together after the fact is what leads to the failures of religion. This tension never gets resolved, or hasn't yet been resolved within history. Per my own view, I don't see that as enough evidence to say that the divine doesn't communicate with humanity. I view the relationship as Divine-Human. This leads me to your comments here:
Quoting Thinker
Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existentialist/Christian/mystic/other Philosopher suggested that God has a need for man; the inverse of man's need for God. God's revelation to man is the first half of the equation; divine revelation by nature is existential; it involves a human subject: the recipient of revelation, and that's where the Divine-Human link exists. God's revelation to man needs to be consummated by man's revelation to God. Without getting too deep into Berdyaev's philosophy, my own interpretation is that everything, including spiritual experience, is what John would call intersubjective, because man's revelation to God is a revelation of human creativity which is generated by the divine; for instance, the "indwelling of the holy spirit". Man doesn't become God, but God is birthed through man. Man isn't deified by himself (as in the most literal or extreme versions of humanism or transhumanism), but rather God deifies man, and man deifies God; the one is interdependent upon the other. It's an expression of agape that sounds very heretical if you were raised in the church, for instance. But this idea doesn't set God and man at equal terms. The key here is that man needs to fully embrace the scope of his freedom; conceptions of God that categorize man as "unessisary" (because God has no need of man) are nihilistic because they literally eliminate man from the equation; God having no need for man renders life meaningless and human life valueless. Atheism is a more proper view than that view of God. If God exists, man must have a purpose, and if man has a purpose, then God has need of that purpose, and so God has a need for man. God's need for man is, then, expressed through man's potential to embrace freedom through creativity, because this is the existential act that fulfills the need for God to be "birthed" in man. That's the fulfillment of God's need for man. This is a view that's pretty deeply intertwined with a teleological view, which I know a lot of people here are not interested in.
When we talk about the earliest religions, I think we have to go back to the cave. What I mean is – why do we ask ourselves religious questions? We ask ourselves ontological questions because we are insecure. As soon as humans began to speak we asked questions of our origin. Also of importance is to recognize who asked the ontological questions? The first person to ask – where do we come from – set the stage for religion. The next person to answer that question was a sage – priest – shaman – philosopher. This is the earliest church and there was probably not any quid pro quo. The motivation to answer the question of how we got here, was, and is to calm our fears – reduce our jitters.
Ok, so back in the cave, who was the most important person? I would answer the biggest, strongest dude. He could protect and hunt the best; also he could kick your ass. Who was the second most important person? I would say the shaman because he could chase the boogeyman away. Over time these people really did become leaders with a privileged position in society. In time, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is where the quid pro quo comes in. It never seems to fail in the human experience – give a man an inch and he will take a mile.
I don’t think all religions are corrupt and I do believe religion has a function. The boogeyman still exists and we need a legislative body to propagate our morality and ethics. I think all people are philosophers, but only a very few actually realize that they are and then only a very few of those few – practice it. Most people are sheep and need a shepherd for their flock. That’s why churches persist and flourish. Even Russia and China have churches of a kind – the state and other institutions. Religion will never leave us – hopefully it will evolve.
Quoting Noble Dust
In the Jewish Mystic Kabbalah there is a concept that God is not perfect. It is the idea that we must help God to perfect the universe – Tikkun Olam. I have always liked this idea because it gives us a purpose/function. In the Abrahamic religions God talked to certain people. Who were these people? They were dessert sheep herders. Were their ideas very sophisticated? No, they were not and I doubt any of them talked to God. Did Joseph Smith of the Mormons talk to God? I don’t think so. Does God need a purpose? I don’t know – it is not responding to my emails – yet I am still hopeful. Who has the greater need here – Man or God?
Thanks BC for the insights. That added much to the discussion. (Y) Who said "G-d created Man in His image. Man returned the favor."? I googled it to no clear answer. Maybe Twain, GB Shaw, or possibly Rousseau, who lived first. Anyway, i get what you are saying about defining things are are totally beyond our reach, and i agree. It is not necessarily foolish, evil, wrong, misguided etc. to try. But one best not fool themself.
One can imagine prehistoric people's conception of what the moon was. What was probably more critical and important to our ancestors was something along the lines of "what does Miss Moon (or whatever name they had for it!) mean. What is she saying? Why isn't she so large and bright tonight? Probably they completely anthropomorphized the moon and projected their thoughts onto it. But if such practices balanced their lives and culture, then who could object? (In this imagined scenario where I'm projecting my thoughts!). There is truth vs untruth, fact vs fiction. But there is also "what works" vs "what doesn't work". The Taoist ideas of the uncarved block signifying pure potential may be relevant. What can we make of our block? One would be thought quite dull if they said a piece of wood can only be that, or a violin is no different than a block of wood. (btw, fwiw: That is the origin of the term "blockhead". I read it on Wackypedia! ;) or maybe not.)
I'm always hesitant about these reconstructions of what things were like within human consciousness (presumably) at the dawn of history (as opposed to pre-history). Consciousness "evolves" (that's a metaphor) in a way where we need to try to place ourselves in the state of consciousness that those people might have been in at the time, rather than to assume they were asking the same questions we ask now (where do we come from? etc). It's better to try to situate ourselves in their state of consciousness rather than to project backwards our own. But it's of course no less difficult, maybe more difficult. Studying language is probably the starting point. If we try to interpret mythology and ancient religions, we need to do it through the lens of how language was forming and shaping the reality that those people existed in, the same way that we can do that today (philology is a lost art, though).
Quoting Thinker
That being said, this seems reasonable.
Quoting Thinker
I don't see this as an important question, because I don't feel the need to question the hierarchy of God over man. When I talk about the deification of man by God, it's something akin to salvation, for instance. Just a way of explaining it that puts man in a higher position than just "lowly sinner saved by grace". There's some scripture about man being "a little lower than the angels". That's about where I see him, but Christianity as a whole, for instance, certainly doesn't see man there. It sees man one conscious decision away from burning in Hell eternally. That's more of what I'm getting at. So as far as who has a greater need of the other, that question is only important if you're questioning the hierarchy of beings here, and I feel no need to do so. The intensity of need could be equal for all I know, or something that doesn't even translate; need for God could mean something else than what need for man is, in the same way that two people in a relationship have different needs.
I agree it is hard to know exactly what our ancient ancestors were thinking. Although, we do have some great clues that speak to our ancient ancestors intentions. The biggest clues are burials. The earliest undisputed human burial dates back 100,000 years. In the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel - skeletal remains stained with red ochre were discovered and a variety of grave goods, including the mandible of a wild boar in the arms of one of the skeletons. Putting valuable objects and decorations speaks to a ritual. A ritual, especially in relation to the dead, speaks to a religion. We do not know specifically what the religion was; but these burials point to an after-life. 50 to 60 thousand years ago we begin to see art. Art tells us about abstract thought. It may be primitive, but it is a symbolic abstraction. If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life? Language is also starting in this same time frame. I have to think they are talking metaphysics.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think I posed this question the wrong way. It should be two separate questions. Does man need God? Does God need man? The answer to the first question is – absolutely. The answer to the second question is – maybe. Let’s assume for a moment that God created man as a kind of experiment. It wants to see if we can evolve into something worthy. It sets the stage, primes the pump and off we go into the wild blue yonder. Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. Do you think this scientist has just one experiment - us? Like Carl Sagan said – billions and billions – seems more like it. How important does that make us to God?
I do not think it is realistic or honest for humans to define God. I think we can speculate – hypothesize – imagine – but in the final analysis – we do not know. I think God is beyond our ken. I cannot take any religious bibles seriously. I find them insulting, disingenuous, fallacious and most importantly coercive.
First I don't think it makes sense to refer to something at all if you're not prepared to attempt to define it. You admit that we can "speculate-hypothesize-imagine"; it is obvious that we do not know (or at least know that we know), but do you allow that we are able to form more or less reasonable judgements concerning the quality of our various imaginings, speculations and hypotheses?
Even in saying that God is completely beyond our ken, you are claiming to know, or at least have good reason to believe, something about him. He might be beyond your ken, but how could you know that he is beyond the ken of others?
This is still a projection of how we see these concepts. Imagine you lived 50,000 years ago. Are you telling your neighbors, "we need to do this as a ritual! It's because I believe there's an afterlife!" Concepts like "ritual" and "afterlife" exist for us now because of the genealogy of these concepts, sifted through countless sub-disciplines like linguistics, philology, philosophy of religion, history of religion, archaeology, ad absurdum; all modern disciplines. These archaeological finds say as much about our own pre-conceived notions and our own perceptions as they do about the artifacts themselves. Think about it this way: what actually tells us more about the past: a knife we uncovered in the desert, or our study of the language used by the people who used the knife? Or, what kinds of things does the knife tell us, and what kinds of things does the language tell us?
Quoting Thinker
I would say abstract thought begins in Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. I don't think of art as being the birth of abstract thought. It's more like the birth of representational thought.
Quoting Thinker
I'm not sure what you mean.
Quoting Thinker
No they're not because the concept of metaphysics didn't exist.
Quoting Thinker
Why? If we're an experiment, why not say "fuck you, God"? I'd rather not exist than be God's pet experiment.
Quoting Thinker
..who?..
Hello. :) Thank you very much for your numerous contributions. I think you get the central idea of the original post, and your replies reflect that. Even though my OP may be perhaps a somewhat clumsy attempt to make sense of the sheer ocean of the words written about "ultimate realities", so to speak. I would think that most have their own methodology in doing so. Atheists might just toss everything that mentions a Divine source into the trash, or attack it relentlessly. A firm Catholic believer might read and accept only Church-approved doctrine. Others may be more eclectic, which is quite common owing to the "world at your fingertips" nature of the internet.
Even if I might question a particular wording of yours, such as your statement that Man needs G-d "absolutely" (and please feel free to exand on that), you seem to keep your statements open and flexible, imho. This to me is the welcome opposite of dogmatism, and to some it may seem watered-down or wavering. I would counter by suggesting that although humans often seek certain knowledge, "Dogma" of most varieties generally attracts the emotionally wounded, the less intellectually curious, and perhaps the careerist looking for converts/customers. And that is the brighter side of Dogma. During periods of upheaval (like now) it can become reactionary, simplistic, violent, and abandoning of any openness it previously had. That much seems clear. No openness at all equals no growth. No growth equals stagnation, which leads to decay and dissolution. Perhaps beliefs and ideas have a "circle of life" similar to living organisms, and have periods of growth, propagation, and eventual decline. That remains to be demonstrated. But who wants to build their house under an enormous rotting tree? It makes a house built on sand look like beachfront property.
I think we constantly do define God – we cannot help ourselves. In fact I believe we are neurotically obsessed with defining God – all of us. My point is that we need to observe ourselves doing it – and – realize how silly it is. I am not saying we should not do it – just be aware of our projection. For example – you refer to God as “him”. If God is omnipotent – don’t you think God can be a female? If I were God I would want to experience giving birth, death – moving around the Earth as a worm. Why not?
I know about God because I can feel it. I know about fire because I can feel it; but do I really know what fire is? I can talk about chemistry, physics and my experience; but there are limitations to my knowing. I can talk about you, John, but do I really know you? I think you are intelligent, respectful, inquisitive being, but I do not really know you. I am saying – know your limitations. I try to refer to God as “it”; however, I am sure I say “him” somewhere in my dialog. This is my cultural programing coming out. As a philosopher, I am trying to overcome my own limitations and try for a better grasp. I want a more satisfactory, comfortable knowing. This is the best I can do and be honest. If I am going to be true to myself – I must not bend my logic to fit a popular notion. I must be consistent, honest; even if it hurts – even if it is limiting. I want my ideas to go through the crucible of fire – I want the best steel of thought.
Quoting John
I think this is a very good point; one I do not disagree with. However, if someone tells me that Trump is a great president – I look at Trump and then I look at them. When I reconcile the two – things don’t add up for me. The same is true when someone tells me God is a certain way because of the bible. For example, I look at the bible and see things like the following:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I cannot take this thinking seriously – it sounds like Trump talking to me. There are a lot of great things in many bibles, but all of them have an abundance of not so great things. Am I supposed to cherry pick and ignore the fallacies and falsehoods? I cannot do that and be true to myself. I feel forced to conclude it is not a divine inspiration.
I feel the same way when the man on the street comes up to me and says – “God talked to me and told me the end is near”. Immediately I am on guard. People have an agenda like - David Koresh – Jim Jones – Muhammad – Jesus – me - and you. I feel obligated to take each person, including myself, on a case by case basis. In reality I have to take each statement I make on a case by case basis. I can never be certain that I am not bending the truth. If I am honest, and I want to be, I have seem myself change the facts to fit the fiction on more than one occasion.
My definitive explanation of what is God is beyond my ken. However, my definitive experience and feeling of God is not. I know fire exists and I will not be told otherwise – I feel the same way about God.
This is very true - that's what science does - project based upon data.
Quoting Noble Dust
If you look at the cave painting of half human - half animal - I would say this is abstract. There is a 40,000 year old sculpture in mammoth ivory, 6 feet tall, with a lion head and human body.
Quoting Noble Dust
If they are thinking about an after-life, there must be some conception of what happens before life begins.
Quoting Noble Dust
The idea of an after-life is a metaphysical thought.
Quoting Noble Dust
I am sorry you feel angry - that is not what I was hoping for.
I believe man is insecure from the moment of birth - to the moment of death. We walk with it everyday. It is a disability, but if you are aware of it - it can be an asset too. It is just the design of the beast.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I am just trying to be honest with myself - and - I do not always find it easy to do. I do not want to claim more intellectual territory than I can logically hold onto.
Of course. The beasts were the first gods. We spent like a million years following around predators and scavenging what they left behind.
I agree that no one knows what God is like. Characterizations of God are made on the basis of being metaphorical evocations, not of being literal descriptions. I would say.
Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions.
Yes, i would certainly agree with this. It is the whole "literal historical fact vs poetic deeper truth" conundrum that we all know so well. A fervent fan of Star Wars would look at me most puzzledly if i breathlessly informed them that their favorite movies in fact never historically happened and most certainly contains several elements that are physically impossible or plain illogical. Never even counting JarJar. They might take offense at my attempts to convert and baptize them as a new follower of Star Trek, which according to my passionate evangelical view, is at least theoretically possible. ;) Maybe a dose of Joseph Campbell's work would be sufficient to bring down the fever of literalism, while still treasuring the core of meaning.
Goofy example, and of course most religions are arguably (and hopefully) more nuanced than popular science fiction, and are based at least somewhat in historical time and fact. But the relationship between literal fact and spiritual meaning is roughly analogous to the relationship between a coffee pot and the coffee. The magic we seek is in the drink, as interesting as the details of the brewing process may be. I suspect the early defining history of the Christian Councils still affects us, both for good and for ill. A process of defining the young religion was perhaps inevitable, controversial as it remains. In transforming from the ruthless Roman Empire to the "Holy Roman Empire", one could expect some compromises to be made in determining what the officially sanctioned Christianity consisted of. It seems that the image of a shining immortal Apollo-like Christ was more palatable than one of a sermonizing proto-hippie healer of souls and bodies. Though the Emperor Constantine was most tolerant of different religions, not just of his adopted Christianity. (But i'm no historian.)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1242/do-you-want-god-to-exist/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/336/page/p1#OP
It is important to understand what we are dealing with in relation to bibles. They are the cultural and spiritual expressions of our ancestors. They speak to the truth as they understood it in their time. It is a bridge for us today to see what they were thinking. Humans are a fragile group clinging to our speck of dust in the vastness of space and time. Of course we need explanations to give us a sense of who we are. It is the job of philosophers today to interpret the past and combine it with what we know now; in order to create a picture of what tomorrow will be.
Who are the leaders of civilization? The answer is artists. Why because artists have the courage and vision to see what tomorrow will be. Artists see what is and what can be. It is a symbolic work and also an abstraction. A philosopher is an artist. A philosopher deals in the art of ideas – the basis of all art. It is important for ourselves to see the universe and explain it; but more importantly it is essential for civilization. Civilization depends upon philosophers for the road map of tomorrow.
I think Jesus was a genius. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment – he said:
Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
If you look at this statement it reveals a fundamental truth to me – in one concept. Love God – who is God? God is everything. Love your neighbor who is part of God and realize you are part of God too. The one concept is love everything because it is all God. This concept is the golden rule. End of story – I do not need to know anything else to live my life. Simple – follow the golden rule. What else do I need to know in any bible – nothing – absolutely nothing? Follow the principle of KISS – keep it simple stupid.
It is getting away from the principle of KISS that is getting us into trouble - now. Do you realize that we are in a crisis today that is unprecedented in human history? We are in an ideological battle that has never been as consequential as it is today. Yesterday in the US there were "March Against Sharia" rallies in 20 cities. This is a fight against the growing influence of Islam. Do you realize that Islam represents 25% of all human beings and growing? There were counter protests that were actually larger than the original. The following picture tells a story of more than a thousand words:
This picture shows the true face of Islam today. In the center is a woman holding a sign which says “My Sharia knows no hate”. Is this a true statement? No, Islam is exceedingly opposed to other religions. The woman is wearing a head scarf. What does this mean? It means men decide how women dress. Why? – Because women are considered sexual objects. Why? – Because Islam is equally a political movement as much as it is a religion. Controlling women sexually is why Islam is so successful and growing. The thing in this picture which is most disturbing is the other signs in support of this counter protest. The other Christians, Buddhists and/or whomever holding signs of support don’t realize they are cutting their own throats. Islam is here to take over – and – they are doing a good job.
The problem with Islam is Muhammad. Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer, slave dealer, illiterate psychopathic and morally bankrupt prophet with a sword? Muhammad is touted as the ideal man. The fact is he is quite the opposite.
It is our job, as philosopher, to bring the truth to light. We have a responsibility to civilization. When something is not right; we need to stand up and say so. We need to give an honest, clear vision of what is happening. Islam is taking over the entire world – this is not a joke – it is a fact. Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid in missing this point.
Wow. I don't say this lightly, but... WTF. Sorry to say to lost me when you started in on Islam. I understand the words you are using, but it comes across as angry insulting gibberish. A Muslim wouId consider a good deal of what you wrote vile blasphemy, not that you would care. In fact, those paragraphs seem to be a 180* turn with what you were saying in the first part concerning love, the Golden Rule, etc., which just makes it more bizarre. I don't even want to quote you because it seems so unnecessarily vicious, as well as being waaaaaay off-topic. When the discussion went off-topic before about the nature of time, I didn't mind because it was interesting at least. If this were another thread, I'd just ignore it. This is not "my" thread, but I started it so i hope you understand i feel somewhat responsible for it. I do not want to debate you on this matter. Please take this discussion to the Shoutbox if you want and see how it flies there. Start another thread, or find one of the several concerning Islam. But please not here. Good day.
So - you want to talk about these concepts of God - but not about Islam? Very interesting and open minded of you.
If you would like to somehow relate Islam to the topic at hand, that would be most welcome and could lead to a fascinating discussion. The topic of this particular thread is "A Case for Ignosticism". Sound good? Thanks!!! (L) (L) (L)
Definition according to Google:
“Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.”
The key words here are theological concept – clear definition – falsifiable. God is the theological concept. The tricky part is the clear definition. We were given many ideas that people related as a type of definition like - Time Without Change – changelessness - still mind - Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existentialist - uncarved block - Star Wars – anthropomorphized - scriptural passages – and a few others. There are pros and cons against all of them – so they meet the criteria of – falsifiable. The ignostic thesis is very strong in that it admonishes us to be careful in defining God. I think this is pointed out very well in another definition from Mr. Google:
“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.”
What I like about this definition of Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea – “assumes too much”. We do assume too much – all of us – both for and against the concept of God. What I think Ignosticism really says is that we are ignorant. So, what do we do – just go home and shut up? Well, I am already home and I don’t want to shut up. I want to struggle and try and know myself and others as well.
It is through talking with others that we can draw a picture of what we think. You, 0 thru 9, referred us to 2 threads that are great in talking about God. What I keep hearing in all the threads (including this one) is concepts like – communities – psychology – politics – ethics – morality – theology, etc. All these ideas play into our understanding (or not) of God. It is not a simple – single issue.
When we talk about biblical scripture it rings a bell for most people. Tempers can get hot on both sides of the aisle. I think we have seen evidence of that in this thread and others. For me biblical scripture is not the way I define God. I think Ignosticism agrees with me because it doesn’t or does meet the test of - falsifiable. However, great and worthy insight can be gained from the bible (Matthew 22:36-40).
The bibles of Islam speak volumes about God and falsifiable in relation to our discussion. We cannot take God and religion out of the cultural and political milieu in which it has developed. If we are really going to parse, understand Ignosticism in relation to God. We must be willing to go where the logic leads us. This is an interesting link which speaks to my point:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistan-man-given-death-penalty-infor-blaspheming-social-media-n770721
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation of your thinking process, much appreciated. Didn't mean to jump the gun, and get too sensitive. Sorry if the links i posted were distracting or gave a wrong impression. I think we can move ahead with this topic you have added much to. Your post just kind of surprised me is all, based on your previous posts. Everyone's entitled to their thoughts and opinion though. I'm not a moderator and don't want to be one, even though they make big money. ;)
Beyond this, I'm not going to bother responding at all to such unsubstantiated alarmist rubbish. Yeah, keep on keepin' it simplistic, stupid! :-}
When ones faith is called on the carpet people become defensive and many times hostile. I do understand why – things that we hold dear are called into question. Not an easy thing. However, we must have courage and try and prove our point. Not everyone has courage. Look above in this thread and you can see a few instances.
Yes, the thing is that for many who call themselves 'Christian' the belief that Jesus was the unique Son of God is central, and this would seem to necessarily distinguish Christianity from all other religions. Can Jesus' divinity be considered to be a "literal historical fact", though? What could that mean? That it was a fact that He was resurrected? Would that necessarily entail divinity?
On the other side, the idea of Jesus' divinity as mystic or poetic truth can be understood to symbolize the divinity of humanity. In this view we are all sons and daughters of God, we are God-as-Son, one part of the Trinity.
I believe that Jesus was a son of God – so am I a son of God. Neither of us is God in totality – we are men. We are parts of God – we don’t define creation – we are mostly defined by it - all human beings – past and present. I think Jesus was a great man – a genius, but most of all I think he was a man. I think a lot of what was said about him was fabrication, after the fact, in order to deify him. I do not think he would approve.
You're entitled to those opinions; though many Christians would not share them. However, Muslims would agree, they honour Jesus as a great prophet, but consider attribution of divinity to him to be blasphemous, so you are in fine company. >:O
Most Christians and Muslims are just sheep. They don’t know what they think – they wait to be told what to think. The reason is because most people are intellectual cowards. A sad state of affairs – unfortunately – one we continue to live with. The upshot of this circumstance is that Islam is very proactive in increasing its reach and dominion. It will not end well for any of us.
Doctrinal orthodoxies are built up over very long periods and under the influence of many great minds. Of course there is no guarantee that political influences are absent in any orthodoxy. Most adherents of a religion simply believe the orthodoxy of that religion; that is why they are called 'adherents'.
Sometimes it may be a matter of people being too stupid, lazy or afraid to think for themselves, but when you consider what degree of consensus has actually been gained by more than two millennia of speculative reasoning by the greatest, boldest minds, you can hardly blame many intelligent people for settling for received wisdom. People nowadays do that as much with science as they do with religion.
So, basically I think your attitude is an unwarranted, simplistic generalization, that probably arises more out of your own fears than it does out of any nuanced rational inquiry.
I do not think the Christian church has had the greatest minds. As a matter of fact the “church” has had the greatest negative effect on science, philosophy, education, social development, cosmology, art, music and on and on. The church is made up of intellectual bullies. The church oppresses the best minds throughout history. Even today stem cell research is hindered in the US because of the church. No abortion, no contraception. Let’s talk about the churches ideas on evolution. We are still living under the Scopes Monkey trials. I think somebodies view is simplistic.
The Via Negativa, also called Aphatic theology, seems not entirely dissimilar from Ignosticism. Plotinus, St. John of the Cross, and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing expressed this position. From Wikipedia:
[i]Via negativa or via negationis (Latin), "negative way" or "by way of denial".[1] The negative way forms a pair together with the kataphatic or positive way. According to Deirdre Carabine,
Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only.[web 2][/i]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology
And from the Tao Te Ching:
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
I agree and they still inspire us Like krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. However, the Holy Roman Inquisition lasted 1200 years and killed over 100 million people. Many in the most horrible way.
Where would we be now if we did not have the church? What advancement would we have made without it? Great institution and now we can look forward to Sharia law!
The problem I see is an overwhelming apathy. People do not look around and if they do – they do not care. It’s the idea that – my side of the world is not on fire. It is the philosopher’s job to stand up and be counted. It is our job to have courage – like Socrates. If we do not, we will all be lost and our side of the world will be on fire too.
I think this concept of sheep is misguided. It's such a common notion, but it's not grounded in reality. Imagine a world full of philosophers. It would be a world of total disagreement and intellectual chaos (just take the disagreement on this forum and magnify it to the size of the world population). The assumption here seems to be, classically, that if only the world weren't sheep and understood "the truth" (my worldview), things would be better off.
I don’t think we are in danger of a philosopher uprising. As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. What we are in danger of is less and less courage in society. People in the world, especially the US, have become so fat - literally and spiritually – they only see their own hedonistic needs and desires. That’s why we have Trump! The intellectually rigorous mind has always been a rare thing. Unfortunately, it will always be uncommon. Just because one deals in philosophy, does not necessarily mean one has courage. Many times it is the most elegant and suave thinkers who are spineless. I see a lot of sophist around here. Hedonism and apathy work hand in hand – don’t kid yourself – have courage.
If the third world is on fire, and ours soon will be, it has nothing to do with religion and could not be cured by philosophy. It is due to economic greed, exploitation and resource depletion and degradation, and of course, burning fossil fuels. Islam itself is mostly against globalization and the erosion of their traditional cultures and exploitation of the resources that goes with it.
I morn the decline of the humanities as well.
Quoting Thinker
At the risk of sounding too philosophical, courage is contextual. If you're not raised in a context where courage is required or exemplified, you won't have much courage. If you are, you will. So, "the greatest generation" lived in the reality of WWII. They had courage. But because of the context. If we live in a cowardly society, it's due largely to our context, and our context is due largely to the previous generations that have handed us the culture we've inherited. We shape it and morph it ourselves, but we do so within our context. I hate how liberal that sounds (I'm fairly apolitical), but I don't know how else to phrase it.
Quoting Thinker
And who's fault is this? You seem to suggest that it's the fault of those people. Is the uneducated McDonalds employee who eats a lot of that food and becomes fat (literally) and has no given source of spiritual sustenance (thus becoming spiritually fat) responsible? They're not responsible for their situation. As "enlightened" intellectuals, we like to say that all men have autonomy and can change their situation. But how true is that, on an every day scale? It's true on a philosophical scale, on an academic scale, but it's not true for humanity as a whole. Academic concepts trickle down into the lowest common denominator of culture at a slow pace that manages to rob the concepts of their content. Autonomy means nothing to the minimum-wage worker, and this is not the fault of the worker; in fact, there's no "fault" involved because there's no particular blame to lay; there's just two practically unconnected worlds; the academic arm-chair world, and the everyday minimum wage world. The arm-chair world preaches to the choir and makes admonishments about the minimum-wage world, and the minimum-wage world remains clueless because no real action occurs for their benefit. Autonomy requires education, it requires enlightenment (interpret that word however you want). And if we're talking metaphors (I have a tendency to be anal about metaphors), America isn't spiritually fat; we're spiritually malnourished.
Quoting Thinker
Again, this goes back to my comments about sheep. "Unfortunately"? Again you're implying that the world needs to be more intellectual. I disagree. The rare jewel of the intellectual mind bears itself out; the value of that mind is self-evident. It's value is to give, not to control. Like the Tao, it relinquishes control. Therein lies it's "power". True intellectual power is always self-abrogating. Anything else is a masquerade of power and charisma over others.
I'm unsure how your response is a response to my comments. That said, the world "being on fire" certainly does and would/will have religious influences.
The decline of philosophy, though, has more to do with philosophy itself. Disciplines run their course. Philology is no longer a discipline. Philosophy is a fading discipline. This has less to do with the world going to shit, and more to do with the changing landscape of human consciousness, regardless of whether or not you and I particularly like it.
Sorry about that, it was meant to be a response to Thinker's Post 41. I must clicked the wrong 'reply'.
All good.
It is not only the third world that is on fire. Europe is in crisis mode, with regard to Islam, as well as the US; although not as much as Europe. Islam is a behemoth, 25% of all people of the Earth. Islam is everywhere and a chameleon, a shape shifter – it changes its tactics as need be – but – it moves forward relentlessly. It uses guile and deceit and most importantly the apathy of thinkers to move its ugly agenda on the way to dominion. Once it takes hold it never let’s go. As a soldier of Christ, John, I wonder when you come before the “Pearly Gates”; if you be able to say you had the courage Jesus demands. Please don’t answer to me – look to yourself. Our only possible defense, at this time in history, is to expose Muhammad as the fraud he is. Islam cannot be beaten militarily, economically or politically. Those battles are long past – although still pursued in vain. We of the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist - decent world - have one card left to play – philosophy – reason – common sense. If we just employ the Golden Rule – ask any Muslim man if he wants to wear a head scarf? Then we go on and ask – is it ok to have sex with a nine year old girl? Is it ok to behead a man with a sword? Is it ok to create and deal in slaves? Is it ok to sentence a man to death for defaming Muhammad? Muhammad did these things and more. Would Jesus approve these things? Would Buddha - Lao Tzu – Plato - Bertrand Russell? We are their heirs. I read the Daily Word:
Healing
EVERY CELL OF MY BODY IS AGLOW WITH THE LIGHT AND LIFE OF GOD.
I believe in the healing power of God. I affirm this truth daily through my thoughts, words, and actions. My faith in God’s healing energy allows this energy to move in and through me. I open myself up to receive and I am restored to wholeness.
If I am experiencing illness, I continue to affirm that I am one with God. In truth, my spirit is always whole, but as a human being I may experience dis-ease. I use affirmative prayer and meditation to help bring me back into balance with God. I focus my mind on the healing power of God and envision each cell of my body vibrant with light and life.
I trust in the healing power of God. I speak and act in ways that demonstrate my faith, and I open myself up to experience wholeness.
Oh Lord my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.—Psalm 30:2
Courage is a daily affair – we live with or without it every moment in our consciousness. The context is now - forever!
Quoting Noble Dust
We are all responsible for our choices – there is no abstention or abdication.
Quoting Noble Dust
We are all Frodo Baggins, if, we choose to be.
Quoting Noble Dust
Common sense is not intellectual – it is common. Common sense is what we need and we need our champions to voice it.
Quoting Noble Dust
Philosophy and linguistics will never leave us. They will be with us until the last breathe of humanity. We are here to sustain our wonderful traditions – to listen and admire our forebears – inspire ourselves and our decedents to achieve a new world full of hope and worthiness.
Are you making an argument? I honestly can't tell.
Disapproving of the ways of others will not help in the context of international relations where there are great differences between existing cultures. It might work within societies more or less unified by sets of laws, common practices and beliefs, but if applied outside that context can only widen the rift, and further the division.
As I see it, what you are spouting is egregiously prejudiced, hysterical fundamentalist nonsense.
You certainly are not making an argument with this statement. This thread is about Ignosticism; I laid out a clear definition of how God exists – for me. I heard you talk about Berdyaev’s ideas and your own and I respect them. Then we talked about the beginning of art and metaphysics in the human experience. Then we talked about the fact that we are not very significant in God’s eyes. Then we talked about the fact that most people are sheep because they are either too lazy, apathetic or both to participate in intellectual discourse. Then we talked about the decline of courage in intellectual circles in relation to Islam. I then laid out clearly why Muhammad is an evil man and that doing so is the only way left to combat Islam. Did I miss something – or did you? Or are you questioning my statement about philosophy & linguistics – I don’t know if you don’t say? What is your complaint – argument? Any and all of these ideas are fair game for me – how about you?
What did Jesus mean when he said “turn the other cheek”? What I get from the Sermon on the Mount is that we should not engage in personal disputes with others. Was Jesus an anarchist? No. Did he believe in laws and punishment? Yes. Was Jesus a pacifist? I don’t think so; he was being pragmatic in relation to personal disputes. Which means don’t personally get into someone’s face. If someone tries to kill or rape your daughter should you just let them? No, and I believe Jesus would agree. Did Jesus say or think that we should not dispute what others say and think? Absolutely not; he has a very definitive argument for a peaceful point of view. Did Jesus say we should tolerate debauchery and violence? No, he did not. Jesus was a Rabbi and he was into law and order. If something was wrong – he would say so. There is a difference being peaceful and a doormat. Jesus was not a doormat - quite the contrary.
Thank you. Peace and blessings to you and all, without exception.
I agree - I am way off topic with the Islam thing - it should be in a isolated thread. Maybe I will start one. No more comments here on Islam.
Sorry if my comment sounded dismissive, but I was commenting on the specific post of yours before mine; saying things like "we're all Frodo Baggins if we choose to be" sounds more dismissive than argumentative, which is what I was referring to.