on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby MagsJ » Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:17 am

_
If nobody loves you, at least (your) God does.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25063
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 02, 2022 6:58 pm

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

Religion’s dirty secret

So does Bitcoin’s having prophets, evangelists and dietary laws make it a religion or not?

As a scholar of religion, I think this is the wrong question to ask.

The dirty secret of religious studies is that there is no universal definition of what religion is. Traditions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism certainly exist and have similarities, but the idea that these are all examples of religion is relatively new.


Now, why might that be?

Perhaps because, as I suggest over and again, things like religion are in fact rooted existentially in different historical, cultural and uniquely personal contexts. Going all the way back to the caves. And what makes the modern rendition what it is revolves largely around the fact that in the modern world science has yanked "the gods" out from under most and made it all more and more about a God, the God.

The word “religion” as it’s used today – a vague category that includes certain cultural ideas and practices related to God, the afterlife or morality – arose in Europe around the 16th century. Before this, many Europeans understood that there were only three types of people in the world: Christians, Jews and heathens.


Indeed, the vaguer the better when it actually comes down to demonstrating that your religion is the only one that counts in regard to morality and immortality. Of course that's the beauty of faith though. You can believe something even when having no demonstrable reasons to.

So, for those who worship and adore Bitcoin, only those among them who also worship and adore one or another traditional God and religion have all bases covered.

Just out of curiosity, does that include anyone here?

I'm trying to imagine Ayn Rand's reaction to Bitcoin. She worshipped and adored the almighty dollar. But she was also rather adamant that you can't take those dollars with you to the other side. Not if the other side doesn't exist.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:26 pm

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

This model -- when "many Europeans understood that there were only three types of people in the world: Christians, Jews and heathens -- shifted after the Protestant Reformation when a long series of wars began between Catholics and Protestants. These became known as “wars of religion,” and religion became a way of talking about differences between Christians. At the same time, Europeans were encountering other cultures through exploration and colonialism. Some of the traditions they encountered shared certain similarities to Christianity and were also deemed religions.


More to the point [mine] how is the rift between Catholics and Protestants -- same God, different narratives -- related to the historical existence of the capitalist political economy. And what does this tell us about what mere mortals came to believe back then and how that was connected historically to such profound changes as the death of feudalism [in Europe] and the birth of the industrial revolution? God and religion construed in a whole different light precisely because the way people interacted economically shifted the focus from "the next life" to "this life", from "we" to "I", from monarchy to republic, from the ecclesiastics to the captains of industry and their cronies in the government

After all, would the term Bitcoin even be around had there been no capitalist political economy to give birth to it.

As religion scholar Russell McCutcheon argues, “The interesting thing to study, then, is not what religion is or is not, but ‘the making of it’ process itself – whether that manufacturing activity takes place in a courtroom or is a claim made by a group about their own behaviors and institutions.”


The making of it. And concomitantly how this or that denominational Scripture comes to reconfigure The Word in order to accommodate a God, the God, my God to the changes that unfold out in the world historically and culturally. How re those like Marx you can't more fully understand the social and political superstructure without first grasping the fundamental components of the economic base.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby MagsJ » Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:49 pm

_
Everything is a religion, to those that don’t actually know what religion really is.

I am Rishi, don’t expect too much from me, ergo.. a minimal mind, devoid of clutter and others’ circumstance.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25063
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 16, 2022 8:40 pm

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

Critics highlight irrationality

With this in mind, why would anyone claim that Bitcoin is a religion?

Some commentators seem to be making this claim to steer investors away from Bitcoin. Emerging market fund manager Mark Mobius, in an attempt to tamp down enthusiasm about cryptocurrency, said that “crypto is a religion, not an investment.”


And, sure, that'll work with/for some. Those who connote religion with mumbo-jumbo supernatural gibberish for the weak-minded. On the other hand, to the extent that it does become a part of global economy there will be those who don't worship and adore it but are more than willing to pursue it if it means sustaining their true religion: the bottom line.

And then those who go here...

His statement, however, is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy, or the assumption that if something is one thing, it cannot be another. There is no reason that a religion cannot also be an investment, a political system or nearly anything else.


Religion can be practically anything under the sun if you choose to call something a religion. And for whatever personal reason you need to think of it as a religion. Religion by its very nature -- connecting the dots between "I" and "all there is" -- is going to be a profoundly subjective rendering of reality. How can mine possibly be the same as yours or his or hers? Overlapping perhaps but understood in precisely the same way?

Mobius’ point, though, is that “religion,” like cryptocurrency, is irrational. This criticism of religion has been around since the Enlightenment, when Voltaire wrote, “Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”

In this case, labeling Bitcoin a “religion” suggests that bitcoin investors are fanatics and not making rational choices.


Here, regarding this "religion" "I" -- rooted almost entirely in dasein -- am at a loss. I know practically nothing about either Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. So I can only leave it to others who do to squabble over that. As for religion, fanaticism and rationality, it depends [for me] on the extent to which someone insists that their own religion is the One True Path to morality on this side of the grave and/or immortality and salvation on the other. Insistence without actual demonstrable proof.

That's everywhere here. And, when confronted with it, I'm more inclined towards the "psychology of objectivism". A belief in God and/or religion because it comforts and consoles you to believe it...and because it provides one with an anchor for the One True Self. Or the Soul.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 16, 2022 8:55 pm

meme is life
Attachments
9C72F904-345B-4F68-9E0A-C6AFFE206B2F.jpeg
9C72F904-345B-4F68-9E0A-C6AFFE206B2F.jpeg (185.36 KiB) Viewed 613 times
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:44 pm

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

Bitcoin as good and wholesome

On the other hand, some Bitcoin proponents have leaned into the religion label. McCook’s articles use the language of religion to highlight certain aspects of Bitcoin culture and to normalize them.

For example, “stacking sats” – the practice of regularly buying small fractions of bitcoins – sounds weird. But McCook refers to this practice as a religious ritual, and more specifically as “tithing.” Many churches practice tithing, in which members make regular donations to support their church. So this comparison makes sat stacking seem more familiar.


You tell me.

My own main concern with religion revolves around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. To the extent that some here might construe Bitcoin as a religion they are really talking about what I would call objectivism. And here it could be Bitcoin, it could be anything.

Objectivists are those who think that they are in touch with the "real me" -- the soul? -- and that this real me is in sync with the only rational manner in which to think about something. And in thinking about it that way you are driven to behave so as to sustain this belief. Zealously at times.

What does one use Bitcoin for? To become wealthy. Why does one want to become wealthy? To be able purchase anything and everything you and your loved ones desire. Consumption [mindless or otherwise] then becoming the true religion. Bitcoin is just the means to that end.

While for some people religion may be associated with the irrational, it is also associated with what religion scholar Doug Cowan calls “the good, moral and decent fallacy.” That is, some people often assume if something is really a religion, it must represent something good. People who “stack sats” might sound weird. But people who “tithe” could sound principled and wholesome.


Okay, you stack sats. That may or may not over time earn you money. But how likely is it to bring you immortality? And as a moral issue doesn't it basically revolve around sustaining your own selfish interests. So, how might any particular individual might construe all of this in terms of how they have come to understand religion?

You tell me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:40 pm

1. I don’t tithe. Also: The church is not a building/business. God owns this. When I make money I don’t have to pay back, it will go to where God tells me to spend it (including church). And probably places like Taco Bell, tbh. And spoiling my grandkid(s).

2. It is not possible to buy a stairway to heaven.

3. Store up your treasures in heaven. This world is a sandcastle for the tides.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:48 pm

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.

Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

It has been more than 130 years since the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared: “God is Dead” (or Gott ist tot, in German), giving philosophy students a collective headache that’s lasted from the 19th century until today. It is, perhaps, one of the best known statements in all of philosophy, well known even to those who have never picked up a copy of The Gay Science, the book from which it originates. But do we know exactly what he meant — or, perhaps more importantly, what it means for us?


Is this a headache for you? Or are you convinced that not only do you know what Nietzsche meant by this but how close he came to grasping the most rational manner in which to encompass the death of God?

Your own understanding of it of course.

My understanding of it starts with the assumption that by "God" we must go all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. After all, aren't Gods invented as a way in which to zero in on the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions:

1] why does something exists and not nothing?
2] why this something and not something else?

Then the part beyond the ontological itself...coming up with an actual teleological purpose for something instead of nothing.

Finally, it all coming down to your own individual purpose on this side of the grave. A purpose that can only be relevant given the assumption that "I" continues on the other side of the grave as well.

Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and so he didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, but rather that our idea of one had.


Though of course that is no trivial pursuit. After all, your idea of God or No God [God dead or alive] can go a long way toward motivating your behaviors with and around others. And that's the part where actual consequences emerge.

After the Enlightenment, the idea of a universe that was governed by physical laws and not by divine providence had become mainstream. Philosophy had shown that governments no longer needed to be organized around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed — that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to God.


And what brought this on? Two things in particular:

1] the explosion of scientific discovery able to explain so much that was once attributed to God
2] the advent of capitalism and the shift from an "other worldly" religious orientation to one that focused more on how you fared on this side of the grave. Morality and the market?

This was a tremendous event. Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us. This increasing secularization of thought in the West led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but also that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world.


Yes, if approached from the perspective of a general understanding of historical events. But each of us as individuals is still going to have "personal experiences" that can result in many far more truly unique trajectories.

The part I attribute to dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:20 pm

That we still transculturally hunger for true meaning means we haven’t killed God, but merely repressed him. That’s the reactance symptom.

Science & Faith

First, faith is just trust. It isn’t blind, but there are varying levels of evidence, as with everyone else you trust. Our reasons may be crap, but nobody trusts out of the blue. Even a child trusts bare minimum because their trust has been won by consistent parents/environment, and it has never yet been broken. They should not be shamed for such trust. It is that kind of trust that is lacking in anyone who rejects God *after* knowing he exists (the real God—not a poor representation). If you don’t know—if you haven’t made up your mind—if it hasn’t even occurred to you to examine the evidence without bias—you haven’t had the opportunity to trust or not. Yet.

How dark were the dark ages?

https://fb.watch/cyzQKt5JaH/

Correcting “Cosmos” (Neil deGrasse Tyson) on Giordano Bruno, etc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B7Ff-p ... p=drivesdk

Theistic evolution, since you probably don’t interpret cross-cultural creation narratives literally:
biologos.org/questions (when their website is working)

List of Christians in science & technology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... technology
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:23 pm

“Nietzsche once confessed of his atheistic life, ‘My life now consists in the wish that it might be otherwise than I comprehend, and that somebody might make my ‘truths’ appear incredible to me.’ The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre said in his auto-biography, ‘I needed God…I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy.’ Walter Kaufman admits that ‘religion is rooted in man’s aspiration to transcend himself. … Whether he worships idols or strives to perfect himself, man is the God-intoxicated ape.'”

Geisler & Feinberg, Intro. to Philo. / A Christian Perspective.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 03, 2022 4:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.

Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

It has been more than 130 years since the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared: “God is Dead” (or Gott ist tot, in German), giving philosophy students a collective headache that’s lasted from the 19th century until today. It is, perhaps, one of the best known statements in all of philosophy, well known even to those who have never picked up a copy of The Gay Science, the book from which it originates. But do we know exactly what he meant — or, perhaps more importantly, what it means for us?


Is this a headache for you? Or are you convinced that not only do you know what Nietzsche meant by this but how close he came to grasping the most rational manner in which to encompass the death of God?

Your own understanding of it of course.

My understanding of it starts with the assumption that by "God" we must go all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. After all, aren't Gods invented as a way in which to zero in on the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions:

1] why does something exists and not nothing?
2] why this something and not something else?

Then the part beyond the ontological itself...coming up with an actual teleological purpose for something instead of nothing.

Finally, it all coming down to your own individual purpose on this side of the grave. A purpose that can only be relevant given the assumption that "I" continues on the other side of the grave as well.

Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and so he didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, but rather that our idea of one had.


Though of course that is no trivial pursuit. After all, your idea of God or No God [God dead or alive] can go a long way toward motivating your behaviors with and around others. And that's the part where actual consequences emerge.

After the Enlightenment, the idea of a universe that was governed by physical laws and not by divine providence had become mainstream. Philosophy had shown that governments no longer needed to be organized around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed — that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to God.


And what brought this on? Two things in particular:

1] the explosion of scientific discovery able to explain so much that was once attributed to God
2] the advent of capitalism and the shift from an "other worldly" religious orientation to one that focused more on how you fared on this side of the grave. Morality and the market?

This was a tremendous event. Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us. This increasing secularization of thought in the West led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but also that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world.


Yes, if approached from the perspective of a general understanding of historical events. But each of us as individuals is still going to have "personal experiences" that can result in many far more truly unique trajectories.

The part I attribute to dasein.


Interesting post. The picture you paint is like people standing around talking about the deceased at God’s funeral.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 03, 2022 6:24 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.

Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

It has been more than 130 years since the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared: “God is Dead” (or Gott ist tot, in German), giving philosophy students a collective headache that’s lasted from the 19th century until today. It is, perhaps, one of the best known statements in all of philosophy, well known even to those who have never picked up a copy of The Gay Science, the book from which it originates. But do we know exactly what he meant — or, perhaps more importantly, what it means for us?


Is this a headache for you? Or are you convinced that not only do you know what Nietzsche meant by this but how close he came to grasping the most rational manner in which to encompass the death of God?

Your own understanding of it of course.

My understanding of it starts with the assumption that by "God" we must go all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. After all, aren't Gods invented as a way in which to zero in on the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions:

1] why does something exists and not nothing?
2] why this something and not something else?

Then the part beyond the ontological itself...coming up with an actual teleological purpose for something instead of nothing.

Finally, it all coming down to your own individual purpose on this side of the grave. A purpose that can only be relevant given the assumption that "I" continues on the other side of the grave as well.

Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and so he didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, but rather that our idea of one had.


Though of course that is no trivial pursuit. After all, your idea of God or No God [God dead or alive] can go a long way toward motivating your behaviors with and around others. And that's the part where actual consequences emerge.

After the Enlightenment, the idea of a universe that was governed by physical laws and not by divine providence had become mainstream. Philosophy had shown that governments no longer needed to be organized around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed — that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to God.


And what brought this on? Two things in particular:

1] the explosion of scientific discovery able to explain so much that was once attributed to God
2] the advent of capitalism and the shift from an "other worldly" religious orientation to one that focused more on how you fared on this side of the grave. Morality and the market?

This was a tremendous event. Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us. This increasing secularization of thought in the West led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but also that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world.


Yes, if approached from the perspective of a general understanding of historical events. But each of us as individuals is still going to have "personal experiences" that can result in many far more truly unique trajectories.

The part I attribute to dasein.


Interesting post. The picture you paint is like people standing around talking about the deceased at God’s funeral.


And then after the funeral we come here and exchange beliefs regarding the Gods that are not presumed to be dead as they pertain to these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Also, pertaining to the whole point of this thread:

Connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now, God, and immortality there and then.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 03, 2022 7:17 pm

I accept Kant’s reasoning about why proofs of God and metaphysics in general don’t work. Reason is limited to phenomena which are products of the mind. For some of us that fact rolls over into an intuition that there is undefinable something more, e.g. Kant’s thing in itself.

Why? There is no object without a knower. But the knower is known only through the object known. In this instance the object is the text you are reading. Who are you the knower who is reading it? Or, in other words, what is consciousness? How does it arise ? How do you make intelligibility happen for yourself?

Your points 2 and 4 seem to have to do with objectifying phenomena and ideas. God is never a perception. The fact that I try to deal with this stuff at all is why you accuse me of “staying in the clouds” or whatever. How do you avoid it?

If your point 3 prevails then communication about metaphysics may be impossible. Even if we were to think we understand each other we may not. Dialogue is an exercise in futility.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 06, 2022 5:53 pm

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.
Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy, as he put it in Twilight of the Idols: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”


And, in a sense, that is playing out now in America. What is the Blue State/Red State conflagration about if not [in part] the fear of millions that the Godless liberals are hell bent on deconstructing Christianity and taking America further in the direction of a postmodern hell. Killing the unborn, gay marriage, gender benders, foreigners invading the borders, an anything goes culture that takes us further and further away from Father Knows Best and the Cleavers.

One way or another, they fear the consequences of living in a world where, in the absence of a Christian foundation, America becomes increasingly more this alien landscape far, far removed the Word of God.

Nietzsche thought this could be a good thing for some people, saying: “… at hearing the news that ‘the old god is dead’, we philosophers and ‘free spirits’ feel illuminated by a new dawn.” A bright morning had arrived. With the old system of meaning gone, a new one could be created. But it came with risks — ones that could bring out the worst in human nature. Nietzsche believed that the removal of this system put most people at the risk of despair or meaninglessness. What could the point of life be without a God?


Indeed, what did Nietzsche then proceed to do? This: to replace the old religion with a new one. What is the Übermensch with his will to power but a new point of view regarding meaning and purpose in one's life. You can be among the masters rather than among the sheep...the slaves. You can forge a life that is superior to the Last Men.

A demigod admired and respected by those who recognize each other as above the herd.

True, no immortality and salvation on the other side. But [perhaps] through eternal return, eternal recurrence, you can repeat a life over and over again that is at least a superior one.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm

From PN...

Henry Quirk is a small "d" deist.

And my argument about Rand revolves not around the points she raised but around the manner in which she herself championed individuals "owning" themselves. And owning their points. Like you sans God. But then the manner in which she demanded that others share her own views about, well, everything. Just like [from my frame of mind] you do here. I'm sure the ARI has an official policy on gun control and abortion. And I'm sure that collectively all individuals who call themselves Objectivists had damn well better share it.


henry quirk wrote: As I say: I'm no fan of Rand. I'm not an Objectivist. If she championed ownness good on her.


How is this really relevant to the point I am making here? How are your moral convictions -- as convictions -- regarding bazookas and abortion really any different from hers? Aside from your Reason being derived from God's Reality and her own Reason being derived from a No God "metaphysical" philosophy rooted in the objective Self?

henry quirk wrote: Rand was pushy and so am I but, unlike Rand...


henry quirk wrote: I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.

What exactly have I done to assert a right to tell folks what they can and can't do beyond my talkin' about natural rights? And what power have I exercised to get folks to recognize natural rights beyond debate and conversation?


Okay, let's explore this in regard to buying and selling bazookas.

You live in a community where in "owning" yourself, you conclude that buying and selling bazookas is a "natural right". But another Deist in that community argues that in "owning" herself she concludes that buying and selling bazookas is not a "natural right", but an irrational frame of mind. Same God, same access to Reason. But completely conflicting conclusions.

And you may not be inclined to police the world, but in your community those who, in "owning" themselves and in rejecting the right of private citizens to buy and sell bazookas -- or any gums at all -- may be in a position of power to pass laws that take yours away.

So, you can insist that your moral convictions here are just about debate and conversation but out in the world that we live in it can get considerably more existential.

Like I said...how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?


henry quirk wrote: And like I said...


henry quirk wrote: Well before I shifted to deism (sumthin' I did only three or four years back), I recognized myself as a free will with a right to myself...hell, I've known these things my entire life...as a child, well before I had the language to express it, I understood I had causal power; I understood I was my own and it was not right, when I'd done no wrong, to be used against my will.

Reason, as I grew up, brought me to the recognition that as I am a free will with a right to myself, so it is for all other folks too.

As I say: I've known these things my entire life and, as various verifiable conversations and debates in-forum, stretchin' back years, illustrate, I was an advocate and defender for these ideas as an atheist, not a deist.

It was my bein' a free will with an inalienable claim to my life, liberty, and property (and conversations with a thoughtful friend) that brought me, relatively late in life, to God. In other words: bein' a free will with natural rights, I came to see atheism's rudderless, skipperless, take on reality as the vacant thing it is: explainin' nuthin' about nuthin' to no one, demandin' I de-recognize myself as a free will with natural rights and accept myself as a cog with no claim to himself.

A prime mover, The Prime Mover, is the explanation why man, in a deterministic universe, is a wild card and why, amongst life that is mindless and amoral, man is mind-imbued and moral.


Right, like those who are utterly opposed to buying and selling bazookas can't frame their own convictions using precisely the same argument. God or No God.

What then? Flip the coin?

Instead, I suggest to those on both ends of the political spectrum that the spectrum itself is comprised of individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways who come to embrace their own value judgments as the subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein. As political prejudices derived existentially from the life that they lived.

A life such that, had any number of experiences been different, they might well be in here arguing exactly the opposite of what they believe now.

henry quirk wrote:And this whole "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" schtick: I never said any of that. Other deists may adhere to that, but me, I say: God created Reality; for reasons He hasn't revealed to me, He built Reality so that free wills, each with a natural claim to himself, would exist as wildcards in a deterministic world. Where He is: I cannot say (though, to be honest, I'm not disappointed He's apparently gone...last thing I need or want is a deity pokin' His nose into my business).


Again, leaving aside the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, you believe all of these things about a God, the God, your God as but one more "existential leap of faith" to this particular God and not to the many, many, many, many others that are said to exist, how do you reconcile your God's Reality, with the reality that you as a mere mortal among billions of others have come to accept? How is that not a manifestation of dasein? And what on earth does your God's Reality have to do with your own personal assessment of bazookas? Especially if others believe in the same Deist God but believe the opposite of what you do about bazookas.

What of this God's Reality then? It's got to be a lower-case deist and a capital letter Reality for a Reason.

henry quirk wrote:Hey, if you can have your own version of dasein I can have my own version of deism.


Fair enough. On the other hand, given my own understanding of dasein, you came to embrace your own understanding of the lower-case deism given the assumptions I make regarding the acquisition of value judgments as the embodiment of dasein. We're definitely stuck here.

Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?


henry quirk wrote:Frankly, I don't give a rat's dirty rear end what He has to say about it. I'm enormously grateful He made me, but He made me a free will who belongs to himself, not a robot. I see no evidence of commandments beyond natural rights which I codify as a man's life is his, his life, liberty, and property are his.


So, apparently you "just know" this about your God and His Reality. You have absolutely no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is the case, but, then, neither do any of the other Deists/deists out there. There's just what existentially you have come to believe "in your head" is true about "natural rights".

The bottom line being that what you do believe is true "in your head" allows you to anchor your Self in The Right Thing To Do and it is this psychological defense mechanism that sustains your own comfort and consolation. And, with any luck, all the way to the grave. And who really knows what your God's Reality is then?

I think I get it.

henry quirk wrote: Where our agendas -- His and mine -- align: great. Where our agendas differ: well, if He has a problem with it, I'm sure He knows where to find me.


The implication being that perhaps He is like all the other Gods. Like IC's Christian God. If your agendas are not in sync...Judgment Day? But that is just one more thing you have absolutely no understanding of at all about this "private and personal" deist god of yours. You figured out what was Natural because you figured out how to "own" yourself and that allows you to feel content. End of story. Just like all the others here and elsewhere who figured out it was their own God and their own ideology and their own philosophy and their authoritarian dogmas that give them access to good over evil.

Okay, how is your take in sync or not in sync with this...

'Deism is not "conservative" nor "liberal". Deism and Deists follow the dictates of Reason and Nature. Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues.'


henry quirk wrote:Not only deists, but everyone is free to make up his mind based on reason, emotion or a coin flip. And I'm all for free exchange and debate. But, as I say I, like everyone else, have a right to my life, liberty, and property. I don't violate others and I won't be violated.


And this is what you construe to be an adequate reaction to the points I raise above. You have your own understanding of God, of reason, of natural behavior. And the points I raise regarding dasein are simply not applicable to you. And though other deists/Deists, and other religious denominations, and countless other secular narratives with countless other political agendas can use the same reasoning that you do to arrive at their own profoundly conflicting conclusions...you "just know" that your conclusions reflect the One True Path to bazookas.

henry quirk wrote:My bazooka (if I actually had one), for example: I transacted fairly for it. It's my property. I understand other folks are squeamish about such things. I respect their view and their choice to do without firearms. I certainly won't demand they arm themselves, nor will I parade mine in front of them. But, as I say, if I've done them no harm with my bazooka, or shotgun, or weighted tire knocker, or utility knife, then they got no say in my ownin' any of 'em. I also understand that some folks think they do have a say which is why I wouldn't talk about my bazooka and don't talk about my shotgun outside of this place. Hell, most of my family doesn't know I'm armed.


And that works fine until, in any particular community, others don't share your thinking about buying and selling bazookas because any number of new contexts can arise such that if bazookas were widely owned [and used] the consequences could be...devastating? So, some [deists or not] organize politically to make the buying and the selling of bazookas [or tanks or grenades or military armaments] illegal.

The real world in other words. Not merely discussing and debating it here.

henry quirk wrote:And abortion: yeah, I think most abortions are unjust killings of human beings. I've said so many times. What I haven't done is suggest a solution.


And, again, what you think here is not at all related to the arguments I propose regarding the acquisition of value judgments as the embodiment of dasein...your own conclusions really do reflect what is "naturally" rational. You can't make the arguments the other side raise go away but when your own private and personal deist God created Reality, that somehow included you "owning" yourself and arriving at the One True Path in regard to abortion too.

As you say...

henry quirk wrote:The absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.

So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.


It ever and always stops at "what you think" here and now. How you came to think as you did and not another way given the life that you lived is truly irrelevant. You're not out to give a sermon on abortion but if in your community it becomes a capital crime and a woman you love has one...do you turn her in? Is she a premeditated murderer? If arrested, convicted and found guilty...send her to death row?

It's not merely abortion discussed and debated here, it's abortion if, here in America, the conservative moral objectivists seize control of Congress and the White House and make every abortion illegal.

Abortion and your deist God's Reality, along with your own authoritarian dogma...then.

There is a God, the God, your God. You have faith in His existence. Faith unless of course you can actually demonstrate it is not a leap of faith at all...that in fact He does exist.


henry quirk wrote:Yes, I believe in God. I believe, as I say...


henry quirk wrote:Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.


This actually is what you believe constitutes proof that of all the many, many, many Gods there are for mere mortals to choose from, your own private and personal deist God really is The One!!!

You simply assert all of this as true about him...

But, no, not quite...

henry quirk wrote:...but I understand that's a proof that works for me and mebbe not for other folks. And that's okay cuz I'm not in the conversion business. As I say: I have no paster or church to support and no edict to preach the good news to follow.


Again, though, out in the real world, in actual flesh and blood human communities, laws will be passed and enforced regarding bazookas and abortions such that, while you might prefer to keep it all confined to "discussing and debating" it here, and in not persuading and "converting" others to think like you do, you'll have no choice but to join in or risk seeing what you believe shunted aside and the other side prevailing. Bazookas are outlawed, abortion on demand is the community standard.

Then the part that most interests me...

But what if there are other Deists among us who "own" themselves and insist that owning bazookas and tanks is an irrational and unnatural behavior. And that having an abortion is a rational and natural behavior.


henry quirk wrote:I'm sure there are. I think they're wrong and with good reason, but their lives and the contents of their heads are theirs. Until one of them decides to infringe on my life, liberty, and property I'm not too concerned with what they think (though zi will debate 'em if given the chance).


Okay...

As I see it, you are basically suggesting here that, in any given community, they are right from their side, you are right from your side. That you have your Reasons, they have theirs. That this is all a manifestation of God's Reality. So it comes down to who can acquire the actual political power to enact the laws that either permit the buying and selling of bazookas or laws that prohibit it. Laws that permit abortions or laws that prohibit them.

And, if so, how is "moderation, negotiation and compromise" not a legitimate approach to it? Unless of course you are convinced that your side does have the power to embrace your own authoritarian, objectivist dogmas. Such as here in America, the pro fetal life folks might acquire in a couple of years.

But what if the other side prevails instead? Fuck all those dead fetuses...that's got nothing to do with me?

henry quirk wrote: An aside: I've never met or had any communications with another deist. Nor have I met or had any communications with any other libertarian (of any strain). The literature of either I find boring, so I'm not caught up with whatever the current thinkin' is in either area.


Hmm...

You believe in the existence of the Deist God. But to you this revolves solely around your own private and personal deist God. But the "private and personal" part has nothing to do with how I construe the meaning of dasein on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Though, as I see it, you won't go into any great detail as to why my arguments are not applicable to you.

Or does every single Deist on Earth in worshipping and adoring their God as the followers of Ayn Rand worshipped and adored her, share the only Rational and Natural frame of mind there can be here?


henry quirk wrote: Well, I don't worship or bend a knee to anyone, even if He is God. And even though I have no experience with other deists, I find it hard to imagine a believer in an impersonal, absent God would worship Him, but it's possible (more power to 'em, I say). And, no, I don't imagine there's any kind of monolithic perspective born of a Rational and Natural frame of mind which, of course, means some of us deists (like me, mebbe) are wrong about some things. It is what it is.


But you don't really know what it is. There is only what up until now you have thought yourself into believing that there is. Just like all those who have thought themselves into believing in very different things. You've all led different lives out in different worlds understood in different ways. But you are all convinced that how you do understand things "here and now" is the One True Path.

And it just doesn't occur to you that what you all have in common is the psychological need to believe that what you believe is the One True Path because being on it is what provides you with the comfort and the consolation of being able to believe that you are on the One True Path. That may be applicable to those who don't think like you do but not to you.

Something like that?

But you do seem to admit that you may well be wrong "here and now" about buying and selling bazookas and about having an abortion.

Right?

In other words, you might have new experiences, new relationships, access to new information and knowledge [in a world bursting with contingency, chance and change] that changes your mind about bazookas and abortions.

Right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 06, 2022 8:58 pm

felix dakat wrote: I accept Kant’s reasoning about why proofs of God and metaphysics in general don’t work. Reason is limited to phenomena which are products of the mind. For some of us that fact rolls over into an intuition that there is undefinable something more, e.g. Kant’s thing in itself.


In other words, Kant takes his own existential "leap of faith" to God. But, as well, given his own "private and personal" assumptions: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... -christian

What's crucial for me regarding him is my own existential assumption that he recognized the need for a "transcending font" in order to make human morality...enforceable? No God, no Judgment Day. No Judgment Day and it all comes down to mere mortals -- lacking both omniscience and omnipotence -- squabbling over Good and Evil.

For example, the actual world that we live in today.

felix dakat wrote: Why? There is no object without a knower. But the knower is known only through the object known. In this instance the object is the text you are reading. Who are you the knower who is reading it? Or, in other words, what is consciousness? How does it arise ? How do you make intelligibility happen for yourself?


Prompting me, of course, to bring speculation of this sort all the way back to...
1] the gap
2] Rummy's Rule

felix dakat wrote: Your points 2 and 4 seem to have to do with objectifying phenomena and ideas. God is never a perception. The fact that I try to deal with this stuff at all is why you accuse me of “staying in the clouds” or whatever. How do you avoid it?


Note to others:

Of course: Yet more "up in the clouds" conjecture. You tell me what his point regarding "objectifying phenomena and ideas" means for all practical purposes. What he does, in my view, is avoid altogether taking his own beliefs about God to task, given point 2 and 4.

Those who believe in religion either acknowledge that their own spiritual path is but one of many -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations -- or they don't think about it at all and simply fall back on a more or less blind leap of faith.

And I have no problem with that. A leap of faith to God is by no means necessarily irrational. Of course a God, the God might exist. Bringing us back around to point one.

As for theodicy, take your own God/spiritual path here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... t=theodicy

Let's discuss it.

felix dakat wrote: If your point 3 prevails then communication about metaphysics may be impossible. Even if we were to think we understand each other we may not. Dialogue is an exercise in futility.


No, the communication comes down to that which you believe is true about God or Existence "in your head" and that which you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn.

Taking into account of course the possibly of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds and Matrix realities. Then back to "the Gap" and "Rummy's Rule".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Sat May 07, 2022 2:04 pm

What interests me at the moment is consciousness. Consciousness of what I’m typing at the moment. Consciousness of the dialogue we’re having and how I feel presently. I’m sitting on a front porch. I hear birds chirping and geese flying by. Consciousness of consciousness is my religion.

It’s been the path of a lifetime. My early childhood memories are evidence that I was conscious then. My dreams are evidence that I am conscious during sleep.

What of dreamless sleep? Am I conscious then? Is that unconsciousness or is it consciousness without an object? During dreamless sleep there is no problem of evil to have a theodicy about.

Often times in discussions of religion and spirituality we get off on the topic of certain types of experience say mystical or religious experiences of some kind. But what of experience itself? That to me is mystical enough.

Every religion and philosophy is a subset of consciousness. All rational men and women are conscious. We should start with consciousness. Everything should be viewed in its light.

Light is a basic metaphor for consciousness. When Descartes saw his “clear and distinct ideas” he saw them in the light. What was that light? Consciousness.

And he didn’t really see them. Not with his eyes. No he metaphorically “saw” them in his “mind”. Mind I put in quotes because what is mind but another metaphor? The metaphor is that the mind is a container of our thoughts.

Another way of imagining it is that thoughts arise. Where? In consciousness. Now “in” is also metaphor—a spatial one. Is there any way to talk about consciousness without sensory and spatial metaphors?

Anyway, if I have a “spiritual path” to use your metaphor this is where it has led me this morning. Thanks for asking.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Sun May 08, 2022 1:54 am

https://youtu.be/rj3AntBLBQY

Richard Schacht, Professor of Philosophy, Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign argues that Nietzsche's and Tillich's thought converge on God beyond the theistic conception of the God that died. "The Tillich Lecture took place on May 9, 2005, in Emerson Hall, and was co-sponsored by Harvard Divinity School and the Department of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences."
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 09, 2022 5:09 pm

felix dakat wrote: What interests me at the moment is consciousness. Consciousness of what I’m typing at the moment. Consciousness of the dialogue we’re having and how I feel presently. I’m sitting on a front porch. I hear birds chirping and geese flying by. Consciousness of consciousness is my religion.

It’s been the path of a lifetime. My early childhood memories are evidence that I was conscious then. My dreams are evidence that I am conscious during sleep.

What of dreamless sleep? Am I conscious then? Is that unconsciousness or is it consciousness without an object? During dreamless sleep there is no problem of evil to have a theodicy about.


Presuming consciousness exist in a world where "somehow" the human brain was able to acquire autonomy -- through God? -- are you conscious of the fact that this thread was created largely in order to explore and then to connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immorality and salvation there and then?

You're conscious of the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave. And, "in your head" that becomes intertwined in what you are conscious of regarding the fate of "I" on the other side.

Then my four factors above. Demonstrating what you are conscious of [even to yourself], acknowledging that there are countless conflicting assessments of it, the role dasein plays here, and the endless pain and suffering an alleged "loving, just and merciful" God sends our way through nature.

felix dakat wrote: Often times in discussions of religion and spirituality we get off on the topic of certain types of experience say mystical or religious experiences of some kind. But what of experience itself? That to me is mystical enough.


Yeah, I agree. Existence itself is profoundly problematic. Truly astonishing. Deeply mysterious. But that doesn't make the four points I note go away for those who attempt to explain all this through God and religion. And, of course, what is at stake here on both sides of the grave doesn't go away.

So, straight back up into the spiritual clouds you go:

felix dakat wrote: Every religion and philosophy is a subset of consciousness. All rational men and women are conscious. We should start with consciousness. Everything should be viewed in its light.

Light is a basic metaphor for consciousness. When Descartes saw his “clear and distinct ideas” he saw them in the light. What was that light? Consciousness.

And he didn’t really see them. Not with his eyes. No he metaphorically “saw” them in his “mind”. Mind I put in quotes because what is mind but another metaphor? The metaphor is that the mind is a container of our thoughts.

Another way of imagining it is that thoughts arise. Where? In consciousness. Now “in” is also metaphor—a spatial one. Is there any way to talk about consciousness without sensory and spatial metaphors?

Anyway, if I have a “spiritual path” to use your metaphor this is where it has led me this morning. Thanks for asking.


You're welcome. [-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 09, 2022 5:16 pm

felix dakat wrote: https://youtu.be/rj3AntBLBQY

Richard Schacht, Professor of Philosophy, Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign argues that Nietzsche's and Tillich's thought converge on God beyond the theistic conception of the God that died. "The Tillich Lecture took place on May 9, 2005, in Emerson Hall, and was co-sponsored by Harvard Divinity School and the Department of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences."


God and academia. Right.

Note to Richard Schacht:

What might your own take be on Tillich, Nietzsche and my four factors above? :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby MagsJ » Sun May 15, 2022 7:52 am

_
Some(one) doesn't (obviously) like debate:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=197924

..no more discussing 'god and religion' here, then..

Image
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25063
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 16, 2022 6:05 pm

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.
Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

Even if there was [a God], the Western world now knew that he hadn’t placed us at the center of the universe, and it was learning of the lowly origin from which man had evolved. We finally saw the true world. The universe wasn’t made solely for human existence anymore.


Indeed, consider the fact there was once a time when Christians thought 1] the Sun and everything "up there" revolved around the Earth and that 2] the entire universe was easily imagined as here on Earth, up there in Heaven and down somewhere in Hell.

And now science has revealed to us a universe comprised of "200 billion trillion stars" across an expanse of "94 Billion Light Years".

And that's before we get to the multiverse.

I and thou then?

Nietzsche feared that this understanding of the world would lead to pessimism — “a will to nothingness” that was antithetical to the life-affirming philosophy Nietzsche promoted.


Of course it can. For some. But Nietzsche himself was just one of hundreds and hundreds of others down through the ages who were able to "think up" a philosophy or a political ideology or a spiritual track or an assessment on nature that allowed them to anchor their Self comfortably into the next best thing: objectivism.

His fear of nihilism and our reaction to it was shown in The Will to Power, in which he wrote: “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism… For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe.”


Fortunately, however, for a select few, they could at least weather the catastrophe as one of the masters and not one of the slaves. God may be dead but this only allows for the Übermensch to "sort of" take His place down here. And, with any luck, you would continue live on through an eternal recurrence that at least guaranteed your master class rank through all eternity.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 22, 2022 7:05 pm

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant
The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.
Scotty Hendricks at Big Think website

Nietzsche would not have been surprised by the events that plagued Europe in the 20th century. Communism, Nazism, nationalism, and the other ideologies that spread across the continent in the wake of World War I sought to provide man with meaning and value, as a worker, as an Aryan, or some other greater deed...


Confirming of course that genetically, biologically, we seem clearly hard-wired to seek out something -- anything -- that we can ascribe one or another essential meaning to. Something -- anything -- that will allow us to think ourselves into believing that our individual life is a part of something that encompasses a crucial teleological purpose. It's not just the brute facticity of birth --> school --> work --> death. Instead, we "take our place on the Great Mandella" and become at one with whatever the universe is finally all about.

So, sure, what's your rendition of it?

With Nietzsche and the death of God, however, other fonts had to be invented to anchor the Self [if not the Soul] in.

Indeed, here's a list of just the political ideologies alone out there to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

Which one are you more or less convinced comes closest to the One True Path?

...in a similar way as to how Christianity could provide meaning as a child of God, and give life on Earth value by its relation to heaven. Although he may have rejected those ideologies, he no doubt would have acknowledged the need for the meaning they provided.


And, again, he even made the attempt to provide us with one of his own. Only, as with all other secular fonts, morality on this side of the grave can fall anywhere at all along this ideological spectrum. And, as for immortality and salvation?

Just ask Woody Allen: https://youtu.be/90Z98ZlvpPU
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 23, 2022 5:29 pm

'God and the World stand over against each other, expressing the final metaphysical truth that appetitive vision and physical enjoyment have equal claim to priority in creation. But no two actualities can be torn apart: each is all in all. Thus each temporal occasion embodies God, and is embodied in God. In God's nature, permanence is primordial and flux is derivative from the World: in the World's nature, flux is primordial and permanence is derivative from God. Also the World's nature is a primordial datum for God; and God's nature is a primordial datum for the World. Creation achieves the reconciliation of permanence and flux when it has reached its final term which is everlastingness— the Apotheosis of the World.'

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality

This was noted on another thread.

To me it is just another "general description spiritual contraption". He asserts this as though, in believing it, that in and of itself makes it true. And [of course] there are no references made to the world of actual human interactions.

Here at ILP, endless exchanges of these truly ponderous intellectual assertions often becomes the whole point.

The part where attempts are to made to demonstrate its applicability to human interactions? Right. And the part where attempts are made to provide substantive evidence to back up the conclusions being made? Right.

Instead, from my frame of mind, the motivation here is to pile up these beliefs "in your head". String them together into a narrative that comforts and consoles you.

On the other hand, I flat out admit that, at times, my derisive reaction to them revolves as often as not around the fact that I am no longer able to do it myself!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users