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 Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:18 am

iambiguous wrote:
The basis of theism is psychological.
In the future humanity will have the knowledge and technology to understand fully the neuro-psychological mechanics and processes that drive theism with its good and evil elements. Then one will be able to switch off or inhibit the psychological impulses [re theism] via other non-theistic fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
At present non-theistic Buddhism and other spiritualities without any negative baggages are already doing that.


All of the above [a No God narrative basically] may well be entirely in sync with the optimal or the only rational manner in which to construe the meaning of God and religion.
The above has nothing to do with God.

Let's just assume this.

To me, this would seem to suggest...

1] "I" is obliterated for all time to come when we die
2] there is no teleological font "behind" existence; so, for all practical purposes, we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world
3] morality [on this side of the grave] is basically just an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts
4] given oblivion, there is no possibility of Justice rooted in one or another teleological font

So the question might then be this: How is all of this not applicable in turn to non-theistic narratives?

1. Yes, "I" is obliterated.

2. No 'teleological' ends do not necessary imply our life is absurd and meaningless.
Just as we can abstract the laws of nature from observations and experiment, we can abstract the meaning of life and strive to make it meaningful while being alive until the inevitable. Otherwise all humans might as well commit suicide now.

3. Just as we can abstract the meaning of life from observations of nature, we can abstract absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally.

4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.

How would they go about encompassing "fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within"? Crises that seem so handily, readily shunted aside by a belief in one or another "loving just and merciful God" --- a denominational God that works in "mysterious ways, His wonders to behold"?
What I am proposing is for the future.
I am optimistic [whilst you are pessimistic] based on current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, humanity will eventually be able to replace theism with fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
As I have shown we already have such existing methods, e.g. Buddhism and others, so it is just a matter of refining this methods without the religious baggage.

From my frame of mind, a leap of faith to a God, the God, my God is basically just the acknowledgment that there seem to be no viable alternatives around.

At least none that folks like me see.
I am not sure of your point and I don't think it is relevant for me because my views are non-theistic, so no question of God coming my way.

And the psychological element here seems applicable to all frames of mind that argue for a way in which to construe, among other things, the "meaning of life" in terms of "one of us" or "one of them".

Again, the more important point being not which of us is right, but that one of us must be.
I don't think there can be specific right ways but what is critical is an adaptable model and system that is always guided to the general right path [determined meaning of life as above]. Note the generic Problem Solving Technique for Life that I introduced somewhere. That is a self-correcting system.

As I had stated elsewhere your expectation, i.e. 'ALL [100%] that is to be known.." for your model is an impossibility for any human being, thus it is moot and a wrong starter.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:02 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
The basis of theism is psychological.
In the future humanity will have the knowledge and technology to understand fully the neuro-psychological mechanics and processes that drive theism with its good and evil elements. Then one will be able to switch off or inhibit the psychological impulses [re theism] via other non-theistic fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
At present non-theistic Buddhism and other spiritualities without any negative baggages are already doing that.


All of the above [a No God narrative basically] may well be entirely in sync with the optimal or the only rational manner in which to construe the meaning of God and religion.


The above has nothing to do with God.


Theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

I must be missing your point.

Let's just assume this.

To me, this would seem to suggest...

1] "I" is obliterated for all time to come when we die
2] there is no teleological font "behind" existence; so, for all practical purposes, we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world
3] morality [on this side of the grave] is basically just an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts
4] given oblivion, there is no possibility of Justice rooted in one or another teleological font

So the question might then be this: How is all of this not applicable in turn to non-theistic narratives?

Prismatic567 wrote: 1. Yes, "I" is obliterated.


Based on the assumption that we exist in a No-God universe. Which neither you nor I [here and now] have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt.

Unless, perhaps, you actually are able to demonstrate this beyond what I construe to be largely a set of intellectual assumptions about the nature of Existence itself.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't demonstrate this, only that [so far] you have failed to convince me. And I suspect further that were any mere mortals able to demonstrate definitively either the existence of God or a No God reality, that's all anyone would be talking about around the globe.

Prismatic567 wrote: 2. No 'teleological' ends do not necessary imply our life is absurd and meaningless.
Just as we can abstract the laws of nature from observations and experiment, we can abstract the meaning of life and strive to make it meaningful while being alive until the inevitable. Otherwise all humans might as well commit suicide now.


I understand this. My point is only to suggest that in the absence of an alleged omniscient and omnipotent "transcending font" [which most call God] it would appear that mere mortals are able only to propose conflicting and contradictory social, political and economic narratives in which the "meaning of life" revolves [in my view] around the manner in which "I" construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Which, however, I acknowledge from the start is just another "existential contraption".

Prismatic567 wrote: 3. Just as we can abstract the meaning of life from observations of nature, we can abstract absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally.


Indeed, and any number of moral and political objectivists embrace this frame of mind. Completely. And, from their vantage point, as long as folks are willing to remain "one of us", they are not "retards" or "morons". Or always [necessarily] wrong.

Again, I merely suggest that this has more to do with the points I raise on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than the philosophical pursuit of truth and wisdom.

Prismatic567 wrote: 4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.


What then is the substantive difference between "absolute justice" and "abstract[ing] absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally"?

I must be missing your point here.

And the point I keep raising here is that [apparently] only way off in the future are we able to finally determine if humanity succeeds in making that leap from "justice" ensconced in sets of political prejudices, embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts, to Justice as you imagine human interactions in your head here and now.

Which from my frame of mind is basically just one more psychological defense mechanism able to provide at least some measure of "comfort and consolation" to an "I" that I construe as but more a fractured and fragmented existential fabrication/contraption embedded out in particular worlds and revolving around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
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: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23066
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:01 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: 1. Yes, "I" is obliterated.


Based on the assumption that we exist in a No-God universe. Which neither you nor I [here and now] have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt.

Unless, perhaps, you actually are able to demonstrate this beyond what I construe to be largely a set of intellectual assumptions about the nature of Existence itself.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't demonstrate this, only that [so far] you have failed to convince me. And I suspect further that were any mere mortals able to demonstrate definitively either the existence of God or a No God reality, that's all anyone would be talking about around the globe.
We have not discussed this issue in detail, thus insufficient to convince you of my point.

There are tons of philosophical discussion on the question of 'Who am I?'
Since the idea/concept of "I" is so critical, you need to cover all philosophical [Eastern and Western" materials involving the "I". Have you? If not, you'll need to. The bibliography will be a very long one.
e.g. http://www.ummoss.org/self/

Note one common point is Hume's Bundle Theory,
Wiki wrote:Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.


Hume Bundle Theory cover there is no independent "I" that survives physical death, it is just a bundle and all these disappear when a person dies.

The above is just one view. There are many other views [Eastern and Western] on why there is no permanent "I" that survives physical death as a soul or whatever.

Instead of me convincing you, I believe the onus is on you to cover all the relevant philosophy views, understand them [not necessary agree] then reflect on them thoroughly before settling for any favored views.

Prismatic567 wrote: 2. No 'teleological' ends do not necessary imply our life is absurd and meaningless.
Just as we can abstract the laws of nature from observations and experiment, we can abstract the meaning of life and strive to make it meaningful while being alive until the inevitable. Otherwise all humans might as well commit suicide now.


I understand this. My point is only to suggest that in the absence of an alleged omniscient and omnipotent "transcending font" [which most call God] it would appear that mere mortals are able only to propose conflicting and contradictory social, political and economic narratives in which the "meaning of life" revolves [in my view] around the manner in which "I" construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Which, however, I acknowledge from the start is just another "existential contraption".
As I had stated, you need to forget about the idea of God and ALL(100%) that need to be known since are impossibilities.
If you keep sticking to these ideas all the time, you will not make any headway but rather as Kant stated, you will be mocked by such illusions.


Prismatic567 wrote: 3. Just as we can abstract the meaning of life from observations of nature, we can abstract absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally.


Indeed, and any number of moral and political objectivists embrace this frame of mind. Completely. And, from their vantage point, as long as folks are willing to remain "one of us", they are not "retards" or "morons". Or always [necessarily] wrong.

Again, I merely suggest that this has more to do with the points I raise on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than the philosophical pursuit of truth and wisdom.
Again you got the wrong view.
You are thinking from one perspective only, there ways to reconcile extremes into the Middle-Way that is win-win for all.

Prismatic567 wrote: 4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.


What then is the substantive difference between "absolute justice" and "abstract[ing] absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally"?

I must be missing your point here.

And the point I keep raising here is that [apparently] only way off in the future are we able to finally determine if humanity succeeds in making that leap from "justice" ensconced in sets of political prejudices, embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts, to Justice as you imagine human interactions in your head here and now.

Which from my frame of mind is basically just one more psychological defense mechanism able to provide at least some measure of "comfort and consolation" to an "I" that I construe as but more a fractured and fragmented existential fabrication/contraption embedded out in particular worlds and revolving around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
I believe if your major premise if based on the wrong views of "I" then the rest do not follow to be right.

As I had stated many times, to moral and ethics to be efficient we need a Framework and System.
In any system we need objective standards as a guide to compare with the actual thus enabling a feedback for continuous improvement.

Note a generic model of what is a system.

Image

The difference is 'absolute moral laws' are merely guide and not enforceable, while 'justice' involving the legislature, judiciary entails enforcement. These elements must work complementarily within the Framework and System. How? Details required - too tedious - not going into the details at present.

I believe the starting point is to get the concept/idea of "What is I?" in perspective and the rest is likely to fit it.
Otherwise you are actually conflating too many intellectual 'contraption' literally in this case.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:00 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:There are tons of philosophical discussion on the question of 'Who am I?'
Since the idea/concept of "I" is so critical, you need to cover all philosophical [Eastern and Western" materials involving the "I". Have you? If not, you'll need to. The bibliography will be a very long one.
e.g. http://www.ummoss.org/self/


Okay, who among us here has "cover[ed] all philosophical [Eastern and Western] materials involving the 'I"'.

Have you?

If so, what then is the definitive understanding of "I" as it pertains to an understanding of human interactions -- including motivation, intention and consequences -- as this pertains to a definitive understanding of conflicting human behaviors out in a particular world revolving around a particular context most of us will be familiar with.

As this succeeds in closing the gap between what you think you know now about the "human condition" and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to subsume all the current "unknown unknowns" into the TOE.

In other words, take what you construe to be the optimal [or the only] rational understanding of "I" and situate it "out in the world" of actual human interactions.

Because [again] this is always the chief aim of the discussions that I seek out in venues such as this.

That and [on this thread] connecting the dots between the behaviors "I" choose on this side of the grave and what "I" construe my fate to be on the other side of the grave given the manner in which "I" have come to construe the existence God.

Describing "bundle theory" analytically is one thing, situating it out in the world of extant conflicting goods another thing altogether.

Or so it certainly seems to me.

Prismatic567 wrote:Instead of me convincing you, I believe the onus is on you to cover all the relevant philosophy views, understand them [not necessary agree] then reflect on them thoroughly before settling for any favored views.


How would I go about convincing you when I cannot even convince myself that my dilemma above is anything other than just another existential contraption?

I am still waiting for you to take what you deem to be [technically] a proficient philosophical understanding of these relationships out into the world of conflicted goods.

Instead, you come back to this:

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated, you need to forget about the idea of God and ALL(100%) that need to be known since are impossibilities.
If you keep sticking to these ideas all the time, you will not make any headway but rather as Kant stated, you will be mocked by such illusions.


Which can only prompt me to ask, "what on earth does this mean"? In my view, you steer clear of mockery by aiming the discussion in the general direction of "serious philosophy". Technical, analytical philosophy that revolves largely around pinning down the precise definition/meaning of words that "out in the world" are often understood [existentially] only from particular, conflicted points of view rooted in dasein. At least in the is/ought world. And then rooted further in political prejudices. Your argument/analysis [so far] is construed by me to be just another rendition of Will Durant's "epistemologists". A world of words.

In other words:

Indeed, and any number of moral and political objectivists embrace this frame of mind. Completely. And, from their vantage point, as long as folks are willing to remain "one of us", they are not "retards" or "morons". Or always [necessarily] wrong.

Again, I merely suggest that this has more to do with the points I raise on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 -- than the philosophical pursuit of truth and wisdom.


Prismatic567 wrote:Again you got the wrong view.
You are thinking from one perspective only, there ways to reconcile extremes into the Middle-Way that is win-win for all.


But I repeat myself...

With respect to issues like abortion, animal rights, the role of government, homosexuality etc., note the sort of discussion that those on both sides of these issues "here and now" might commense in order to attain this Middle-Way frame of mind. What would a win-win solution look like if not one embedded in moderation, negotation and compromise? Which is an entirely political contraption.

In other words, embedded in democracy and the rule of law. And here only those who have the power to enforce a particular narrative prevail. As opposed to those human communities in which brute, naked power prevails. Or one in which philosopher-kings prescribe and proscribe the optimal human interactions.

Prismatic567 wrote: 4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.


What then is the substantive difference between "absolute justice" and "abstract[ing] absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally"?

I must be missing your point here.

And the point I keep raising here is that [apparently] only way off in the future are we able to finally determine if humanity succeeds in making that leap from "justice" ensconced in sets of political prejudices, embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts, to Justice as you imagine human interactions in your head here and now.

Which from my frame of mind is basically just one more psychological defense mechanism able to provide at least some measure of "comfort and consolation" to an "I" that I construe as but more a fractured and fragmented existential fabrication/contraption embedded out in particular worlds and revolving around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529


But then [as I see it] you head straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe if your major premise if based on the wrong views of "I" then the rest do not follow to be right.

As I had stated many times, to moral and ethics to be efficient we need a Framework and System.
In any system we need objective standards as a guide to compare with the actual thus enabling a feedback for continuous improvement.

Note a generic model of what is a system.

Image

The difference is 'absolute moral laws' are merely guide and not enforceable, while 'justice' involving the legislature, judiciary entails enforcement. These elements must work complementarily within the Framework and System. How? Details required - too tedious - not going into the details at present.


How is this not just an "intellectual contraption" that encompasses a "general description" of human interactions. An interaction of words that do not involve substantively an examination of actual existential interactions that come into conflict over value judgments in a No God world?

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the starting point is to get the concept/idea of "What is I?" in perspective and the rest is likely to fit it. Otherwise you are actually conflating too many intellectual 'contraption' literally in this case.


Try to imagine it...

You are among a congregation of Dreamers [in America] watching intently as the bickering between liberals and conservatives in Washington may well result in a policy that sends them packing.

Sell to them your notion that, first and foremost, the starting point is to get the concept/idea of "what is 'I'" in its proper perspective.

Now, my problem, given my dilemma above, is that I recognize this political conflagration as just one more example of conflicted goods that propel my own particular "I" down into it. My values here and now are embedded politically in the "liberal" narrative. But I clearly recognize that they were once deeply embedded in the "conservative" narrative. The part that revolves around my current understanding of dasein. And I surmise in turn that philosophers/ethicists are unable to propose a resolution that reflects the optimal or the only rational manner in which mere mortals [in a No God world] are obligated to aim their behaviors.
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: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23066
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:37 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There are tons of philosophical discussion on the question of 'Who am I?'
Since the idea/concept of "I" is so critical, you need to cover all philosophical [Eastern and Western" materials involving the "I". Have you? If not, you'll need to. The bibliography will be a very long one.
e.g. http://www.ummoss.org/self/


Okay, who among us here has "cover[ed] all philosophical [Eastern and Western] materials involving the 'I"'.

Have you?
Yes, I have.
I knew this issue is very critical, i.e. Know Thyself and thus I had set out into a venture to cover as much as possible re What is the Self?' Who am I.

If so, what then is the definitive understanding of "I" as it pertains to an understanding of human interactions -- including motivation, intention and consequences -- as this pertains to a definitive understanding of conflicting human behaviors out in a particular world revolving around a particular context most of us will be familiar with.
There are hundreds [many many] of views of "I" and one has to deliberate the "I" within contexts holistically. So to understand [not necessary agree] these wide range of views of "I" you will need to read and research them.

I am not too sure of your issue above?

The first thing to deal with the "I" is to ensure the psychological stability of your own "I-ness" i.e. the cultivation of equanimity so that it is stable no matter what the turbulences are going on and swirling around the self.

Wiki wrote:Equanimity (Latin: æquanimitas having an even mind; aequus even animus mind/soul) is a state of psychological stability and composure which is undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other phenomena that may cause others to lose the balance of their mind.


Once one has developed a sufficient state of equanimity one should be able to deal and face with all sort of conflicting issues, goods, etc. undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other phenomena that may cause others to lose the balance of their mind.


As this succeeds in closing the gap between what you think you know now about the "human condition" and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to subsume all the current "unknown unknowns" into the TOE.
That persistent craving with "all that would need to be known ..." is where you are digging into a deeper and deeper hole.
You accused me of digging into the future with intellectual contraptions but at least my concern of the future is based on the empirically possible.
OTOH, your "all that would need to be known ..." is also a concern for a future and what is worse it is something that is empirically impossible in the future. You got to get rid of this craving for the impossible.

Now, my problem, given my dilemma above, is that I recognize this political conflagration as just one more example of conflicted goods that propel my own particular "I" down into it. My values here and now are embedded politically in the "liberal" narrative. But I clearly recognize that they were once deeply embedded in the "conservative" narrative. The part that revolves around my current understanding of dasein. And I surmise in turn that philosophers/ethicists are unable to propose a resolution that reflects the optimal or the only rational manner in which mere mortals [in a No God world] are obligated to aim their behaviors.
Before you propel your particular "I" down into anything, make sure your "I" is well anchored and stable. Note my points above.

Note I was once a pantheist then panentheist for many many years then I turned 180 degrees to non-theism [leveraged on Buddhism and philosophy]. I have no issues with that change.

In your case I believed what you have done was jumping from the frying pan into the fire, i.e. stuck in another hole with greater intensity but still within the same shaky paradigm.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users