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 iambiguous » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:14 am

That's the problem with atheists. They believe that they are the ones doing the reasoning because they don't understand what it entails and just assume their side is the smart/intellectual side.


What the atheists believe is that the theists have yet to convince them of the existence of any particular God beyond how they have defined or deduced this God into existence.

In their heads, for example.

In fact with some theists it is almost as though God has nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we actually live. He is basically just an intellectual contraption. Or, for others, a psychological defense mechanism.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:40 am

I don't care about whether an 'ordered structure' actually demonstrates the existence of God. It's just an example. In the context of that example, why can't I apply logic to the given concepts?


This argument seems perinent only with respect to the possible existence of a God. But most religionists go beyond that and claim a faith/belief in the God, their God.

And then [generally] it is the existence of this God that becomes crucial because it is this God that will judge us. It is pertaining to the existence of this God that immortality and salvation are at stake.

That is why I am always [by far] most curious about the really crucial gap between the existence of a God -- a God in which arguments like this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_ ... nce_of_God ] seem aimed, and the existence of the only God that counts: the alleged Creator Himself.

And it is this gap that the religionist are least able to close.

Or so it seems to me.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:17 pm

One of the very important things that you are not understanding is that gravity, for one example, only exists in Science because it was defined to exist.

Gravity is "whatever it is that causes mass to attract". Because mass "attracts", gravity exists. And that really is the ONLY reality of it. The real truth beyond their perception at the time is that "attraction" doesn't really exist except as a perception, not a reality. In fact, there is no such thing as "the force of gravity". There is no "force" and there is no "attraction". Mass merely behaves very much like there is a force.

This is beyond the understanding of the typical scientist. He doesn't understand that most of the fundamental elements that he believes to be real, are only real because they were defined to be real. But if you look closer, you can find that none of them actually exist.

The same is true of most of the "Spiritual" world. The things that you currently say don't exist of the spiritual world only existed before because they were defined to exist due to some behavior or property, just like the "force of gravity". The force of gravity is no more real than ghosts.


I suppose this does bring us a bit closer to how the definitionist "thinks" God into existence. But again, that would only seem to be applicable to a God.

How does he then close the gap between a God and the God, my God?

After all, if we are up on the top of a skyscrapper and someone pushes us over one by one, it's not like the manner in which we define gravity will determine our fate. Gravity does not just exist "in our head" -- in the manner in which we define it's meaning "out in the world". Similarly, is it really the manner in which we define "God" in our head that will determine our fate if we pray to him on the way down?

I truly do try to grasp how the objectivist qua abstractionist mind works here. But I keep coming back to the speculation that it is all somehow connected psychologically to his need to invent [define/deduce] a "reality" such that in his head he is able to find comfort and consolation. A "reality" able to provide him [mentally and emotionally] with a wholistic foundation upon which he can anchor "I".

What is the alternative -- some sort of mental affliction?

On the other hand, if he were able to take these definitions and decductions out of his head and anchor them instead to something more in the way of, say, hard evidence, his narrative would certainly acquire more...substance. But instead he always seems to shift the burden to the atheist -- it is up to them to prove that his definitions and deductions are wrong.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:55 pm

I suppose this does bring us a bit closer to how the definitionist "thinks" God into existence. But again, that would only seem to be applicable to a God.

How does he then close the gap between a God and the God, my God?

After all, if we are up on the top of a skyscrapper and someone pushes us over one by one, it's not like the manner in which we define gravity will determine our fate. Gravity does not just exist "in our head" -- in the manner in which we define it's meaning "out in the world". Similarly, is it really the manner in which we define "God" in our head that will determine our fate if we pray to him on the way down?
I think that you misunderstood James' post.

The universe is simply a moving uneven distribution of energy. When we think, we draw boundaries around clumps of energy and we label them. We do the same kind of labeling with respect to patterns of movement of energy. These labels only exist in our minds. We define objects into existence.
Although there is energy outside of ourselves, the objects 'I', 'skyscraper' and the pattern 'gravity' are only our thoughts. And yes ... death at the bottom of the skyscraper is also only a thought.

When James defines 'God', he is identifying an energy pattern and labeling it. He is not doing anything different than what is commonly done. Yet it appears extraordinary to some.
On the other hand, if he were able to take these definitions and decductions out of his head and anchor them instead to something more in the way of, say, hard evidence, his narrative would certainly acquire more...substance. But instead he always seems to shift the burden to the atheist -- it is up to them to prove that his definitions and deductions are wrong.
James is writing about step one -definitions. Substantive interactions on the ground is step two of the discussion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:04 pm

phyllo wrote:
I suppose this does bring us a bit closer to how the definitionist "thinks" God into existence. But again, that would only seem to be applicable to a God.

How does he then close the gap between a God and the God, my God?

After all, if we are up on the top of a skyscrapper and someone pushes us over one by one, it's not like the manner in which we define gravity will determine our fate. Gravity does not just exist "in our head" -- in the manner in which we define it's meaning "out in the world". Similarly, is it really the manner in which we define "God" in our head that will determine our fate if we pray to him on the way down?


I think that you misunderstood James' post.


With respect to God, that's easy to do. After all, in order to truly understand him you have to be inside his head. You have to understand the meaning of the words he uses as he does. You have to grasp the manner in which he defines and defends these words with still more words.

phyllo wrote:The universe is simply a moving uneven distribution of energy. When we think, we draw boundaries around clumps of energy and we label them. We do the same kind of labeling with respect to patterns of movement of energy. These labels only exist in our minds. We define objects into existence.
Although there is energy outside of ourselves, the objects 'I', 'skyscraper' and the pattern 'gravity' are only our thoughts. And yes ... death at the bottom of the skyscraper is also only a thought.


Okay, suppose all of this is true objectively. How is it then made relevant to the [demonstrable] existence of the God? the Real God? And what in the world does that have to do with conflicting value judgments "down here"? And how do we differentiate right from wrong behavior so as to be viewed favorably by the Real God on Judgment Day? Isn't that the part where the discussion shifts to immortality and salvation?

phyllo wrote:When James defines 'God', he is identifying an energy pattern and labeling it. He is not doing anything different than what is commonly done. Yet it appears extraordinary to some.


Again, maybe. But then there have been dozens of folks right here at ILP who have concocted all manner of intellectual contraptions "in their heads" to explain "reality". The "number" guys for example. The WTP fanatics from KTS. The political extremists from both the left and the right.


On the other hand, if he were able to take these definitions and decductions out of his head and anchor them instead to something more in the way of, say, hard evidence, his narrative would certainly acquire more...substance. But instead he always seems to shift the burden to the atheist -- it is up to them to prove that his definitions and deductions are wrong.


phyllo wrote:James is writing about step one -definitions. Substantive interactions on the ground is step two of the discussion.


Yes, I know how that works. I can only get to "step 2" with him after I am willing to accept his premises pertaining to "step 1".

Yet he seems to have no problems espousing all manner of "step 2" moral and political prescriptions on other threads. Most of them rather conservastive. If not reactionary. Just don't ask him to connect the dots between step 1 and step 2 "substantively".
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:05 pm

Is there no one here who has undergone the ordeal of religious, fundamentalist upbringing and has progressed to a deeper spirituality?


Isn't it true though that the fundamentalists are asking the very same question of those who refuse to [or are unable to] see God as they do?

To wit: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... calism.htm

So, how do we settle it?

And at least the fundamentalists will actually link their assessment of God to actual behaviors that are deemed obligatory if one wants to attain immortality and salvation.

The advocates of ecumenicalism [on the other hand] are often very, very vague about that. God just sort of pats you on the back as long as you profess to be a genuinely "spiritual" person.

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: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:24 pm

According to Kierkegaard, reason leads to the abyss of uncertainty. Faith requires a leap into the unknown, never into the unknowable. We have the free will to utilize such faith or to not do so.


Now this I can understand. It is far more realistic [to me] than complaining about fundamentalists.

To take a leap of faith to God would seem to be the only sensible option until God [if there is one] chooses to reveal Himself. Again, through something like the Second Coming of Christ. Which, ironically, is the schtick of the evangelicals.

But I am still waiting to hear the Christian argument that reconciles free will and an omniscient God. How can we freely take our leap to God when the all-knowing God must know from the very beginning that we either will or we will not. Otherwise, what does it mean to be omniscient?

As for those who argue that it is possible to "reason" to God, I am still waiting for them to demonstrate how this might be done much beyond agreeing with or not agreeing with the internal logic of their very own definitions and deductions.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:42 pm

On the other hand...

Kierkegaard's leap of faith and The Cloud of Unknowing have one thing in common. Both are belief that mental analyses of spiritual matters end in an abyss of uncertainty. Does the abyss of unknowing exist? And does it require a leap of faith for further spiritual understanding?


Had to Google The Cloud of Unknowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing

Let's start with the obvious. For some many most practically all of us the abyss connotes eternal nothingness. We die and that is it. All that we know and love is obliterated "for all time to come". Or so it seems.

And, so, unless we want to die, we either find a "frame of mind" able to obviate this or we do indeed fall into that abyss forever and ever and ever.

And thus Gods were invented. But, true, theological renditions of God are just not enough for some. It's all that "intellectual" stuff leading inevitably to "dueling deductions" and "dueling definitions" in places like this.

So the leap here is considerably more subjunctive. It is rooted instead in a deep-seated emotional and psychological stirring "in the heart" that is then ascribed to the "spirit" or to the "soul".

[The irony here being that this God is really just a mental state that you were somehow able to create "in your head"]

And yet for atheists like me who are searching for a path away from the abyss, it is of no use pursuing these anecdotal tales because the only way their particular God makes any sense is if you are able to actually be inside their head with them and think and feel as they do.

And a "leap of faith" necessarily precludes providing anything substantial regarding the relationship between God, Sin, immortality and salvation.

It's all basically just the vague mush of "feelings".

At least with folks like zinnat there is the attempt to connect the dots between leaps and logic. I just can't seem to figure out how he then connects this dot to the world we actually live in from day to day -- a world veritably bursting at the seams with conflicting value judgments.

Conflicts that many religionists then link to Judgment Day.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:15 pm

Let's start with the obvious. For some many most practically all of us the abyss connotes eternal nothingness. We die and that is it. All that we know and love is obliterated "for all time to come". Or so it seems.
The abyss is not death. The leap of faith and the cloud of unknowing are not about death.

You're writing about something completely different. :-?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:29 pm

phyllo wrote:
Let's start with the obvious. For some many most practically all of us the abyss connotes eternal nothingness. We die and that is it. All that we know and love is obliterated "for all time to come". Or so it seems.
The abyss is not death. The leap of faith and the cloud of unknowing are not about death.

You're writing about something completely different. :-?


Right. For the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals the "abyss" is really just an intellectual contraption that they are trying to pin down philosophically, ontologically, epistemologically, theologically.

Death and oblivion? Why they really have almost nothing at all to do with it!

Oh, and when are you going to respond to the points I raised above? These:

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I suppose this does bring us a bit closer to how the definitionist "thinks" God into existence. But again, that would only seem to be applicable to a God.

How does he then close the gap between a God and the God, my God?

After all, if we are up on the top of a skyscrapper and someone pushes us over one by one, it's not like the manner in which we define gravity will determine our fate. Gravity does not just exist "in our head" -- in the manner in which we define it's meaning "out in the world". Similarly, is it really the manner in which we define "God" in our head that will determine our fate if we pray to him on the way down?


I think that you misunderstood James' post.


With respect to God, that's easy to do. After all, in order to truly understand him you have to be inside his head. You have to understand the meaning of the words he uses as he does. You have to grasp the manner in which he defines and defends these words with still more words.

phyllo wrote:The universe is simply a moving uneven distribution of energy. When we think, we draw boundaries around clumps of energy and we label them. We do the same kind of labeling with respect to patterns of movement of energy. These labels only exist in our minds. We define objects into existence.
Although there is energy outside of ourselves, the objects 'I', 'skyscraper' and the pattern 'gravity' are only our thoughts. And yes ... death at the bottom of the skyscraper is also only a thought.


Okay, suppose all of this is true objectively. How is it then made relevant to the [demonstrable] existence of the God? the Real God? And what in the world does that have to do with conflicting value judgments "down here"? And how do we differentiate right from wrong behavior so as to be viewed favorably by the Real God on Judgment Day? Isn't that the part where the discussion shifts to immortality and salvation?

phyllo wrote:When James defines 'God', he is identifying an energy pattern and labeling it. He is not doing anything different than what is commonly done. Yet it appears extraordinary to some.


Again, maybe. But then there have been dozens of folks right here at ILP who have concocted all manner of intellectual contraptions "in their heads" to explain "reality". The "number" guys for example. The WTP fanatics from KTS. The political extremists from both the left and the right.


On the other hand, if he were able to take these definitions and decductions out of his head and anchor them instead to something more in the way of, say, hard evidence, his narrative would certainly acquire more...substance. But instead he always seems to shift the burden to the atheist -- it is up to them to prove that his definitions and deductions are wrong.


phyllo wrote:James is writing about step one -definitions. Substantive interactions on the ground is step two of the discussion.


Yes, I know how that works. I can only get to "step 2" with him after I am willing to accept his premises pertaining to "step 1".

Yet he seems to have no problems espousing all manner of "step 2" moral and political prescriptions on other threads. Most of them rather conservastive. If not reactionary. Just don't ask him to connect the dots between step 1 and step 2 "substantively".
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:48 pm

Oh, and when are you going to respond to the points I raised above? These:
Never.
You gave your opinion on something that James wrote. I think that you misunderstood and I tried to explain what I think James is trying to say.
That's it for me. No need to add anything.
I'm not interested in discussing immortality, salvation and judgement day. I can sum up but it's not what you want to read. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:03 pm

phyllo wrote:
Oh, and when are you going to respond to the points I raised above? These:
Never.


So, you're just going to let "the objective truth" here fall over into the abyss with you? :o

phyllo wrote:I'm not interested in discussing immortality, salvation and judgement day. I can sum up but it's not what you want to read. :D


Okay, fine. It's just that, from my experience, most believers [from leapers to evangelicals] seem to link God and religion to those things. I guess they've got a lot to learn about theology.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:16 pm

Okay, fine. It's just that, from my experience, most believers [from leapers to evangelicals] seem to link God and religion to those things. I guess they've got a lot to learn about theology.
Well, you can discuss it with them and maybe teach them. Enjoy. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:36 pm

phyllo wrote:
Okay, fine. It's just that, from my experience, most believers [from leapers to evangelicals] seem to link God and religion to those things. I guess they've got a lot to learn about theology.
Well, you can discuss it with them and maybe teach them. Enjoy. :D


Look, this is all starting to veer ever so closer to intellectual twaddle and glop. And you [and James] already know how I feel about that!!! :wink: :lol: :wink: :lol: :wink:
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:42 pm

Look, this is all starting to veer ever so closer to intellectual twaddle and glop. And you [and James] already know how I feel about that!!! :wink: :lol: :wink: :lol: :wink:
Do you have more success on other sites? Seems that only Zinnat is still discussing these things with you here.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:55 pm

phyllo wrote:Do you have more success on other sites? Seems that only Zinnat is still discussing these things with you here.


And even then only "up there" so far.

Look, folks are either willing to discuss God and religion with respect to morality and death and Judgment Day or they are not. If God and religion don't ultimately revolve around "how ought I to live" on this side of the grave, how is it not just one more rendition of mental masturbation that some "intellectuals" are so keen on pursuing.

I say fuck philosophy if all it is going to revolve around is the sort of scholastic shit that Will Durant's "epistemologists" seem to crave: the dueling definitions and deductions.

That's just not my own "thing" here.

Though, sure: for better and for worse. In other words, I'm not trying to argue here that my way is better.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:05 pm

Atheism is just another religion ... same people, different day, different cause, same tricks.


Yes, some theists are reduced down to this.

But it does not change the following:

The theists maintain a belief in [or faith in] one or another God. It is therefore incumbent upon them to demonstrate the extent to which this belief/faith is something they can then take "out of their head" and substantiate "out in the world" with others.

They either can or they cannot. Putting the onus on the atheist to demonstrate that a God, the God, their God does not exist is [in my view] preposterous.

And that is before all the theists embracing all the different Gods are able to demonstrate to each other why their God is the God.

Indeed, that's why so many religionists [here for example] prefer the "ecumenical" or "pantheistic" approach to God and religion.

That way they can just focus the beam on their "spirituality" and not have to deal at all with the relationship ["down here"] between their moral values, their behaviors and Judgment Day.

And, come on, Judgment Day is really what [existentially] religion will always be about. And that's because this is the part that revolves around immortality and salvation.

And not all the intellectual bullshit that is largely derived from the "definitional logic" of deduction.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:44 pm

A "dimension" is merely a measuring concept and extends infinitely in opposing directions. Anything can be measured using a dimension, such as color, intelligence, love, or whatever. There is no such physical thing as a dimension. We use 3 dimensions in order to better track and think about space. But there are no actual dimensions anywhere. A dimension is merely a concept of direction, much like saying "Right and Left". There is no physical "right" direction.


Or [perhaps]:

A "God" is merely a measuring concept and extends infinitely in opposing directions. Anything can be measured using a "God"...There is no such physical thing as a "God"... A "God" is merely a concept of direction, much like saying "Right and Left". There is no physical "right" "God".

John Lennon once suggested that "God" is a concept by which we measure our pain. That sounds about right. At least "out in the world" with others. Or around the time we come eyeball to eyeball with death and oblivion.

On the other hand, "in my head" God can be practically anything at all. And measure practically anything at all. And [best of all] all you have to do is to believe it!
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby zinnat » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:I wish, however, that you would examine this distinction that I make with respect to any particular individual's belief in God or in embracing one rather than another conflicting good.


I am not sure what you mean by that and how it is related to my reply.

iambiguous wrote:They may also have the "same experience" in having to choose whether to argue that abortion is moral or immoral


Not at all. They do not have the same experience of the moral side of the abortion in their heads. That is why they differ on its morality only, not biology.

iambiguous wrote:I'll try,


Your try needs to push itself a lot in that sense. You keep bringing others on and one in spite of my many reminders.

Imb, i cannot answer for others but only for me. It is useless to complain me about others. You better sort it out with them. I will not say a single word about others so is useless to bring those again and again.

Let us talk about what we are discussing or saying to each other only.

iambiguous wrote:Generally, when someone tells me that they believe in God, they are telling me that they have found a font [an omniscient, omnipotent font] that enables them to ground their moral values in an objective source


Not necessarily, particularly in my case. As i said before many times, i would not use the premise of God to decide morality. I do not see any need of that either.

iambiguous wrote:So, sooner or later they have to connect this dot themselves


Yes, the dots can be connected but morality does not entail that.

iambiguous wrote:Otherwise, what does the discussion have to do with dasein and conflicting goods?


imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.


iambiguous wrote:And this, after all, is my own main focus in discussions of this sort.


You are entitled to remained focus of what you want. That is fine. But, you try to use others as a shield to say what you cannot say to me directly. Point out directly what you find objectionable/unreasonable/illogical in me. I would not mind that at all but do not use any proxy.

iambiguous wrote:To me, it is as though you wish to make a distinction that really cannot be made with respect to the lives that we actually live. At least if we choose to live/interact with others.


You are quoting me out of the context. I tried to explain him my focus and how got involved in philosophy, but all that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, I understand your point but I can only note my own many experiences with religionists and moral objectivists in venues such as this. They seem willing to come "down here" only after I go "up there" and agree with them regarding which definitions and deductions are the starting point for discussing the existence of God and/or human morality. Again, if I cannot grasp how they think about these things theoretically "in their heads" how can I possibly understand how they think about something like abortion or homosexuality "down here"? And that part is invariably "later". Only later always seems to revolve around me agreeing with them with respect to the discussion "here and now".


Imb, you are accepting my argument of arithmetic/algebra yet again asking for discussing algebra and skipping arithmetic!

How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?

Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.

iambiguous wrote:All I can do is imagine others reading this and then wondering


Forget about what others think. Why should you or me worry about that here?

iambiguous wrote: What does this have to do with my own belief in God, with my own value judgments?


It is very much related with you, your belief and your value judgments. That is why i asked that. But, you again prefer to question my question instead of giving an answer.

iambiguous wrote:From my own experience, it is one thing to go around and around regarding definitions and deductions...and another thing regarding the relationship between our value judgments, our behaviors and the actual existential consequences of those behaviors. After all, what are the consequences of dueling definitions and deductions here?


Your experience is absolutely right. I agree that is there is no purpose in moving in circles behind definitions and deductions.

But, are you not doing the same when you refused to give me such an answer that i can understand, and gave me a para of confusing sentences? You expect all honesty and clarity from me in one go, but refuse to own that responsibility even to some extent? Is it fair?

iambiguous wrote:The complexity of logic is related to the complexity of human interactions in conflict. Sure. But what are the limitations of language in resolving those conflicts? Similarly, in my view, the complexities of definitions and deductions pertaining to the arguments one is able to give regarding the existence of God theoretically is not the same as actually demonstrating the existence of this God. Or not to me.


Imb, you should not presume the result in the middle of an unknown event.

iambiguous wrote:Or, perhaps, you are missing my point altogether.


May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.

iambiguous wrote:something which might be able to nudge nonbelievers into examining God from the direction you wish them to go?


Yes, i accept that, even if it an allegation from you or you consider it a mistake. That is what i am certainly trying to do. Because, that is the only possible way in which i can make them understand (not believe ) what i am saying. After my explanation, they will be free to judge whether that was enough/justified or not. I will leave it to them to conclude.

And, this is precisely that analogy of desert/hill was. If you want to see the snowfall, you have to come to the hills. I cannot make snow falling from the sky in the desert. You have to at least once follow my argument till the end before questioning.

iambiguous wrote:Perhaps you should just ignore the manner in which I strive to bring the discussion here down to earth. Perhaps you should just continue on to examining "whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not". But: It is coming up now on two months since you first broached that. And I still have no idea how this is related [substantively] to a God, the God, your God


As you mentioned before in either of these threads, you are striving for this answer since long. So, i can assume that you also can bear some time more. If you are a true seeker, you will certainly do that.

Secondly, as far as i am able to understand your mindset from our conservation, you are settled for a position where no rule stands. Most of the modern nihilists see this as an ultimate destination where the mankind will ultimately found itself. But, for some reasons (your intelligence/wisdom is one of them), it frightens you (rightfully so) and you look for some refuge in other alternatives. But, your impatience and waywardness fails you then.

You are complaining that i have not brought the discussion down to the earth till now. But, you have not paid any attention to my request that do not bring your past encounters with others into the discussion. I repeat it many times in every post but did you listen to that? You keep bringing others.

Thirdly, as soon as i try to go on with the line of my argument, you instantly put up a question; how it is pertinent with the God? And, instead of going on with the actual subject, we become engaged in discussing how the pertinence should be decided.

That is precisely what is happening.

Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.

iambiguous wrote:But, sure, that may [largely] be my own doing.


Yes, it is.

iambiguous wrote:And yet from my point of view you are just as culpable in ignoring the direction that I wish the discussion to go.


Now, you said it what i just mentioned above.
Imb, you need to understand that is precisely your mistake.

Who is trying to proof the existence of the God, you or me?
Who will decide the direction of the discussion, you or me?

Imb, if you want to have a general discussion about religions, god or related subjects, it is going fine. But, in that case, you should not complain that discussion is not reaching anywhere and your months have been wasted. If you want it to reach anywhere, stop questioning in the middle of the argument about its pertinence and validity.

iambiguous wrote:No doubt, bringing us back to the manner in which we may well be in two separate discussions here. Discussions predicated on two very different sets of assumptions/premises.
.

That usually happens in long and time taking discussions. Involved parties lose the focus from the issue and hand and tend to side step again and again. Though, I do not see it as a big issue.

iambiguous wrote:And, yes, that may well lead to its unraveling


I hope so.

iambiguous wrote:Again, the assumption is that I am biased, not you


At this point, you are misunderstanding me from the very beginning of our discussion. Let me clear my perceptive.

The term bias needs to understood carefully. There is a slight difference between being biased and having a particular subjective perception. A biased person is not such who owns his subjective POV. That is a philosophical position and nothing wrong with that too. But, when such a person is not ready to listen arguments coming from the other side honestly, he becomes biased.

It looks to me that i should not have used the term biased in my reply above. Perception would have served the purpose better.

All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other's POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.

You can see the difference what you are interpreting of me and what i was trying to say.

That is why i said this-

Listen like a student/child but question like a master/adult.

That sums up what my intention was.

iambiguous wrote:I start with the assumption that we can only exchange subjective points of view derived [at least in part] from the limitations of language. And logic. And definitions and deductions] in exploring them


Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?

iambiguous wrote:I seek to suggest here that this is beyond the capability of philosophers. Unless, of course, that are able to make that leap to God. Their God then becoming their font for deducing objective morality


It is certainly within the capability of philosophers and philosophy. But yes, most of philosophers use/used the premise of God to settle down the moral issues. But, that does not mean that it cannot be done without that.

iambiguous wrote:Well, some [myself included] have argued that, historically, in a particular place and time, a particular human community came to believe in the existence of this God. A God, the God of Moses and Abraham. And then, historically, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were derived from different renditions of what it means to believe in and to worship this God. And thus how one reacts to the verses above will be predicated on which particular denominational rendition of this God one subscribes to.

That's what I make of them. First and foremost anyway. That is how these beliefs are rooted historically, existentially "out in the world". Out in a particular world at a particular time.


All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.

iambiguous wrote:Here, though, you seem to be setting yourself up as, what, an authority on that which is being conveyed here? Thus, if others do not agree with you they are perforce wrong?

Are you suggesting that?


Not at all. It was not my interpretation by any means, but most of the Islamic scholars, though I agree with that. But, unfortunately, they have gone in the background and some shrewd clerics and leaders, having vested interests, have usurped the position of sole representatives of Islam. And, it suits them to keep the issue of conflicts alive.

The fact of the matter is that interpreting cow as metaphor was/is well established in the Islamic countries, from where Islam was originated. But, Muslim invaders/rulers interpreted it verbatim in the past as a cow intentionally to kill cows here, because it was a cheap and easily available source of meat and it proved their dominance over Hindus also.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and all of this "down here" is predicated on how one does connect the dots between cows and God


Imb, you are forgetting that i gave this example of cow in the reply of your assertion how language affects our daily lives. Remember this-

iambiguous wrote: And my reaction is invariably the same: What in the world does this have to do with the lives that we actually live?


So, whether the approximation of the language affects our daily lives or not? Are you agreeing?

iambiguous wrote:The cows do in fact exist though. But what about God? Let alone that how one human community connects the dots there is entirely at odds with how another community will. Then what? How, given the manner in which you consture the existence of God, should one go about discussing this with those communities embattled regarding what are clearly conflicting goods? The fact is that in India, people have been slaughtering each other now for centuries over what is deemed to be objectively moral. And how that is then related to God. And not just with respect to cows.


I am not sure what are you asking and in which context. If i start addressing each question that you raised, it may need a separate post. Like, how and why people killed each other in India itself a complex issue and requires the details of history.

imb, try to stick to the particular context. Do not generalize everything every time. That will keep discussion focused, pertinent and succinct.


iambiguous wrote:I don't know how to explain it better than I already have. There either is an existing God or there is not. You are either able to demonstrate his existence or you are not. You are either able to connect the dots between your belief in this God and your value judgments pertaining to behaviors such as homosexuality or you are not.


That does not answer my allegation of you being objective/subjective at your will. Though, I can very well understand your problem in explaining your position.

You said this in this very thread-

iambiguous wrote:That's what I make of them. First and foremost anyway


Look, how sure you are about the behavior of some people! What make you so sure or anything what is in their head only?

But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.

imb, when, even being a subjectivist, you can be so sure or things, why others cannot? What is the difference between you and objectivist here?

Let us try to probe this issue of subjectivity/objectivity a bit deeper.

imb, the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.

The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?

But, as soon as you feel/think about anything, objectivity comes into play, even if you are not sure about anything.
I am not sure
is also an objective statement.

You may not realize that but you are as objective as any other objectivist. You have to be. There is no other option either. The only difference between you and others is that they think their subjective opinion is the final/objective one but you do not commit the same mistake and think that others may have their different subjective opinions about the same thing
.

The difference between an objectivist and a subjectivist arises at the last stage only, when an objectivist says that either his judgment is an ultimate decision or there can be at least one, and subjectivist says there cannot be any such. But, if you look carefully, this statement of a subjectivist is also an objective decision, because he is sure of the uncertainty.

iambiguous wrote: I will need a more persuasive argument than the one that you have provided me so far.


I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.

iambiguous wrote:Again, as with dasein, I use it when I deem it is appropriate to use it.


But, what criteria you have for that other than your head? Tell me if you have any other!

So, if is fine when you judge and pass objective comments on others using what is your head, but you hold others guilty when they do the same! Why? What is the difference?

iambiguous wrote:Because many folks will assert many things about them without examining in depth the extent to
which they are able to conflate what they believe "in their head" and that which all rational men and women must believe


Again, you are impying here that you are rational but others not. How you concluded that?
Again, it is not something that could be in your head only!

iambiguous wrote:How do they actually go about demonstrating the distinction between what can shown to be true objectively for all of us [math, science, empircal facts, logic etc,] and what is instead only presumed to be true "in their heads" based on the assumptions they make.


I will address this later in this post with the verification issue.

iambiguous wrote:The question I then raise here is this: Is this not also true regarding yourself?


Yes, it is true for you. Means, you can think of me in that way unless i would not convey what is in my head to your head.


iambiguous wrote:I honestly do not follow your train of thought here.


This is again the same issue of different degrees of verification, about which i talked in the last post.

iambiguous wrote:WTP is merely Nietzsche's own subjective rendition of how one might [or ought to] explain human interaction out in the world. But, as I recently noted on another thread, did or did not Nietzsche himself largely live in a "world of words"? After all, what sort of actual power did Nietzsche wield out in the world with others? Instead, he seemed ever plagued with one or another psycho-somatic ailment and eventually went insane.


Not only N but that will happen to anyone who will pursue this premise of moral nihilism beyond a certain point. But, i was not referring to that. My point was whether you give some importance to such philosophical premises or not, or these are useless as they exist only in some heads? After all, we do not have real evidence of such things like science.

iambiguous wrote:Indeed, there are any number of folks from KTS here who embrace one or another rendition of WTP. But how do they go about making the distinction between objective truths and subjective points of view? Are they not as well abstractionists by and large.

As I noted above:

In fact, this is precisely the sort "dueling deduction" approach to philosophy that we come across on threads like Lys's "Performance Ontology". Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of these dense, scholastic, autodidactic abstractions. The stuff of pedants more often than not. In my view, this is precisely what makes "serious philosophy" today increasingly irrelevant to the lives we live.


May be. But, i will not comment on others.


iambiguous wrote:Now, to what extent are you be able to transcend this yourself in our exhange here? Below you note how you don't do this sort of thing yourself. How you "hate this kind of philosophy".


You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.

Secondly, i usually do not do this kind and tone of discussion, which i am having with you right now. I prefer to focus on real issues of the people, whether religious, mental (meditation) and social. You can check it from my posts and threads, if you want.

But, during my tenure of philosophical forums since last three years, somehow i got the impression that, most of the intellectuals see religious persons like me as a fool or at least incapable of having that level intellectual discussion, which philosophy entails. They think that a religious person must be blindfolded by his faith and cannot be rational ever.

The fact of the matter is that i am following your style of discussion. You are showing the way. It is not me but you, because i realized in the very beginning that is what you tend to do. Remember, It is not an allegation from my end. I am fine what that too. I am following this because that is only way i can make you understand what is my head as you can read my head only through your head only.

zinnat13 wrote:
Are you also aware of the fact that the same argument of yours is now given by the majority of scientists that all this intellectual philosophy is nothing but an illusion, which is merely in the heads of some people, not out there in the real world?

Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy?


iambiguous wrote:Yes, but many scientists root this in determinism. In the immutable laws of matter. Or they argue that with respect to morality, science has no business being involved at all because the tools of science function only in regard to those things that can be reduced down to either/or. At least with respect to the macro-world of human interaction.


That does not answer my query-

Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy? Or, you agree with the science that philosophy is nothing but some confusing and vague manifestations of some fertile heads?

I am not talking about only morality here but the whole of philosophy.

iambiguous wrote:Here though I root my own indeterminancy [philosophically] in my "dasein dilemma".


I am well aware of that by now.

zinnat13 wrote:
Thirdly, i would like to extend that argument a bit and apply it on thoughts and emotions. You and i know that we have thoughts and emotions. We would not argue on their existence, whether either of us have any proof or not. But, if an android or an alien would ask us to prove the existence of thoughts or emotions on the ground, how would we be able to do that?

imb, there are three levels of verifications. First party, Second party and Third party.

Religions deal in First party verifications, philosophy in Second party and science purely on Third party. Philosophical verifications are of the nature of Second party only. It is mutual between two such parties, who are at par in the terms of experience. Do not expect philosophy (as of now) to bring third party verifications. I can guarantee you that he whole of philosophy would fail at this very issue.


iambiguous wrote:Again, I can only note to others how abstract this is


Yes, it is. But, you neither realized its importance not try to address it. Actually, it is the answer to many of your qestions, especially what you keep raising again and again of connecting dots between up there to down here.

Secondly, this is also pertinent what you asked above-

iambiguous wrote:How do they actually go about demonstrating the distinction between what can shown to be true objectively for all of us [math, science, empircal facts, logic etc,] and what is instead only presumed to be true "in their heads" based on the assumptions they make.


That three levels of the verifications are the actual distintions. You cannot conflate between those. Let me explain.

Suppose, there is a woman and she beomes mother. Now, she is very pleased for having that baby. She is taking care of him 24/7, even the expence of her own comfort. But, why?

The only answer is because she loves her child. Now, the second question arises why she loves and cares that much for her child? There is no answer for it except because he is her child. But, from the pure logic, it is circular reasoning.

Now, from the POV of a computer, she must be insane, becuase firstly she suffered a lot during nine months of pragnency and giving birth, and now again she is suffering day and night for him. Is it insanity or not? Yes, we know that she is doing the right thing, but how can we explain this to a computer? Can you? Try any argument and i will nullify it from the computer's POV.

imb, every premise has its own realm and fits only there too. As soon as you try it to bring to other realm, it would lose both of its purpose and meaning.

Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.

The same is between the relation of science/philosophy and philosophy/religion. If philosophy cannot provide scientific evidences for its premises, how it can expect religions to do that? Is it fair?


iambiguous wrote:But: You do not think of identity from the perspective of dasein. As I do. So, in choosing a city in which the distinction revolves around one set of values as opposed to another, "I" can only respond from within the existential context of my actual life


But, where i am restricting you to do that?

iambiguous wrote:And not from within the context of what an alleged rational man or woman would be said to choose if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being. And, even though you deny it below, that seems to be more your own rendition of "choosing" here. At least to me. As though to suggest that if I don't choose the "right" city, then I am not thinking about the question as a rational man would.


You may assume what you want in your head. But, that is not my intention to declayer to rational or irrational. I just want you to choose and give the reasons for your decision. That is all.

But, you are not ready to do that. You accused many other members of doing highly intellectual philosophy which has no relation to common people, but are you not doing the same here? In every reply to this simple question of mine, you write some come confusing lines but do not give any clear answer. Is this the way you address the day to day issues of a common man?

iambiguous wrote:No, the answer I gave revolves around that manner in which I think of questions like this -- as revolving largely around subjective points of view rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a world sans God. And, in turn, from the point of view that there are limitations beyond which language and logic cannot go. Or, rather, in the manner in which I construe these relationships here and now.


The same thing here. A lot of words but no answer.

iambiguous wrote:Yes,


Then, do not say that you are thriving for having the proof of the God and do have not anything after two months.

iambiguous wrote:To discuss God and/or morality without bringing the world that we live in into it right from the start is the route that most abstractionists seem to prefer


First of all, everyone has the right to have his own set of preferences, including you and me. You should not object that, though i am okay with your preferences.

Secondly, as i said before, whether the God actually exists or not, and where his premise serves any purpose or not, are two entirely different issues. You neither can canflate nor discuss those at a time. You can choose anyone but you have to take one at a time.

iambiguous wrote:First, they tell me, let me show you the only rational and logically manner in which to think about these things. And then after you agree with me about that, we can begin to illustrate the text


That is not a bad thing to do, and you accepted that too in the last post. Perceptions take time to traven from one head to other head, thus, the slower, the better.

iambiguous wrote:You keep pointing out that this is not your intention here at all and yet you still refuse to offer anything other than those definitions and deductions


That depends on you, not me. I would be able do that only when you allow me to do so by stopping side stepping.

iambiguous wrote:Why can't/don't/won't you at least nudge me in the direction of how you link your existential views on homosexuality and and your views on God and philosophy


See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?

imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.

iambiguous wrote:You suggest instead that we can focus more on that over at the other thread. Okay, I'll wait and see what you have to say there. But, again, for me, identity, values, ethics, philosophy, religion, God etc., are either integrated "out in the world" through our arguments here or they are not. It just doesn't make much sense [to me] to say "first one, than the other".


But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?

iambiguous wrote:As an existentialist, I just don't think like that. At least not with respect to the relationship between identity, values, political economy and the limitations of language


I am not saying that these things are not interlinked. Of course, they are. But, for practical reasons, we cannot take up all in one go.

iambiguous wrote:But that can still only be reflected from [or condensed down into] a particular point of view. Google capital punishment: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= ... punishment

Thousands upon thousands of particular sites you can go to dispensing thousands upon thousands of particular points of view rooted in thousands upon thousands of particular historical, cultural and experientiental contexts.

And, in the end, we are still left with conflicting goods that no philosophical argument that I have ever come across is able to resolve. Instead, folks embrace a particular set of assumptions and take their existential/political leaps. Just like you and I do.

And: with or without God.

So: one's "best option". How far removed is that from the "objective truth"? And how is this factored into one's belief in God and religion?


Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.
iambiguous wrote:So what?!!! Boy, does that speak volumes regarding the gap between us. At least from my point of view.


We are what our history made us that will be the same ever. We learn fro history and present and add something to it. I do not see any gap in this. You are doing the same as i do, neither you are an exception nor me.

iambiguous wrote:Throughout the ages historically, and across the globe culturally, different folks [enacting different laws] have come to view everything from abortion and slavery to gender roles and capital punishment from every imaginable point of view. But one thing that the philosophers/ethicists have never managed to accomplish is to delineate the most rational argument so as to resolve these conflicts once and for all.


Yes, that is true. But, can you say that we are the same what we were in the Iron Age? Have we made progress from that or not?

iambiguous wrote:But, sure, here too one can insert a "so what?" And then argue that theoretically the one objective truth does exist and some day we will find it. With or without God


Yes.

iambiguous wrote:But then most moral objectivists are quick to add that when they finally do find it, it will coincide precisely with what they think is true right now.


That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.

iambiguous wrote:Just as, when God finally does choose to reveal Himself, it will be their God.


If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:02 am

zinnat13 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:They may also have the "same experience" in having to choose whether to argue that abortion is moral or immoral


Not at all. They do not have the same experience of the moral side of the abortion in their heads. That is why they differ on its morality only, not biology.


But: whatever they think "in their heads" regarding the biology of human sexuality and the biology of abortion, the objective facts embedded in both transcend whatever their subjective opinions might be. That is always my own distinction here. What are the objective facts pertaining to the morality of abortion? What are the objective facts pertaining to religion and God?

zinnat13 wrote:imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.


No. In my opinion that is just your own assumption here. If one professes a belief in God [especially a God, the God] not to conflate them seems irrational to me. At least with respect to what draws me into exchanges like this: dasein and conflicting value judgments. And then in understanding them in a world either with or without God.

But, sure, let's examine the extent to which we really can stick only to the part about a God actually existing.

zinnat13 wrote:How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?

Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.


I can only note once more that, with respect to God and religion, there are those things that others believe to be true "in their heads" and there are those things that they either can or cannot demonstrate to others as being true objectively for all of us.

I don't need to be in their head in order to discuss the idea of God and religion. That is rooted instead in the brain's capacity to connect the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world". God is just one possible explanation for an ultimate understanding of this.

But that is not the same thing as convincing me to believe in the existence of an actual God embedded in an actual religious narrative.

iambiguous wrote:Or, perhaps, you are missing my point altogether.


zinnat13 wrote:May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.


And yet my very point is that "mistakes" may not really exist at all pertaining to what is said to be true regarding the existence of God. Instead, we are "right" or "wrong" depending on the subjective [and, culturally/historically, inter-subjective] assumptions that we make "in our heads" about God. But until you grasp this distinction -- the one that I make -- then, sure, we may well just go around and around in the same circles.

zinnat13 wrote:Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.


In that case, this [for me] becomes more an exercise in curiosity. Sure, I am intrigued by whatever your conclusion might be. But it seems that it will have almost nothing to do with the reason I am myself now interested in discussions of God and religion: in exploring the relationship between mere mortals [this side of death] and immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

zinnat13 wrote:All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other's POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.


Back to my own distinction however:

To the objective truths for which there can be no bias, no subjective points of view. Here a clear demonstration that a God does in fact exist. That is always what it comes down to for me: Whatever the gap might be between what "I" believe is true and what I can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women must believe is true as well.

iambiguous wrote:I start with the assumption that we can only exchange subjective points of view derived [at least in part] from the limitations of language. And logic. And definitions and deductions] in exploring them


zinnat13 wrote:Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?


But I acknowledge right from the start that, with respect to God and religion [and objective morality], I am making certain assumptions rooted subjectively in dasein. All I ask of others then is that they demonstrate to me that their own narrative is able to transcend this and establish things as in fact true objectively as opposed to things that are claimed to be true objectively.

iambiguous wrote:Well, some [myself included] have argued that, historically, in a particular place and time, a particular human community came to believe in the existence of this God. A God, the God of Moses and Abraham. And then, historically, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were derived from different renditions of what it means to believe in and to worship this God. And thus how one reacts to the verses above will be predicated on which particular denominational rendition of this God one subscribes to.

That's what I make of them. First and foremost anyway. That is how these beliefs are rooted historically, existentially "out in the world". Out in a particular world at a particular time.


zinnat13 wrote:All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.


On the contrary, all of that is required from my point of view. That is why I was curious to hear how you would respond to the points I make. And to respond in the context of actual religious conflicts "out in the world" regarding an understanding of the one true God and religion. In other vwords, the way these things actually do unfold "down here" existentially. Which, it seems, is the part that you are least interested in exploring in this exchange. If I understand you correctly.

zinnat13 wrote:But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.


Yes, you make assertions like this about me. As though in merely asserting it to be true that makes it true. As though anyone [including me] who does not necessarily share in these assumption doesn't really understand me at all. Not as you do.

In other words [it seems], if I do not recognize myself in your assertions, it only demonstates how far I [the student] has to go in order to grasp what you [the master] know to be true.

Really, that [to me] is how, at times, you "come off" here.

Then you will assert something like this:

zinnat13 wrote:
[color=#0000FF]the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.

The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?


But what -- out in the world -- does that mean? From my vantage point, it is just another abstract "analysis" bursting at the seams with the circular logic of words defining and defending other words..

Thus when I note:

iambiguous wrote: I will need a more persuasive argument than the one that you have provided me so far.


You note:

zinnat13 wrote: I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.


Again, two and one half months into this exchange and [apparently] we have barely scratched the surface regarding, "the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not."

And that [apparently] is a million miles more from establishing the actual existence of God.

You accuse me of discussing the manner in which I construe these relationships as just another manifestation of objectivism rooted in my head. And yet, unlike you, I have absolutely no hestitation in integrating/situating "dasein" and "conflicting goods" and "political economy" out in the world of actual human interactions. Pertaining to or not pertaining to God and religion.

Now, this may not seem fair to you. I may well be seen here as the one who is objectifying you. But I can only react honestly here to what you post.

iambiguous wrote:Now, to what extent are you be able to transcend this yourself in our exhange here? Below you note how you don't do this sort of thing yourself. How you "hate this kind of philosophy".


zinnat13 wrote:You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.


Yes, like James, you have your "God and religion threads" and your "social, political and economic interaction" threads. But my point is precisely that you refuse to connect them. As though a philosophical/theological discussion of God and religion really should be a million miles away from the conflicting value judgments that propel human interactions throughout history. As though that is the only rational manner in which to discuss God and religion "out in the world". And yet to the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals these two things could not possibly be more connected.

Instead, it seems, you wish to situate God and religion only in "the whole of philosophy".

And then, from my point of view, if someone asks, "what in the world does that mean?", the objectivists put on their "master" garb. In order to teach the "student" how to be as wise about these things as they are.

zinnat13 wrote: Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.


In other words, only when I finally grasp [as you do] the fundamental philosophical premises regarding "the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not" is there any chance I will understand in turn the difference between a mother loving her child and a pregnant woman aborting the child instead.

I am simply not "ready" for that part yet. The irony again being that, over the years, any number of objectivists embracing any number of Gods and any number of secular ideologies [Reason] have pointed that out to me. And then when I point out there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting [even contradictory] renditions of this, they still insist that only their own rendition is the one true objective reality.

Either that or only their own intellectual/philosophical/spiritual path is the one that takes us there. And that just brings me back to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

iambiguous wrote:Why can't/don't/won't you at least nudge me in the direction of how you link your existential views on homosexuality and and your views on God and philosophy


zinnat13 wrote:See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?

imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.


And yet on our other thread, you have had plenty of opportunity to do just that. But have you? Instead [to me] it's basically been more of the same: abstraction, theorizing, defining, deducing --- epistemology, the jargon of scholastic intellectuals. The standard objectivist argument: only when, as serious philosophers, we have come to agree on the manner in which serious philosophers must discuss these things conceptually, theoretically, academically, intellectually, etc., can we then bring the world of actual human interactions into it.

And yet again, ironically, my point is to focus instead precisely on the limitations of philosophy [language, logic etc] in examining these relationships.

Please, though, do pick a topic there and let's do this.

In fact, as I noted above:

iambiguous wrote:You suggest instead that we can focus more on that over at the other thread. Okay, I'll wait and see what you have to say there. But, again, for me, identity, values, ethics, philosophy, religion, God etc., are either integrated "out in the world" through our arguments here or they are not. It just doesn't make much sense [to me] to say "first one, than the other".


zinnat13 wrote:But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?


And yet if moral/political/religious objectivists were in fact able to provide us with the most rational argument [path] in which to examine/resolve the issues in these blooks we could at least differentiate [objectively] those books [teachers] who were educating the children in the most reasonable manner. And thus providing them with the most reasonable manner in which to comport themselves "out in the world" when actual behaviors [and actual consequences] were involved.

For instance, books/sources of information relating to capital punishment. As rational men and women, how should we teach our children to think about that?

But then this:

iambiguous wrote:But that can still only be reflected from [or condensed down into] a particular point of view. Google capital punishment: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= ... punishment

Thousands upon thousands of particular sites you can go to dispensing thousands upon thousands of particular points of view rooted in thousands upon thousands of particular historical, cultural and experientiental contexts.

And, in the end, we are still left with conflicting goods that no philosophical argument that I have ever come across is able to resolve. Instead, folks embrace a particular set of assumptions and take their existential/political leaps. Just like you and I do.

And: with or without God.

So: one's "best option". How far removed is that from the "objective truth"? And how is this factored into one's belief in God and religion?


zinnat13 wrote: Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.


But out in the real world men and women will either be or not be executed depending on which opinions the legal/political authorities subscribe to. What could possibly be more "the problem" if you or someone you love is now sitting on death row? Or if you or someone you love lost a loved one who was killed by someone sitting on death row?

And how is this related then to your own particular belief in your own particular God? And what happens when another man or woman has their own particular belief in their own partiuclar God that is not in sync with yours on this issue?

And, going all the way back to the "iron age", what constitutes "progress" here? How is that not rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and [with respect to the law] political economy?

iambiguous wrote:But, sure, here too one can insert a "so what?" And then argue that theoretically the one objective truth does exist and some day we will find it. With or without God


zinnat13 wrote: Yes.


Yes, theoretically.

iambiguous wrote:But then most moral objectivists are quick to add that when they finally do find it, it will coincide precisely with what they think is true right now.


zinnat13 wrote: That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.


Sure. And everyone has the right to insist that, what they now believe is true "in their head", is also true objectively for all of us. As long as we all agree on the gap between that and actually proving it objectively.

iambiguous wrote:Just as, when God finally does choose to reveal Himself, it will be their God.


zinnat13 wrote: If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?


Sure. But here you have no intention of doing so. Instead, the sole focus of your argument is to demonstrate "whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not."

And if I then ask "what on earth does that mean?", I am missing the whole point of this exchange.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:46 pm

If you believe in a specific higher power, could you truly be philosophical, questioning why we're here, the morality of things, etc, or would it be nearly impossible, as thoughts like that might be "blasphemous"?


Yes, this is more or less the point I keep raising over and again here:

If 1] you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God and 2] this God is linked to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation on the other side of it, what is really the point of pursuing philosophy?

Philosophy would seem to be either in alignment with a God, the God, your God or not.

I simply try to yank the philosophy of these strange objectivists down to earth.

God is the answer to the question 'why are we here?". How can it be blasphemous?


As though this is actually a rational rebuttal!

Or, sure, maybe it is. If only one of them could convince 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: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:53 pm

As though this is actually a rational rebuttal!

Or, sure, maybe it is. If only one of them could convince me.
It seems pretty obvious. If asking the question is wrong then it would be impossible to arrive at the unblasphemous answer - God.
Other interpretations are equally nonsensical ... why are we here? meaning - what is our purpose? That would still be an unblasphemous question since God provides the purpose.

If he had asked ... 'Is it blasphemous to answer the question in any other way than : God, God knows, God's intent ? ". Then it might be open to discussion. But he didn't ask that.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:05 pm

phyllo wrote:
As though this is actually a rational rebuttal!

Or, sure, maybe it is. If only one of them could convince me.
It seems pretty obvious. If asking the question is wrong then it would be impossible to arrive at the unblasphemous answer - God.
Other interpretations are equally nonsensical ... why are we here? meaning - what is our purpose? That would still be an unblasphemous question since God provides the purpose.

If he had asked ... 'Is it blasphemous to answer the question in any other way than : God, God knows, God's intent ? ". Then it might be open to discussion. But he didn't ask that.


I still don't see how this is really relevant to the OP. At least not if one professes to believe in a God, the one God, their own God. What is blasphemous is what God says is blasphemous. It's all right there in the Book.

How does a pursuit of philosophy change that? After all, isn't this why Kant linked his own deontological ethics to God? All that extraordinary philosophy and it still just comes down to the transcendent font in the end.

Bottom line: God is the Kingdom of Ends when our behaviors are finally assessed on Judgment Day. Right?

Being or not being a philosopher would not seem to make any difference 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: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:35 pm

At one time in my youth I was able to draw the spirit of another person over 800 miles. Using an occult method of transportation, I relocated the spirit of a young girl. The presence of the spirit was witnessed by my mother. The result of the experiment was bad--the person whose spirit I transported hated me for the imposition.


Now, if this were ever to happen to me, I would certainly be impressed. And it would surely nudge me a bit closer to the path that might nudge me a bit closer to God.

On the other hand, if only those who do claim to have had these experiences were able to have them again -- only this time in the presense of folks able to test them scientifically, empirically, phenomenally.

In fact, for the folks here who do claim to have such experiences, I would recommend that they go here: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

They could well be a million dollars richer and, if they are actually able to demonstrate what they claim is true, it might aid and abet me in grappling with the abyss.

Let me know how it works out.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:03 pm

It is unfair or rather useless to compare different religions. That does not serve any purpose but creates only confusion in the minds of the people.


This, to me, reflects precisely a mentality about God and religion that would, by and large, be of interest only to academics -- historians, theologians, religious scholars and the like. Their interest is only to understand the differences culturally and historically. To describe the differences.

In my view, it completely sets aside the very reason that Gods and religions come to exist [within actual human communities] in the first place: to secure a transcending foundation for objective morality on this side of the grave and to ascribe a final judgment pertaining to immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

[aside from the role it plays in the context of political economy -- the opiate of "the people" ]

In that regards, what difference does it really make whether you call yourself a Jew or a Moslem or a Christian or a Hindu or a Shinto.

The bottom line is always the same. With God, objective morality, immortality, salvation, divine justice etc. are within reach. Without God they are not within reach.

The rest [to me] is just didacticism.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26911
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users