Peace

[Ierrellus]

Arc,
Mea Culpa. I was having a bad day and apparently took it out on you. No, you do not have to answer in koans. I was just saddened that the thread came to be about me.
Wm. Blake considered Wordsworth to be a pagan--not in a good sense.
Tennyson considered Nature "red in tooth and claw".
Natural disasters, after all, are expressions of Nature.

[iambiguous]

IMHO the problem with conflicting goods is a belief in what is not. Any God worth his salt is a force not a person. The force is universal, unconditional love. That alone can save us from ourselves.

Again, noting this among family or friends or folks you happen to bump into in which the subject of God comes up, will garner reactions that come with exchanges of this sort.

But, in a philosophy venue, what you think and feel about intertwining God and nature and peace on earth and love would seem to be open to a more rigorous examination. For me, this always revolves around configuring what you believe into demonstrations able to persuade others to believe it in turn. Otherwise we're back in the bar or around the dinner table exchanging our "personal opinions".

But, yeah, that's just me.

Kushner is probably right. The three Os no longer apply to God which is why Bishop Spong compares the literalist Christian God to a comic book character like Superman.

If Harold Kushner -- who is still around -- were here, I would pose the same questions to him. Focusing not on what he believes about God but on how he is able to substantiate why others ought to believe the same thing.

[Ierrellus]

Spong is deep. Consider this:
"Ethics must be freed from the tactic of controlling human behavior by imposing on it the will of some external deity. Christian ethics in the future must be directly linked to the right to explore selfhood, to the courage to live, to love, and to be simply for the sake of living, loving, and being." (Spong 1998, p.165).
A new future for a religion that includes everyone in the here and now is not just bar talk or an evening's chat. Spong is still a bishop although he is criticized by fellow church members as an atheist. His concept of God is that God be "understood not as a person, but as the depth and ground of life itself." (166) His mentor is Tillich.

Neither Tillich nor Spong are shallow thinkers. Both could answer easily the questions and concerns you raise here. Both are read and studied by intelligent, rational, and virtuous searchers for truth.

[Ierrellus]

Most of the criticisms of Christianity expressed in this forum come from rational people who find fundamentalist notions about God to be immoral. Yet not all want to give up religion. New works, such as Spong's on Christian existentialism may help honest seekers of truth not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[iambiguous]

Spong is deep. Consider this:
"Ethics must be freed from the tactic of controlling human behavior by imposing on it the will of some external deity. Christian ethics in the future must be directly linked to the right to explore selfhood, to the courage to live, to love, and to be simply for the sake of living, loving, and being." (Spong 1998, p.165).
A new future for a religion that includes everyone in the here and now is not just bar talk or an evening's chat. Spong is still a bishop although he is criticized by fellow church members as an atheist. His concept of God is that God be "understood not as a person, but as the depth and ground of life itself." (166) His mentor is Tillich.

Clearly, some men and women dive down into the deep end of the pool here. They probe religion introspectively. And, no doubt about it, their examinations can be exhausting.

But, to do so, and then come to conclude that...

"Christian ethics in the future must be directly linked to the right to explore selfhood, to the courage to live, to love, and to be simply for the sake of living, loving, and being."

...tells me nothing at all about any particular context in the future in which this courageous, loving, ethical Christian encounters "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" embedded in any number of conflicting goods. At times, no doubt, even when in contact with other courageous, loving, ethical Christians.

This frame of mind is [to me] just another psychologism: "a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms, or to exaggerate the relevance of psychological factors."

In other words, a psychological defense mechanism employed by some in order to ground "I" in one or another more or less comforting and consoling philosophy of life.

Believe me, I'd choose it myself if I could figure out a way to yank "I" up out of the hole I have thought myself into.

Neither Tillich nor Spong are shallow thinkers. Both could answer easily the questions and concerns you raise here. Both are read and studied by intelligent, rational, and virtuous searchers for truth.

Thinkers. Deep thinkers. But what doesn't change is their capacity to demonstrate to others that what they think is that which all rational men and women are obligated to think.

You claim they could easily answer my questions and concerns. Well, Tillich is long dead. And, while still around, it is unlikely Spong will show up here and attempt to.

On the other hand, these are men you greatly respect and admire. Yet, in my view, you do not yourself attempt to answer my questions and address my concerns [above]. So as to allow me at least some measure of understanding regarding their own attempts to bring "general descriptions" like the one above out into the world of conflicting goods.

A future peace, sure. But: on who's terms? And, in regard to God, the part where what you choose on this side of the grave either is or is not judged by God in order to gain access to an immortal soul and salvation throughout all of eternity.

[Ierrellus]

So my sources are bound up in psychological defense mechanisms whereas yours are not?
"Immortal soul" and " eternal salvation" are ideas from the old mythology of a dying religion. So is the notion of conflicting goods. Why not give religion a human voice devoid of external pressures?
Check out Freud's ideas on the evolution of self-consciousness as it relates to religion.

[iambiguous]

So my sources are bound up in psychological defense mechanisms whereas yours are not?

Note where I have ever argued that. On the contrary, in regard to "I" in the is/ought world grappling to bring peace to the world that we live in [with or without God], one is either able to ground one's self in a solid foundation [sacred or secular] or, like me, human existence is seen basically to be on an essentially meaningless trajectory to oblivion.

My self, your self and the selves all the rest of us here from my point of view.

But: that's all it is: my very own existential contraption. Ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas.

Then the extent to which the religious minded are willing to concede that perhaps their faith in God is basically just a psychological defense mechanism. And, that, beyond faith itself, they are not able to go.

"Immortal soul" and " eternal salvation" are ideas from the old mythology of a dying religion. So is the notion of conflicting goods. Why not give religion a human voice devoid of external pressures?

Again, more assertions on your part without a shred of evidence to back them up. And all the millions of religious folks around the globe still embracing the old mythologies about God and religion are, what, just plain wrong?!

And cite some examples relating to particular contexts in which value judgments do in fact come into conflict that illustrate your point about "religion with a human voice".

From my perspective [which is the only one I've got], you think in general descriptions such as this precisely because the spiritually uplifting feeling they give you can only be sustained to the extent that they remain psychologisms.

Check out Freud's ideas on the evolution of self-consciousness as it relates to religion.

Okay, but how about we just skip to the part where you imagine Freud responding to the points I raise above regarding perceptions of peace on Earth as the embodiment of dasein confronting conflicting goods in a world that is ultimately dominated by those with economic wealth and political power?

[Ierrellus]

Peace will not be found in outdated concepts of religion and philosophy, For example, the notion of conflicting goods smacks of postmodern ethical relativism from which new and better ideas cannot emerge. Hopefully new and progressive ideas, as espoused by rational and virtuous people, will cause the old ideas to evolve or allow them to die. The new ideas are not based on wishful thinking but on refutation of erstwhile worldviews. It has respect for science as a legitimate pursuit of reality. It exonerates the physical from centuries of neglect or abuse.
In progressive thinking there are no conflicts of existential angst requiring external remedies. Being is becoming if it evolves at all. The "I" is not a static entity. The concept of the "I" as pleading for meaning is a given. The meaning, however, can be considered spiritual or totally secular. Being is the right to be and to evolve as what is fully human. Being is not to be defined by philosophical stances, religious myths or psychologisms.

[promethean75]

^^^ that sounds like an existential contraption to me, biggs. what do you think? should we ask him for a particular context, or let him keep the generalizations?

[Ierrellus]

^^^ that sounds like an existential contraption to me, biggs. what do you think? should we ask him for a particular context, or let him keep the generalizations?

What is an existential contraption? I"m only reporting on ideas that find being as belonging, not generalizations but evolving truths. Does Iambiguous really need your input to continue, ad nauseum, confirming his spurious claims for himself at least.
Is there no one here who can see beyond postmodern dead ends of thought about ethics?

[promethean75]

What is an existential contraption?

anything anybody says at ilp, including biggs (who incidentally coined the neologism). similar to the irony we saw when marx said 'i'm not a marxist', derrida said 'deconstruction is not a method', and wittgenstein said 'everything in the tractatus is nonsense.'

the beauty of the concept of the existential contraption is that any attempt to describe it, explain it, or refute it, is - contraption qua contraption - an existential contraption.

it is that which all things are, but not what all things are as that which are not what they are, which they're not, as they are.

[Ierrellus]

What is an existential contraption?

anything anybody says at ilp, including biggs (who incidentally coined the neologism). similar to the irony we saw when marx said 'i'm not a marxist', derrida said 'deconstruction is not a method', and wittgenstein said 'everything in the tractatus is nonsense.'

the beauty of the concept of the existential contraption is that any attempt to describe it, explain it, or refute it, is - contraption qua contraption - an existential contraption.

it is that which all things are, but not what all things are as that which are not what they are, which they're not, as they are.

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe the concept of the existential contraption depends on one's ability to describe experiences in such a way that another can understand them. Whatever the case Iambiguous seems hell bent on refuting that which he will not try to understand.
Have you anything to say about the evolution of progressive Christianity? An old bumper sticker displayed a fish beside the words "Evolve or Die".

[iambiguous]

Peace will not be found in outdated concepts of religion and philosophy, For example, the notion of conflicting goods smacks of postmodern ethical relativism from which new and better ideas cannot emerge. Hopefully new and progressive ideas, as espoused by rational and virtuous people, will cause the old ideas to evolve or allow them to die.

Yes, you have noted this before. And, however one construes the meaning of "postmodern ethical relativism", they are either willing to intertwine this meaning in an actual description/examination of human behaviors in conflict over value judgments, or they are not.

Same with "new and progressive ideas". Pertaining to what actual context?

You will either cite examples of "rational and virtuous people" embodying these new ideas juxtaposed to those using the old ones or you won't.

The old idea that God is an omniscient and omnipotent entity able and willing to judge human behaviors on this side of the grave persists for a reason. It simply makes sense that if you strive for immortality and salvation there must be a distinction made between behaviors that allow you to go up or go down. Otherwise, it's what, Calvinism?

How then do those who reconfigure this into the new, progressive ideas about God, go about demonstrating [in a philosophy venue] that their own ideas are necessarily in sync with what is actually true?

Other than in acknowledging that they want this to be true because believing that it is true comforts and consoles them?

In other words, by bringing something like this...

The new ideas are not based on wishful thinking but on refutation of erstwhile worldviews. It has respect for science as a legitimate pursuit of reality. It exonerates the physical from centuries of neglect or abuse.

...out into the world of human interactions in conflict [over God or over anything else relating to peace on earth] and providing evidence that rational human beings are obligated to think it in turn. To me it's just one more "general description" qua "psychologism" aimed more at allowing you to ground your own "I" in a more solid -- but still spiritual -- foundation.

In progressive thinking there are no conflicts of existential angst requiring external remedies. Being is becoming if it evolves at all. The "I" is not a static entity. The concept of the "I" as pleading for meaning is a given. The meaning, however, can be considered spiritual or totally secular. Being is the right to be and to evolve as what is fully human. Being is not to be defined by philosophical stances, religious myths or psychologisms.

In other words, defining everything into existence here. Definitional logic revolving almost entirely around the belief that the meaning you give to the words in the argument itself makes them true.

And then around and around and around we go.

[promethean75]

Have you anything to say about the evolution of progressive Christianity? An old bumper sticker displayed a fish beside the words "Evolve or Die".

i have nothing to say that isn't already obvious. fortunately the language of the bible is obscure and vague enough to permit ever renewed interpretations in light of what is discovered in the natural sciences. that bumper sticker expresses how what were once diametrically opposed theories - creationism and evolution - are now being converged by modern intellectuals. the 'new creationists' movement and what have you. i mean stuff like saying 'woah maybe seven days was really like seven billion years... in which case the work of god's creation event is evolution, etc.' this kind of stuff is going on in christian discourse because christians are being forced to reconcile obvious scientific evidence with a story written by semi-literate bronze age desert tribesmen four thousand years ago that they don't want to let go of. so, they'll continue reinterpreting christianity as much as necessary. remember only in the last few hundred years did christian scholars dispel the notion that god was a racist, sexist, misogynistic, slave driver. that took hella effort to dissuade christians of something that was painfully obvious in the old testament.

eventually it'll be phased out, though. the great monotheisms are the last ones to go... basically because they are such gargantuan forces.

[iambiguous]

^^^ that sounds like an existential contraption to me, biggs. what do you think? should we ask him for a particular context, or let him keep the generalizations?

On the other hand, the meaning that I give to the expression "existential contraption" is no less an existential contraption.

In other words, if someone asks me what an existential contraption is, it's not like I can reach into my back pocket and pull it out like a wallet and say, "here, this is one".

Thus, my own understanding of it revolves by and large around the idea of a "contraption" being something that is put together existentially --- a piece picked up here, a piece picked up there. Existentially because, over the course of living your own unique life encompassing your own unique set of experiences, you're never quite sure what's around the next corner. So you're never quite sure what is there to be picked up next.

I merely focus more on "I" here in the is/ought world. For example, doctors performing abortions are dealing with the same sequence of interactions relating to human biology, sexual intercourse, pregnancy and a woman not wanting to be pregnant. "I" here is existential only in the sense that the facts are all different in every context.

Same with folks striving to attain peace on Earth. There either is peace around the globe or there is not. But peace on who's terms? What behaviors are all rational men and women obligated to pursue in order to attain and then sustain this peace on Earth?

How is that more or less an existential contraption given how "I" have come to understand it? How, in other words, could it be encompassed so as not to be an existential contraption at all, but an actual objective peace on Earth embraced by all as the only rational manner in which this peace can be manifested.

[Ierrellus]

Have you anything to say about the evolution of progressive Christianity? An old bumper sticker displayed a fish beside the words "Evolve or Die".

i have nothing to say that isn't already obvious. fortunately the language of the bible is obscure and vague enough to permit ever renewed interpretations in light of what is discovered in the natural sciences. that bumper sticker expresses how what were once diametrically opposed theories - creationism and evolution - are now being converged by modern intellectuals. the 'new creationists' movement and what have you. i mean stuff like saying 'woah maybe seven days was really like seven billion years... in which case the work of god's creation event is evolution, etc.' this kind of stuff is going on in christian discourse because christians are being forced to reconcile obvious scientific evidence with a story written by semi-literate bronze age desert tribesmen four thousand years ago that they don't want to let go of. so, they'll continue reinterpreting christianity as much as necessary. remember only in the last few hundred years did christian scholars dispel the notion that god was a racist, sexist, misogynistic, slave driver. that took hella effort to dissuade christians of something that was painfully obvious in the old testament.

eventually it'll be phased out, though. the great monotheisms are the last ones to go... basically because they are such gargantuan forces.

Evolution is slow but sure, Thanks for admitting that it at least is going on now in the Christian community. Iambiguous seems not to understand this necessary reconciliation of religion and science because it is not so easy to refute as is Christian fundamentalism.

[iambiguous]

Evolution is slow but sure, Thanks for admitting that it at least is going on now in the Christian community. Iambiguous seems not to understand this necessary reconciliation of religion and science because it is not so easy to refute as is Christian fundamentalism.

Again:

Yes, you have noted this before. And, however one construes the meaning of "postmodern ethical relativism", they are either willing to intertwine this meaning in an actual description/examination of human behaviors in conflict over value judgments, or they are not.

Same with "new and progressive ideas". Pertaining to what actual context?

You will either cite examples of "rational and virtuous people" embodying these new ideas juxtaposed to those using the old ones or you won't.

The old idea that God is an omniscient and omnipotent entity able and willing to judge human behaviors on this side of the grave persists for a reason. It simply makes sense that if you strive for immortality and salvation there must be a distinction made between behaviors that allow you to go up or go down. Otherwise, it's what, Calvinism?

How then do those who reconfigure this into the new, progressive ideas about God, go about demonstrating [in a philosophy venue] that their own ideas are necessarily in sync with what is actually true?

Respond to this in a more substantive manner or don't. That's entirely up to you.

And, then, if you choose to, connect the dots between your argument here and your argument regarding what, in your view, would constitute peace on Earth pertaining to actual human behaviors that would bring this about.

Such that, further, these behaviors can then be assessed in regard to one's fate on the other side of the grave. The old Christian narrative vs. the new one. And the old Christian narrative is hardly embraced only by the fundamentalists.

[Ierrellus]

Why should I have to respond in a "More substantive manner" when you do not have to do so. I provided for you my best source for explanation the necessary changes in religion, and you dismissed it as irrelevant. I will not go to the plethora of book references and pod casts on the web to prove a point you would simply deny, that is, the evolution of the Christian religion. Maybe it would be best if you take your close-mindedness elsewhere.

[Arcturus Descending]

Ierrellus

Arc, Mea Culpa. I was having a bad day and apparently took it out on you.

Hakuna Matata, Ierrellus. It happens to the best of us, the worst of us and the in-between too.
Thank you for your graciousness.

No, you do not have to answer in koans

.

“When I was walking in the mountains with the Japanese man and began to hear the water, he said, 'What is the sound of the waterfall?' 'Silence, he finally told me.”
― Jack Gilbert, Collected Poems

That in Green gives me peace...Peace.

I was just saddened that the thread came to be about me.

"Two monks were arguing about a flag. Onesaid, “The
flag is moving.” The other said, “The wind is moving.”
A Zen Master passing by remarked, “‘Not the wind,
not the flag; mind is moving.”

I am not so sure how the above koan jives with what you said above but for me it seemed to work.
I thought that it was kind of profound, at least to me. Some of these are capable of blowing one's mind. It is like a "ah" affect.

Wm. Blake considered Wordsworth to be a pagan--not in a good sense.

Well, I do not know much about that but I LOVE Wordsworth's poems. Oh, how they do speak to me.
I might just call myself a pagan too because of the way in which I feel about nature. I come close to worshipping nature unless, in fact, I do. Just feel the interconnectedness. lol

https://poets.org/poem/i-wandered-lonely-cloud

https://poets.org/poem/world-too-much-us

....It moves us not.—Great God! I'd rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.

So what was the "not in a good sense?"

Tennyson considered Nature "red in tooth and claw".

There is that side in nature at times. But then again there is that peaceful, sacred, teaching, all-present side too. Awesome.

Natural disasters, after all, are expressions of Nature.

Yes, though some would like to call them acts of God.

Sorry to have somewhat derailed your thread.

[iambiguous]

Why should I have to respond in a "More substantive manner" when you do not have to do so. I provided for you my best source for explanation the necessary changes in religion, and you dismissed it as irrelevant. I will not go to the plethora of book references and pod casts on the web to prove a point you would simply deny, that is, the evolution of the Christian religion. Maybe it would be best if you take your close-mindedness elsewhere.

We clearly have a different take here on what constitutes substance.

In regard to the distinction you make between the old religious narrative and the new progressive understanding of God, I asked you to take this out into the world and note actual contexts involving behaviors in conflict as that would pertain to the old thinking -- an omniscient/omnipotent God judging human behaviors on this side of the grave so as to allow them access to immortality and salvation on the other side of it -- and the new thinking: yours.

In other words, instead of merely assuming that the old narrative need be but linked back to the conservative fundamentalist assumptions about God while the new and improved narrative is patently embodied in progressive liberal assumptions.

Okay, make this distinction, but then illustrate it for us. Provide us with particular examples of this. From, say, your own life. Your own interactions with the fundamentalist ilk. With respect to moral issues here and now and your imagined fate there and then.

An issue re this thread like peace on Earth.

Now, the substance of my argument here is no less awash in assumptions. I am not arguing that I am myself able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous folks are likely to embrace it.

Instead, my point is that any particular individual's understanding of God appears [to me] rooted more in the life that he or she lives than in any possible capacity on their part to actually demonstrate -- philosophically or experientially -- that what they do believe about God is in fact true.

Thus I was once a devout Protestant Christian accepting of the old narrative regarding God and salvation. Then I got drafted, was sent to Vietnam and, through a combination of experiences there and the soldiers I met, I came home an atheist.

Clearly an "existential contraption". And it is a frame of mind that, in my view, most objectivists [sacred or secular] will do almost anything to avoid attributing to themselves.

[Ierrellus]

Arc,
Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology.
Wm. Blake believed we should worship men, great men in particular. So he considered Wordsworth to be an idol worshiper. Some of my fondest teaching experiences were when I taught Wordsworth and watched those bright student eyes light up in discovery of such insights as "the child is father to the man." And I can attest to the fact that some natural environments can give one a sense of at-one-ment. I'm fond of Blake because studying his work helped rouse me from "My dogmatic slumber"; I was a die hard fundamentalist. The new wave of Progressive Christianity, by eschewing the supernatural, has offered me hope in my spiritual journey."Thanks for sharing the koans.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb.,
Your arguments are a one trick pony, leading one to ask, "Is that all there is?"
"The answer is blowin' in the wind."
"The times they are a-changing".---Bob Dylan

[iambiguous]

Iamb.,
Your arguments are a one trick pony, leading one to ask, "Is that all there is?"

Well, I figured this: that with just immortality alone on the line, it was plenty. But the bottom line [mine] is that you will no doubt take your own comforting and consoling rendition of God to the grave. Something I once thought was in the bag myself. If only in sync with the old narrative.

And, sure, for all practical purposes, that's the only bottom line that counts for mere mortals. It's ever and always what the religious objectivists are able to convince themselves is true, rather than what they can demonstrate [even to themselves] is in fact the case.

I get that part. They win, I lose. At least on this side of the grave. And, admittedly, as for the other side of it, what the hell can I really know about that?

[Ierrellus]

My favorite Blake work is "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." Have you read that one, Arc?
And Blake was fond of aphorisms or one-liners.
Urizen was his name for "your reason", the worship of which he saw as another form of idolatry.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb.,
Your arguments are a one trick pony, leading one to ask, "Is that all there is?"

Well, I figured this: that with just immortality alone on the line, it was plenty. But the bottom line [mine] is that you will no doubt take your own comforting and consoling rendition of God to the grave. Something I once thought was in the bag myself. If only in sync with the old narrative.

And, sure, for all practical purposes, that's the only bottom line that counts for mere mortals. It's ever and always what the religious objectivists are able to convince themselves is true, rather than what they can demonstrate [even to themselves] is in fact the case.

I get that part. They win, I lose. At least on this side of the grave. And, admittedly, as for the other side of it, what the hell can I really know about that?

There is no such animal as a "religious objectionist." This is an oxymoron since religion can be experienced and the only way to communicate an experience is intersubjectively (Changeaux). In fact that may be true of any mental attempts at objectivity. You are communicating to me your own take on dasein, etc., a communication not set in stone or handed down by some group of rational and virtuous mind police.
Dasein is 3 Bs: being or isness, becoming or change, and belonging or meaning. Belonging is admission that what exists is necessary. From the latter come most thoughts on religion or science.