or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Letting Go of God" - Page 8

post #281 of 326
And the crux of the matter: you need to see God as personality!

Mind is the Buddhist notion of the totality of phenomena. The understanding of Mind can come through contemplation and meditation . . . . basically through reflection.

Reflection is the method and process of Mind itself.

This should be the same sort of understanding that your intellectuals above would have if they were not so desperate to wrap their thoughts around a central misreading of the universe.

It is so obvious when reading intelligent Christians that they were always Christians, raised Christian, probably had their 'prodigal' times then, out of fear, and lack of real daring with regards to their thinking and lack of courage with regards to their willingness to understand, came back to what they never could let go of.

Why is the Christian image of God that of a man? It shouldn't be, it should be the other way around, grounding the dynamics and methods of interpretation and experience in a notion of perception (Ontology/Epistemology) . . . but they need to ground it in a "personality".

I can not tell you how deeply flawed that is!!

I understand what you twist them to be saying, and how they would also explain what they mean, using innordinate amounts of words that need not exist in order to cover over a concept that need not exist: they would say 'Personality' because it reflects how we are made in God's image.

Personality is exactly what must be overcome: the contours of a personality are the contours of our suffering . . . . our personalities are what keep us from opening to the realities of Mind.

We cling to our specialness as a species, and, unfortunately, I think, even intelligent Christians interpret 'Made in God's image' as meaning that God is like a man . . . it is arrogant of us, as if all of matter existed only for our sake?
as if all of the Universe and all sentient beings were here so that we could play out this idiotic drama about 'accepting his word'!?!?

How can we have been taken in by such Tom Phuhliry?!

BTW: DMZ, I am surprised that you have not immersed yourself in Hegels triune Dialectics and Christology. Almost everything that you write seems to be some covert form of his Philosophy. I recommend a short but profound dip into his work: its actually very exciting and when your in his system it makes an incredible amount of seemingly inescapable sense. Start with the short Introduction To The Philosophy of History then go to The Logic . . . great psychedelic stuff!!


--oops . .. seem to have double posted . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #282 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
And the crux of the matter: you need to see God as personality!

Interesting post, I just read something that referenced Hegel last night -- that seemed odd.

I understand you're contention -- but in any case, that's the presupposition --- without that derived sensibility, I just don't see a sufficient starting point to move forward. Anyway, to each his own we could argue this for years. The best we can hope for is to understand where everyone is coming from.

I do think, due to the prominence of 'Jeezzzuss is my buddy' Christians, that the hard philosophical issues of Christianity get bypassed for the redneck with a Bible and a Shotgun, or the loosey-goosey purring Charasmatic sterotypes.

Anyway.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #283 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Interesting post, I just read something that referenced Hegel last night -- that seemed odd.

I understand you're contention -- but in any case, that's the presupposition --- without that derived sensibility, I just don't see a sufficient starting point to move forward. Anyway, to each his own we could argue this for years. The best we can hope for is to understand where everyone is coming from.

The problem I percieve with the Christian Theologians that I have read. . . except maybe Thomas JJ Altizer in one book which I recommend (Biblical Eschatology and Oriental Mysticism*) is the overwhelming sense of a "presupposition".

One can't think completely open to reality if one refuses to let go of a presupposition.

and as far as 'moving forward' being impossible with my post above: if by moving forward you mean, forward according to the direction which your pesupposition believes is forward then yes you are right . . . can't go in that direction.

But reality and truth should disctate the direction . . . not byzantine apologias for ornate and overwrought systems that beguile the mind with endless path-ways of dead ends and dead-promises.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #284 of 326
* Altizers book is a look at the Eschaton through the eyes of two of the different prophetic religions (Chistianity and Judiasm) where he sees the notion take a more and more immediate nature . . . . moving closer to the present. Meaning that for ancient Jews, the end times were still some time away in the future, but by Haysues time, he preached that it was right around the corner . . . .

What Altizer does is look at the notion of the Eschaton and then reflects on Buddhism. He considers the idea that the Eschaton is not a literal thing at all (in the LeHay manner of exploding bodies and rivers of blood etc) . . . and he says that in order for Christianity to reclaim the immediacy of the notion (which he felt it needed to do) it needed to see the Eschaton as immediate and constant . . . apart of the complete end-of-the-world that would be follwed by rebirth. He saw the same dynamic quite alive and well in the Buddhist ideas of understanding the continuous ending of all instances: all things passing. He saw the notion akin to the inner annihilation of the Egoic self and its individuality as expresed in the 'life-world' of that person.

To me, I liked the book because it started to lead out of unnecessary thought patterns . . . and was quite scholarly and provocative too.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #285 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
NO WAY, I could see adding it after sir but it is NOT mandatory, all English teachers I have had say leave commas out. I usually use WAY too many.

When I was in university they were still saying the same thing they told me all through highschool, if the comma isn't need BADLY don't use it.

I hope "university" and "high school" mean much younger age groups in your country, because I think I'm about to cry.
post #286 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
The problem I percieve with the Christian Theologians that I have read. . . except maybe Thomas JJ Altizer in one book which I recommend (Biblical Eschatology and Oriental Mysticism*) is the overwhelming sense of a "presupposition".

I'm not familiar with the Altizer book - what is its premise ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #287 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I'm not familiar with the Altizer book - what is its premise ?

Look two posts up
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #288 of 326
dmz,

Since your arguments are purely tautological, I will gleefully avoid bothering to argue arbitrary details and chalk it up to incurable fideism on your part.

But as much as it is a waste of time to try to counter your infinite presuppositions, so too is it pointless for you to proffer them as a cohesive, unique worldview. Its an amalgam of prexistitng mythological themes, patched up periodically by determined, career apologists.

Since you presuppose at the core of your belief, anyone can presuppose anything else and they'll be as right as you are.

I repeat: anyone can presuppose anything else and they'll be as right as you are. (If we play by your rules)

Why would any rational, intelligent, self-respecting individual ever base their theology on such obviously weak presuppositions (which are by no means exclusive to Christianity, of course)

Only those crafty few who are in positions of power over less perceptive/inquisitive people would knowingly keep this con (and others like it) going, for the sake of their own advancement and power.

This goes for the other pagan cults and religions of ancient times too, there are always the keepers of knowledge and the clueless peons. Keeping people ignorant serves no purpose other than to control them.

And on it goes...


<Kiefer Sutherland>The previous lambast is brought to you by johnq - the rational human. Buddhism had nothing to do with it.</Kiefer Sutherland>
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #289 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I repeat: anyone can presuppose anything else and they'll be as right as you are. (If we play by your rules)

I'll endeavor to give the rest of your post the consideration it truly deserves, but this particular passage denotes a disregard for the nature of any philosophical system. Any Philosophical system begins with presuppostional tenets -- that is the nature of argument in general. You cannot argue without terms.

pfflam countered this by positing, that [basically] the conflict through history at large regarding order/disorder is analogical to the Christian interpretation of reality, and in another case that he simply does not hold with the possibility that God can be Ultimate personality, or source of internal self-indentification. I don't agree with pfflam on this, but I can see his contention, and how that plays out with a differing philosophy. But to say "well, you have tenets that don't square with mine.....see ya" is a load of hooey.

I think what you should be aiming for, is a chink in the armor of the trinitarian argument, how it is incoherent, and then go from there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #290 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

I think what you should be aiming for, is a chink in the armor of the trinitarian argument, how it is incoherent, and then go from there.

when you start discussing Milton's De Doctrina Christiana I'll be willing to jump in.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #291 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz (directed to johnq)
I'll endeavor to give the rest of your post the consideration it truly deserves, but this particular passage denotes a disregard for the nature of any philosophical system. Any Philosophical system begins with presuppostional tenets -- that is the nature of argument in general. You cannot argue without terms.

Some presuppositions, however, are more gratuitous and leading than others.

The title of this thread is "Letting Go of God". If your argument against letting go of God starts with presupposing that God is the root of all knowledge and meaning, that's rather begging the question, wouldn't you say?
Quote:
I think what you should be aiming for, is a chink in the armor of the trinitarian argument, how it is incoherent, and then go from there.

As far as I'm concerned, the inapplicability of your presuppositions to the issue under debate is a very large chink. Any internal coherence that your trinitarian argument might achieve, once wrapped in a safe bubble of numerous unquestioned presuppositions (I hardly think that God-based epistemology is the only presupposition going on here) is irrelevant to me.

I started to read what I could of Schaeffer's Escape from Reason online -- the teaser pages Amazon provides -- and from the start, he's blabbing on about Aquinas and "grace". As far as I'm concerned, grace is nothing more than a fictitious concept. An argument about the relationship between nature and grace is about as meaningful to me as kids arguing over whether Batman could beat up Superman.

In a quote from Schaeffer you provided earlier, Schaeffer says:
Quote:
The first is the rationalistic or humanistic concept, namely that man, beginning totally independent and autonomous of all else, can build a bridge towards ultimate truth -- as if attempting to build a cantilever bridge out from himself across an infinite gorge. This is not possible, because man is finite and, as such, he has nothing toward which he can point with certainty.

This is either a deliberate straw man, or Schaeffer simply doesn't know what he's supposed to be arguing against.

Who's aiming for "ultimate truth"? Most scientists view their approach to truth as tentative, provisional, and bound by human limitations of cognition. Sure, they hope that those limits aren't terribly limiting, and that we can come to learn a great deal and gain significant understanding of the world we live in, but most scientists are far too pragmatic in their thinking to worry about chimeras like "ultimate truth".

Further, how seriously can you take this inapt physical analogy about building infinite cantilever bridges? And what of the supposed terrible dilemma that for man there is "nothing toward which he can point with certainty"? So f*cking what! I say learn to live with uncertainty -- it's not like you don't have to anyway.

Your arguments appear not only to be based on gratuitous presuppositions, but to be driven by manufactured dilemmas.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #292 of 326
Trinitarian doctrine, and it's presuppostions might be criticised as "tortured", or some sort of long, drawn out intellectual boutade, but it in reality it's realitvely straightforward as philosophies go, and it works. The problem with the likes of Barth and Kant etc, and the whole idea of man's intellect as the starting point of "reality", is like Van Til said, criticism seeking to be more than criticism, and doing more than it really has a self-described right to do, which is to be anti-metaphysical.

It's easy to say "well, things just are", but you can't live indifferently in any true sense. You live in term of presuppositions, and in your case it is that your intellect is a self-sufficient starting point for predicating reality/nonreality, etc.

The problem with this approach has been demonstrated by the likes of Satre to produce a zennish 'look at the teeth' form of reality, because when you take your "things just are" approach and apply to everyone, you end up with literally no context in which to have a discussion, except something of a group illusion.

The business with the bridge to infinity, and science, knowledge, etc., being alright as tenative, and the "manfactured dilemmas" is, I think, where you break down. The question of the individual as opposed to the state is fundamental to our communal existence; it's inescapable -- and it's forced upon us every day. You choose to live either in terms of certain things or in terms of your own preceptions of right and wrong, meaning, etc. there is nothing 'tenative' about it -- you're betting your life that these things are real/unreal, valid/invalid, functional/nonfunctional, etc.

What Schaeffer was trying to do in Escape from Reason was give a general outline of western thought from the begining -- it looks like you understand that, but reject the standard historical framework in general? Yes? The problem with the 'leave me alone, I don't want to decide, life is just uncertain' approach, is that you can't leave it there -- even it has implications. And the implications is that it ends up being no solution at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I say learn to live with uncertainty -- it's not like you don't have to anyway.

I think that is probably the most honest expression of your philosophy so far.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #293 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think that is probably the most honest expression of your philosophy so far.

So honest that you are going to oppose it and call it false

Can't be more on the money than that.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #294 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I'll endeavor to give the rest of your post the consideration it truly deserves, but this particular passage denotes a disregard for the nature of any philosophical system. Any Philosophical system begins with presuppostional tenets -- that is the nature of argument in general. You cannot argue without terms.

No. Yours sets aside a special set of them that are off limits to investigation or dispute, whereas other philosophies start off with a few basic presuppositions and then later rip into them too, to see if even they are valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But to say "well, you have tenets that don't square with mine.....see ya" is a load of hooey.

That's an entirely unfair depiction of what I said. I left "my tenets" (ugh) out of the equation (unless you're carrying them over from other posts?)

Your belief is self-defining, how is it not? [[presuppositions]]

[[God makes Universe, Earth, Man]].
Man [[and God]] makes the Bible.
Bible text defines Man as God-made and the Bible as the Word of God.
Bible "proves" God is real/(Men allege this is so).

How can anyone seriously believe that? The cart is leading the ox.

You've got these biblical writings that are less trustworthy/accurate than any Jason Blair/Dan Rather/Defense Department story, yet this is supposedly a cohesive worldview?

And it secludes itself from all argument by insisting it is a matter of faith. Faith is fantasy, so anyone's "faith" is as valid as yours is, no matter how silly or arbitrary it might seem to you or me...because you've set the rules of the game to allow each player to get one free presupposition at the start of the game.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think what you should be aiming for, is a chink in the armor of the trinitarian argument, how it is incoherent, and then go from there.

One, two, three, who cares. One god, triune or not, is as implausible as 5, 10, or an infinite panoply of gods.

The Creator concept in Abrahamic faiths is profoundly flawed. But that's for another post...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #295 of 326
shetline,

Kudos for saying everything I was inarticulate enough to express...right on.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #296 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
No. Yours sets aside a special set of them that are off limits to investigation or dispute, whereas other philosophies start off with a few basic presuppositions and then later rip into them too, to see if even they are valid.

no, no, no, no -- you do not start with the presupposition that the mind of man is self-sufficient and then go back and renege on that predication.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
That's an entirely unfair depiction of what I said. I left "my tenets" (ugh) out of the equation (unless you're carrying them over from other posts?)

Your belief is self-defining, how is it not? [[presuppositions]]

[[God makes Universe, Earth, Man]].
Man [[and God]] makes the Bible.
Bible text defines Man as God-made and the Bible as the Word of God.
Bible "proves" God is real/(Men allege this is so).

How can anyone seriously believe that? The cart is leading the ox.

That is what makes the difference between a revelational predication of understanding, and a "just is" predication.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
You've got these biblical writings that are less trustworthy/accurate than any Jason Blair/Dan Rather/Defense Department story, yet this is supposedly a cohesive worldview?

That is much easier said than proven -- I'd love to discuss the facts on that if you care to.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
And it secludes itself from all argument by insisting it is a matter of faith. Faith is fantasy, so anyone's "faith" is as valid as yours is, no matter how silly or arbitrary it might seem to you or me...because you've set the rules of the game to allow each player to get one free presupposition at the start of the game.

Every philosophy has faith in it's presuppositions, it unavoidable -- try 'proving' scientifically that 'all is one'. Ah -- all this talk of distictions -- you don't have to make that sort of distinction because in Buddism the distinction itself doesn't matter, or is false one. Your presuppostions rope you in in the same way mine do me.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
One, two, three, who cares. One god, triune or not, is as implausible as 5, 10, or an infinite panoply of gods.

I covered that pretty well a couple of posts back.
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
The Creator concept in Abrahamic faiths is profoundly flawed. But that's for another post...

Again, that's easier said than proven.

You see, both shetline and you, johnq, have decided for yourselves what ultimate metaphysical form things may or may not take. You did this on the basis of your understanding of fairnes, reality, what is possible, etc. You made that predication before you even approached Buddhism, you have faith that the universe is strung together in a certain way, and you need an authority to base that on. For a Christian there is the revelatory Word, for a Buddhist, that authority rest soley with your own will. These two prespectives, Buddhism and Christianity are very, very different in their application but are not different in the mechanics of their assumptions.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #297 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Quote:
I say learn to live with uncertainty -- it's not like you don't have to anyway.

I think that is probably the most honest expression of your philosophy so far.

It's not like I've pretended otherwise. Often the wisest thing you can say is "I don't know".
Quote:
Trinitarian doctrine, and it's presuppostions might be criticised as "tortured",

No, it's the reasoning that comes after your presuppositions which is tortured. The presuppositions are merely gratuitous, being more like convenient pre-conclusions than honest starting points.
Quote:
...or some sort of long, drawn out intellectual boutade, but it in reality it's realitvely straightforward as philosophies go,

Which is sort of like saying you're relatively thin... as sumo wrestlers go.

If interesting perspectives were trees and mental masturbation were grass, the entire world of philosophy would look an awful lot like a prairie. Solid philosophical conclusions would be the unicorns -- you know, all of those unicorns you typically see prancing about on a prairie.
Quote:
and it works.

So you keep asserting. And the measure of this success is what? Do you presuppose the measures of success as well?
Quote:
The problem with the likes of Barth and Kant etc, and the whole idea of man's intellect as the starting point of "reality", is like Van Til said, criticism seeking to be more than criticism, and doing more than it really has a self-described right to do, which is to be anti-metaphysical.

Sounds like you've pre-constructed neat little conceptual boxes and will criticize any philosophy for being so rude as to not fit into the boxes you've provided.
Quote:
It's easy to say "well, things just are", but you can't live indifferently in any true sense. You live in term of presuppositions, and in your case it is that your intellect is a self-sufficient starting point for predicating reality/nonreality, etc.

Again, sufficient for what?

I hardly think my intellect is sufficient to proceed with supreme confidence in everything that I do, if that's what you mean. My intellect is what I have to work with, and I do with it what I can. I have presuppositions, but I try to keep them to a minimum. My animal drives for food and shelter and social interaction are going to force me to behave as if there's some sort of external reality which contains food and shelter and people to interact with anyway, well before my intellect gets involved in deciding what's "real" or not.

From my perspective, you've got nothing to go on but your own intellect as well, and your God looks like nothing more than an imaginary product of your intellect.

If you'd like me to get back to anything else you brought up, I can do so later, but I'd like to skip to this...

Do you believe animals believe in God? That without a divine epistemology, animals can't make it through their day-to-day lives? I suspect that's not part of your belief system.

So, look at us humans as just another kind of animal. Smarter than other animals, yes, at least by our own standards of such things. But animals nevertheless.

Non-human animals suffice, at least for their own self-perpetuating survival needs. When they fail to suffice as individuals, they die. When they fail to suffice as species, they go extinct. There are no guarantees.

Think of all of the things animals succeed at doing, without running into -- without even being capable of running into -- the metaphysical dilemmas you so worry about. Does a fish in a large school lose track of its piscine identity because it can't sort out the one/many problem? Does a bee need to resolve whether the flowers it found are only a private illusion before going back to the hive to communicate to its fellow bees where to find them? Does a wolf sharing a kill with its pack members need to evaluate the moral aspects of selfishness vs. generosity?

Before you perhaps misread where I'm going: Yes, one can imagine that these animals are creations of a God, and don't themselves need any knowledge of God to function. That's not my point.

My point is that all sorts of interactions with the world and with other creatures are possible with only instinct and/or rudimentary intelligence. Do you believe animal interactions are incoherent or inconsistent because these poor benighted creatures haven't worked out the metaphysical implications of their actions?

All of the things you insist are fraught with metaphysical implications -- taking action, communicating, social behavior, belief in a physical world outside of our minds, etc. -- can easily be explained by seeing the underlying utility in such behaviors for an evolved creature.

I can easily imagine a godless world generating animal life, animal life with complex behaviors. I can easily see everything that humans do -- even arguing about Kant and Sartre -- as an outgrowth of animal behaviors augmented by an evolved high level of intelligence. Now, unless you (your favorite deity forbid!) wish to turn this into an creation vs. evolution debate, at what point in my naturalistic perspective am I going to be forced to accept trinitarian doctrine for it to all make sense? Is there some extra-extra special thing you think humans do, or some special pedestal you think humans need to be placed upon, that requires a God?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #298 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Again, sufficient for what?

Quote:
It is this humanistic-freedom motive that is the driving force of the modern religion of human personality. Human personality regards itself as self-dependent. It wants to dominate nature. But to dominate nature spells determinism. And this determinism tends to envelop man. Thus there is a basic antinomy within the modern idea of free personality. Modern personality finds itself in the situation that, having rejected God as its creator and Christ as its source of freedom, it has lost itself.
The religion of human personality finds its first major expression in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Kant is often called the philosopher of Protestantism. Did he not limit science in order to make room for faith?
There are radically different answers given to this question. There is first the answer of the consciousness-theologians. They, of course, do look upon Kant as their chief source of inspiration. For them Kant has set the human consciousness free from the bondage of laws that come to it from without. Their theology is consciousness-theology precisely because they, together with Kant, assume that the general human consciousness of man is sufficient unto itself. It can and does create its own religious ideals and creates its own means for the realization of these ideals.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
My point is that all sorts of interactions with the world and with other creatures are possible with only instinct and/or rudimentary intelligence. Do you believe animal interactions are incoherent or inconsistent because these poor benighted creatures haven't worked out the metaphysical implications of their actions?

That may be, but the realities of the animal world are not the sort of realities that any of us would be likely to submit to.

At any rate, the weekend is over, and with it, my contributions. See you next weekend.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #299 of 326
There is something very disengenuous about berating humans for assuming that their intelligence is 'sufficient' . . . saying that human intelligence is misguided when it sets up its own religious ideals and then etce etc but needs to learn its own insufficiency for the task

and then

to say that God is a personality like we are personalities . . . .

I just have to say again that that terminology is in-itself-utterly-insufficient and downright stupid:
God as a personality?
Personailty is by definition is a set of qualities that constitute a set of tendencies towards behavior.
Does God have qualities that set him apart from other things? that individualize Him/her/it? that make God merely another thing among things?
You say oif a personality that it is 'in his nature' to be such and such' . . . so, is God subrdinate to nature? even to his own nature?

Just looking at that careless and absurd terminology should be enough to set you questioning the whole edifice.


As for Philosophers and presupposition: yes, presupposition is an understood point of departure for the method of understanding within any philosophical hermeneutics: but the goal of a truly philosophical discourse is to not only unearth the presuppositions which remain unthought and yet constitutive of the shape of an inquiry, but to re-phrase suppositions, and do away with those that are not pertinent: and in philosophy, what is not pertinent is something that is not true.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #300 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Using an unattributed quote (naughty, naughty!), dmz sets forth the following baggage-laden verbiage, which is supposed to answer my question "Sufficient for what?":
It is this humanistic-freedom motive that is the driving force of "the modern religion of human personality."

Which "humanistic-freedom motive" is that? A motive described in an unquoted previous paragraph which is as full of unwarranted assumptions as the paragraph you do quote?
Quote:
Human personality regards itself as self-dependent.

Circles within circles. Self-dependent for what ?

I regard human personality as an emergent behavior of a complex natural system. It depends on many things other than itself, such as a supportive ecosystem to keep the brain and body alive which house said personality. For the thoughts that an individual personality entertains, it relies on sensory data from the world at large, and the transmitted culture it shares with fellow human personalities.

My own mind (if I may substitute "mind" for "personality") ultimately has to depend on itself to process incoming information, to form a picture of the external world, to make decisions on how to act within the external world, but this self-dependency is a self-limitation...
Quote:
It wants to dominate nature.

...not, as the above sentence would like to twist it, an assertive, conquering notion.
Quote:
But to dominate nature spells determinism.

Would someone be so kind at to shoot the paragraph from which the above sentence was taken and put it out of its misery?

(1) Unfounded assertion of a desire or somehow unavoidable need to "dominate nature."
(2) Unfounded link between domination and determinism. (2a) One can obviously attempt to dominate a thing and in doing so expect only to increase the odds of a desired outcome. (2b) A desire for domination, like any other desire, can be placed within a debate over the existence of free will in a manner which is neutral to the outcome of that debate.
(3) Assumption that determinism is a "bad thing". The world may or may not be deterministic. Whether or not you find determinism appealing is a moot point in an objective search for meaning and truth.
Quote:
And this determinism tends to envelop man.

I'd love to know exactly what it would mean for determinism to "envelop man". Would man find that it was difficult to breathe? Would he feel uncomfortable in warm weather?
Quote:
Thus there is a basic antinomy within the modern idea of free personality. Modern personality finds itself in the situation that, having rejected God as its creator and Christ as its source of freedom, it has lost itself.

Thus... bullshit!

Wow. The above is wonderful demonstration of how you can saddle an opposing viewpoint with your own overwrought assumptions, and then, with a bit of weak-to-non-existent logic, show that opposing viewpoint to be self-contradictory. Bravo!
Quote:
The "religion of human personality"...

Read: The straw man which I have just created and am preparing to gloriously strike down...
Quote:
...finds its first major expression in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Kant is often called the philosopher of Protestantism. Did he not limit science in order to make room for faith?

If Kant tried to limit science in order to make room for faith, that's not my mistake, and I care nothing nor take any responsibility for any pickle Mr. Kant might have gotten himself into doing so.
Quote:
There are radically different answers given to this question. There is first the answer of the consciousness-theologians. They, of course, do look upon Kant as their chief source of inspiration. For them Kant has set the human consciousness free from the bondage of laws that come to it from without. Their theology is consciousness-theology precisely because they, together with Kant, assume that the general human consciousness of man is sufficient unto itself. It can and does create its own religious ideals and creates its own means for the realization of these ideals.

Again, what do I care about the dilemmas "consciousness-theologians" might find themselves in? How would you prove to me that their problems, as you see them, are mine too?

At any rate, I'm willing to go along with the idea that the human mind is sufficient unto itself to create its own "religious ideals", but only in the sense that I consider the human mind sufficient for creating the Tooth Fairy. If I invest these religious ideals with none of the baggage of Supreme Significance which you bring to the table, it doesn't take much self-sufficiency for the human mind to reach these so-called "ideals".
Quote:
Back to dmz'z own words:
That may be, but the realities of the animal world are not the sort of realities that any of us would be likely to submit to.

I'm presenting a descriptive approach of human nature as an extension of animal nature. Whether you are "likely to submit" has nothing to do with it.

Baggage, baggage, baggage! You carry so much baggage with you, and don't seem to know how to put it down, or that it's even there. On that subject, I'll have to return later.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #301 of 326
This pretty much sums up the thread:

Quote:
Sounds like you've pre-constructed neat little conceptual boxes and will criticize any philosophy for being so rude as to not fit into the boxes you've provided.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #302 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline

If Kant tried to limit science in order to make room for faith, that's not my

True enough . . . but even so, you might want to know that their (This theologian and the 'conciousness theologians') reading of Kant is an incredibly trite mis-reading, thoroughly off the mark from the beginning . . . anyway . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #303 of 326
Soo is it ONLY religious people that are CRAZED, or is it human nature to be NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP !!!

Now that the Web creates automated community, wherever whenever, does this mean that organized religion or traditional religious gathering has been made obsolete, soon to be occupied only by the far left and right becoming the INSANE HEAD of the EXTREME minority ???

The Bible predicts this, it calls it "THE END OF THE CHURCH AGE!"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/...orcism_death_1

"Romanian Monk Is Indicted in Nun's Death
1 hour, 30 minutes ago
A Romanian Orthodox monk has been indicted in the death of a 23-year-old nun in an apparent exorcism in which she was allegedly bound to a cross, had a towel stuffed into her mouth and left without food for three days.

Four nuns also were indicted Sunday in connection with the death of Maricica Irina Cornici of the Holy Trinity convent in northeast Romania. The prosecutor said Monday authorities were awaiting the results of a second autopsy before deciding how to proceed.

Police said Cornici died Wednesday, three days after she was left in a cold room, without any food. She was bound to the cross, with the towel stuffed in her mouth to stop her from uttering any sounds, authorities said."
post #304 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
The Bible predicts this, it calls it "THE END OF THE CHURCH AGE!"

No it doesn't.

And we're doing crucified nuns in another place - damn, I told them to make absolutely sure you got the invite.....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #305 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
No it doesn't.

And we're doing crucified nuns in another place - damn, I told them to make absolutely sure you got the invite.....


Yep! Its human nature to be NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP, and its the end of the church age !!!
post #306 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
True enough . . . but even so, you might want to know that their (This theologian and the 'conciousness theologians') reading of Kant is an incredibly trite mis-reading, thoroughly off the mark from the beginning

WEEEK EEEEENNNDD!!!!!!

Did anybody notice the total B.S. logo/packaging change with the Red Hook IPA thing? There ought to be a law.

Anyway, could you clarify on the whole 'trite misreading' thing, pfflam?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #307 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
WEEEK EEEEENNNDD!!!!!!

Did anybody notice the total B.S. logo/packaging change with the Red Hook IPA thing? There ought to be a law.

Anyway, could you clarify on the whole 'trite misreading' thing, pfflam?

Sure, according to this guy, Kant is saying that the catagories and the intutions of experience are simply a matter of 'subjectivity' and are therefor merely a matter of our soveriegnty, that all there is to experience comes from the experiencer. Read it in the quote that you made . . . and in fact the part you highlighted. For your friend there, Kant seems to think that 'human consciousness of man is sufficient unto itself'

This implies that consciousness for Kant generates all aspects of experience . . . but anyone who has slogged their way through The First Critique will surely know that Kant is very careful to avoid that pitfall: he clearly indicates that Human consciousness is Synthetic, meaning that it is a process of working with a 'real-world', a 'Thing-in-itself'.
Now he shows that the Thing-in-itself, is not completely knowable beyond the very synthesizing catagories of human experience . . . and yet, since it is Das Ding an Sich it is not only the stuff of experience it that provides us with its gift, ultimately it is the stuff of that undergirds even the very catagories themselves . . . and yet is, of course, far more as well.

These Theologians have no idea what they are talking about and yet they throw misreadings around in order to convince people that they are smart even though they stopped real questioning a long time ago.

now another thing about that quote: t can and does create its own religious ideals and creates its own means for the realization of these ideals.

Now tell me why someone who is supposedly smart and self reflective will use this sentence and yet refrain from applying to themselves?

"[Christianity] creates its own religious ideals and creates its own means for the realization of these ideals"

Is another way of saying that: Christianity creates the problem for us that demands that only Christianity can solve.

Perhaps, if that's true, we can look at the problem and see that that problem is a pale distortion of the real problem which is not that we have 'Fallen' and we are fighting 'Satan', but rather that we live and we suffer.



Q: Why do we suffer?

Christian: Because of Evil and our sins and Adam . . . but really Eve.

Buddhism (and 'Wisdom' philosophies): we suffer because we suffer.



in other words:

Q: Suffer?

Christianity: I Blame it on . . .

Buddhism: yes
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #308 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
. . but anyone who has slogged their way through The First Critique will surely know that Kant is very careful to avoid that pitfall: he clearly indicates that Human consciousness is Synthetic, meaning that it is a process of working with a 'real-world', a 'Thing-in-itself'.
Now he shows that the Thing-in-itself, is not completely knowable beyond the very synthesizing catagories of human experience . . .

EDITED FOR COHERENCE (and to actually address pfflam's very good post):

hmmmm.......BUT are you you ready to back off of Sartre or Barth, etc., as well? I think the application of the totality of Kant principles really drives home the very UNtriteness of Van Til & Schaeffer's complaint.

More: Or here if can't take Van Til
Quote:
Barth then turns to the world of psychology, the world of Kants empirical self. Here, too, he argues, we need the idea of personality. But here, too, we can actually use it only if we employ it as a limiting, rather than a constitutive, concept. For the empirical consciousness, individual psychological experiences are not complete and self-explanatory. They are but phenomena. Back of these phenomena we must posit a substratum, a thing-in-itself. This thing-in-itself belongs to the world of pure contingency, the world of pure being. We need, therefore, to suppose its existence, even though we can never reach it in our psychological experience. What we actually experience psychologically is content, that is, purely contingent being made relative to pure form. We cannot reach a pure that any more than we can reach a pure what. The idea of personality, that which is the most certain of certainties to us, namely, that I think and will, that I am spirit, this thought is scientifically without a home, while yet it has in both the realms of the spirit a sort of special place of honor. What, then, can we say of the idea of personality up to this point? Barth answers in the following words: With the word personality we can ascribe to our ego spiritual eternity but also puny human finitude. Or again: Personality is the individual spiritual ego.

Was Barth nuts for instance, or even on the wrong track?? I just can't see that. Yes, Infallibility is an inescapable concept, and root of the problem -- but I don't see how you can get around this in Kant's thinking, except to maybe distance yourself from his implications through basically drawing varying attention to some, IMO, semantic deferences.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #309 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Was Barth nuts for instance, or even on the wrong track??

What do I care? I'm not a "Barthist", I have no need to jump through any hoops to try to set aside a special place for gods or religion in my thinking.
Quote:
I just can't see that. Yes, Infallibility is an inescapable concept, and root of the problem --

Who being infallible about what? Why can't this poor, helpless concept escape... er... from whatever it needs to escape from... for whatever reason?
Quote:
but I don't see how you can get around this in Kant's thinking, except to maybe distance yourself from his implications through basically drawing varying attention to some, IMO, semantic deferences.

Semantics? I've seen nothing to hint that you've got anything more than very debatable semantics to back up your own claims.

Let's back up a bit and put your advocacy of your beloved trinitarianism in the broader context of this thread, and other threads where you've brought it up as well...

You always start off bullishly insistent that not only is your Trinitarian Theology the pinnacle of philosophical thought, but that anything else somehow falls into utter incoherence and contradiction. Further, in a dismissive tone towards anything non-TT, you express the view that the alleged flaws in all non-trinitarian philosophies are painfully obvious.

At the very least, however, it has become apparent that there is nothing at all "obvious" about anything you've claimed. Every justification you've put forward does little more than lead into a dense thicket of apologetics and philosophical critique. While I personally may have only scouted the edges of this thicket, it's fairly plain that even if I were the dive in and spend years plowing through endless tomes and treatises -- apparently what it would take to see the "obvious" -- that I, like many others, could easily emerge with quite different conclusions than you've arrived at.

This isn't math, and it isn't science. The games being played here with words and ideas have nothing like the clear, rigid logic of math, nor do the conclusions have any of the testability of science. Philosophy and theology might enlighten, they might persuade, they might help one explore a broader range of perspectives... but let's not pretend that you can spin intricate webs of words and ideas and by such means alone conclude much of anything. So far, however, you've acted as if your Trinitarianism drops out at the end of a long chain of apologetics (and a very generous granting of "presuppositions"), neatly and clearly proved, with all of the certainty of solving a quadratic equation.

I doubt that even 1% of practicing Christians would have the slightest idea of what you're going on about with Kant and Schaeffer and Barth and Van Til and Sartre, etc, etc, a circumstance which not only calls into question the supposedly "obvious" nature of what you profess, but even the applicability to what most practitioners of Christianity call Christianity.

Here's a challenge for you: I've claimed that I see no need for a God, triune or otherwise, and I see no terrible self-contradiction or "incoherence" arising from my position. Now forget about dead Germans and dead Frenchmen for the moment. Explain to me where I go wrong. Try to do so without putting me in a Kant box or a Sartre box or a Hume box, or whatever other boxes you have pre-packaged answers for. I've written plenty in this thread and many others that there's more than enough material for you to go after, and, as I'm a living being here and ready to respond to questions, I can elaborate or respond as needed.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #310 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Semantics? I've seen nothing to hint that you've got anything more than very debatable semantics to back up your own claims.

Let's back up a bit and put your advocacy of your beloved trinitarianism in the broader context of this thread, and other threads where you've brought it up as well...

no, I think pfflam was trying to move the goalpost a bit by saying that there was a 'real-world' but that in reality by his measure it might be, but we would never reach it.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
.....even if I were the dive in and spend years plowing through endless tomes and treatises -- apparently what it would take to see the "obvious" -- that I, like many others, could easily emerge with quite different conclusions than you've arrived at.

not so far, I mean there are many different schools of thought out there, but just for this small scope, no - I think when you come to Barth or Kant vs. Orthodox theology, there's just no contest.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
This isn't math, and it isn't science. The games being played here with words and ideas have nothing like the clear, rigid logic of math, nor do the conclusions have any of the testability of science. Philosophy and theology might enlighten, they might persuade, they might help one explore a broader range of perspectives... but let's not pretend that you can spin intricate webs of words and ideas and by such means alone conclude much of anything. So far, however, you've acted as if your Trinitarianism drops out at the end of a long chain of apologetics (and a very generous granting of "presuppositions"), neatly and clearly proved, with all of the certainty of solving a quadratic equation.

no, not at all, this is completely presuppositional thing, you have to start on one side or the other. The problem that I point out is that, you 'freethinkers' will basically argue as an existentialist but live like a Calvinist --- there is a huge disconnect there. You want to live in terms of overarching "murder is wrong", or assert rights talk, but cannot provide any basis to rest those rights on, other than a illusory sense of culture.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I doubt that even 1% of practicing Christians would have the slightest idea of what you're going on about with Kant and Schaeffer and Barth and Van Til and Sartre, etc, etc, a circumstance which not only calls into question the supposedly "obvious" nature of what you profess, but even the applicability to what most practitioners of Christianity call Christianity.

That, my friend is the tragedy of tragedies. All too many Christians honor God with their Britney Sprituals, their swooning, "Falling in Love with Jesus motif" but can't be bothered to understand what they believe. Most, I'm afraid couldn't tell you why the creeds of the Church were necessary. I went to a service this morning were the visiting youth group from Orange County took over the the service, replete with titty-tops, bare midrifts and that trendy "Fuck You, so what if I slept in my clothes" attitude. I kept wating for a bhang to appear during the Gosple reading. Their pastor gave a short homily on the Great Commision, to a congregation that had been going to Church longer than that little punk had been alive, OMIGOSH!!! did you know there this guy Jezzzzzzuss and he........ NO WAY!!!!?? you dont' say --- far out, man.

I kept expecting an anouncement over the church intercom:

****In the event of a mindless superficial mouthing of Christianity, there are Air Sickness bags located in the seatback in front of you***

Ohhh, yea, those boys and girls are building an intellectual future, riiiight. I apologize for any of the Christians you come into contact with shetline that aren't doing The Faith any favors. They know not what they are up to.

(Edit: I don't deny their faith or sincerity. -- but if they run across a thinking humanist they'll get there heads handed them.)
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Here's a challenge for you: I've claimed that I see no need for a God, triune or otherwise, and I see no terrible self-contradiction or "incoherence" arising from my position. Now forget about dead Germans and dead Frenchmen for the moment. Explain to me where I go wrong. Try to do so without putting me in a Kant box or a Sartre box or a Hume box, or whatever other boxes you have pre-packaged answers for. I've written plenty in this thread and many others that there's more than enough material for you to go after, and, as I'm a living being here and ready to respond to questions, I can elaborate or respond as needed.

Well I think that goes back to asserting that nothing truly matters, but then immediately turing around and saying it does in practice -- but not providing a reason. I think were you go wrong is asserting your own autonomy, but not really fessing up to it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #311 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
not so far, I mean there are many different schools of thought out there, but just for this small scope, no - I think when you come to Barth or Kant vs. Orthodox theology, there's just no contest.

Sounds like a matter of whether you do your mental masturbation with your left hand or your right hand. Fight it out with pfflam, if he even cares. It's not my concern. At any rate, I'm sure I could find plenty of "contest" out there if I looked for it.
Quote:
no, not at all, this is completely presuppositional thing, you have to start on one side or the other.

Your presuppositions are numerous and far more baggage-laden than anything I'd consider a reasonable as a starting point for someone with any pretense of objectivity.
Quote:
The problem that I point out is that, you 'freethinkers' will basically argue as an existentialist but live like a Calvinist --- there is a huge disconnect there. You want to live in terms of overarching "murder is wrong", or assert rights talk, but cannot provide any basis to rest those rights on, other than a illusory sense of culture.

It seems to me that your sense of God is far more illusory than any "sense of culture."

I can feel passionately about moral issues without having any absolute certainty about what it even means to be "moral". That's not a disconnect -- that's just choosing to get on with life without letting the doubt and uncertainty I see behind everything get in the way of living. If my sense of culture is nothing but an illusion, so be it. Until such time as the illusion clears, it's the best I've got and I'll work with it.

At any rate, why should I see your God as anything more than a cultural product? Knowledge of your idea of God comes to me through my senses just like anything else I'm aware of, and sure looks to me an awful lot like a human idea, an idea designed by humans who wish to project their particular ideals and values on something which they can claim as superior and authoritative over all other humans, including those who don't believe as they do.
Quote:
Well I think that goes back to asserting that nothing truly matters...

I've never asserted that "nothing truly matters". I submit that even trying to reach any certainty about what "truly" means, or what it means for something to "matter" or not, would send both of us, God or no God, down a bottomless semantic hole.
Quote:
...but then immediately turing around and saying it does in practice -- but not providing a reason.

I determine what matters to me, and project upon the world what might matter to others, based on my own feelings and my own limited knowledge and understanding. Why do things "matter" to me? Probably because I'm wired that way as an evolved creature with a survival instinct. Simple, primitive drives, couple with evolved social behavior and intelligence, sound to me like a good recipe for the complex emergent behavior, and the thought patterns behind that behavior, which we call "morality".

Of course, being a complex thinking creature, I can attempt to think beyond my biological and cultural inclinations, and, for instance, ask myself, "Why not just do what I want, and the hell with everyone else? Why shouldn't I be clever, cunning, steer clear of bad consequences for myself, but otherwise take whatever I want?"

I can't give you a solid, irrefutable reason why you or I shouldn't think that way. All I can tell you is that I find such thinking repellent. I can't tell you that such selfishness is in any ultimate sense "wrong". It's merely "wrong" to me, and I can easily find a community of fellow humans that shares such sentiments. I can strongly assert such selfishness is wrong, not because I have any absolute authority for such an assertion, but because I can easily presume that I'm sharing such sentiments with like-minded humans.

Then again, in a certain sense of the word "selfish", I think that we're all ultimately selfish. The only difference between someone who is or is not "selfish" in the more typical sense of the word is the level of satisfaction one feels through concern for others, and the discomfort one feels from harming others or ignoring their welfare. Variations in morality between one person and another can be viewed as a matter of what provides each person with satisfaction, rather than a matter of the mere desire to seek satisfaction. We all seek satisfaction. (Even the most self-destructive person can be viewed as someone who gives into short-sighted desires to give into self-destructive behavior.)
Quote:
I think were you go wrong is asserting your own autonomy,

I say that claiming that you've only got your own limited senses, knowledge, and reasoning to go on in this world is far from "asserting your own autonomy", and more like admitting to one's limitations.
Quote:
but not really fessing up to it.

I don't see much that I haven't "fessed up" to so far.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #312 of 326
I'm letting go of 'Letting Go of God', the thread.

For now anyway...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #313 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
EDITED FOR COHERENCE [except not the quoted part hunh?!]

The idea of personality, that which is the most certain of certainties to us, namely, that I think and will, that I am spirit, this thought is scientifically without a home, while yet it has in both the realms of the spirit a sort of special place of honor. What, then, can we say of the idea of personality up to this point? Barth answers in the following words: With the word personality we can ascribe to our ego spiritual eternity but also puny human finitude. Or again: Personality is the individual spiritual ego.

The problem here is that we have what amounts to near gobbledy-gook.

Is 'personality' proved by thought: are they one and the same?
He is masking inane psychologisms behind a thinly vieled Cogito (cartesion 'I think therefor I am').

One form of proof is not an outline of the other.

And this question of 'will'? . . . . that remains an open question, it is an assumption: perhaps to 'will' is merely a way of talking about activity and is not the metaphysical certainty that your pals here believe it to be.
Many philosophers would in fact find the notion of a 'willing subject' is part of a long error in the history of Western thought: an error that defines the West for what it is and characterizes part of thereason why it leads directly to Nihilism and a malignant relationship to the world of which we are a part . . . (but that is a long discussion for later perhaps)


and isn't ascribing 'spiritual eternity' to the personality like saying that the Redness of my bicycle is its spiritual eternity: of course, in a grand and generous spiritual view, it would be exactly like that and would be correct . . . . since all things are spiritually eternal: my bike's redness, the weediness of my garden, my overly self-involved Ego, and my 'personality' . . . they are all part of the plan, they are all spiritually eternal.

But these pals of yours aren't using this metaphor in a grand and generous spirit but rather in a paltry selfish one: they use the 'personality' trope in order to relate humanity directly to Godliness in a manner that the rest of the world simply cannot. They want to argue a case for our special place in the order of things . . . this is an intellectual way of saying what James Watt said under the Reagan Administration: "Go ahead, cut down the trees, we're all going to be whisked up to heaven anyway" Just another expression of how 'the West' has alienated us from the real source of experience and all possible knowledge, from Being!

Simply because someone hit on the poor metaphor of relating God to a 'personality' and thereby wants to make us humans so special that we are just like God through our worst aspect (our desperate, grasping self-important egos) that in no way proves anything, except, perhaps, that bad poetry does not make good reasoning.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #314 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
James Watt said under the Reagan Administration: "Go ahead, cut down the trees, we're all going to be whisked up to heaven anyway" Just another expression of how 'the West' has alienated us from the real source of experience and all possible knowledge, from Being!

Your quote is fraudulent. You've gone the way of Bill Moyers. Bad Boy.


Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Simply because someone hit on the poor metaphor of relating God to a 'personality' and thereby wants to make us humans so special that we are just like God through our worst aspect (our desperate, grasping self-important egos) that in no way proves anything, except, perhaps, that bad poetry does not make good reasoning.

Yes, those are all interesting points, but this is still a case of criticism going beyond itself and attempting to be anti-metaphysical.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #315 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
It seems to me that your sense of God is far more illusory than any "sense of culture."

I can feel passionately about moral issues without having any absolute certainty about what it even means to be "moral". That's not a disconnect -- that's just choosing to get on with life without letting the doubt and uncertainty......

I had to work on two books this week, one was a business law case study book and the other was a Psych language book. I came away thinking that there is a feel-good way of talking about "moral uncertainity" but no way of putting that uncertainity into practice, and that "moral uncertainty" in many ways, is a nearly useless abstraction. So, anyway, we live, as Edna Mode says, "in thez noawww, darrrling". Everything we enter into is governed in real, everyday terms by case law and various regulations, medical philosophies, etc. There isn't anything uncertain about those controlling aspects of your life -- although they aren't always easy to see -- but they define and confine you, all the same.

The same goes with Kant's Kritcism, you can add uncertainty into the equation, you can whine about absolutists, but at the end of the day, the case gets ruled on, and the drugs get administered, or dont.

Anyway, I need to let this go, too.

But -- I do think that the next time you hear someone say "all those religions are the same" you'll have to admitt that that isn't a fair statement.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #316 of 326
I heard a funny joke today:

First lunatic fundie: God just spoke to me !

Second lunatic fundie: I did no such thing !

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #317 of 326
.
post #318 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I had to work on two books this week, one was a business law case study book and the other was a Psych language book. I came away thinking that there is a feel-good way of talking about "moral uncertainity" but no way of putting that uncertainity into practice...

No way? The only thing you need to do to put "uncertainty into practice" is to not be smugly self-assured that every action you take is firmly grounded in Eternal Absolutes.
Quote:
and that "moral uncertainty" in many ways, is a nearly useless abstraction. So, anyway, we live, as Edna Mode says, "in thez noawww, darrrling".

Admitting to the ultimate uncertainty of one's understanding of the world and one's moral philosophy has no bearing whatsoever on the "nowness" of how one relates to the world.
Quote:
Everything we enter into is governed in real, everyday terms by case law and various regulations, medical philosophies, etc. There isn't anything uncertain about those controlling aspects of your life...

Sure there is... maybe no uncertainty that these things exist, but that they are well-constructed, that they have any basis in Eternal Absolutes, that they are anything other than ad hoc self-reinforcing systems and institutions deriving from evolved behavior can easily be debated.
Quote:
-- although they aren't always easy to see -- but they define and confine you, all the same.

What's your point? These things exist, so we might as well imagine that they're ultimately based on the Rule of God so we can feel better about what we're stuck living with and dealing with?

Or is there some long tortured argument which "proves" these things could only exist with God behind them?
Quote:
The same goes with Kant's Kritcism, you can add uncertainty into the equation, you can whine about absolutists, but at the end of the day...

You really like saying "at the end of the day", don't you?
Quote:
...the case gets ruled on, and the drugs get administered, or dont.

If someone throws a rock at your head and you die, your death is quite real. It happens. It is definite. But the justness of the act of throwing the rock doesn't automatically gain any of the certainty of the result. The rock thrower might have even mistaken you for another person.
Quote:
Anyway, I need to let this go, too.

But -- I do think that the next time you hear someone say "all those religions are the same" you'll have to admitt that that isn't a fair statement.

I'll admit that... some religions are more ridiculously dogmatic than others, for instance. Followers of some religions are less likely to try to impose the dogmatic peculiarities of their beliefs upon my life, and instead try to get along with others on the basis of rules which we can all derive together from a wider scope of human beliefs.

If you're suggesting that I have to admit that your Trinitarian Christianity holds some shining, special place of epistemological glory, compared to which everything else is "incoherent" no, I wouldn't have to admit that by far. None of your arguments for that seem to have impressed anyone here but yourself. Must be our sinful, willful ignorance and Satan causing this failure.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #319 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Your quote is fraudulent. You've gone the way of Bill Moyers. Bad Boy.




Yes, those are all interesting points, but this is still a case of criticism going beyond itself and attempting to be anti-metaphysical.

The J Watt is a paraphrase form the time and has absolutely nothing to do with Moyers . . . . my reference to Watt comes from my memory of having to live with him and RReagan . . . it was common knowledge that thse were Watt's ideas, one reason that he was forced to resign early . . . as far as my memory recalls . .

as for the other problem, yes metaphysics may itself be the very problem that is keeping me from you point of view: either it simply makes no sense, or it is a by product of a system of human thought that is inherently problematic: like a 'metaphysical' system . . . you know, the kind of systematic world-construction thinking that Kant's critique had a lion's share in making untenable?

There are poetic tones and resonances that can result in truly interogating the notion of 'personality' and to taking a giant leap with that concept and anthropomorphising it to the 'Absolute' . . . it can be powerful and can probably rener some insights into the innefable nature of our Self-hood and Being in general. I don't think, though, that anything that you have said, orthat your theologian friends have said, forces me to adopt the myth/story of a man in the middle-East 2 thou years ago being the 'son of God' and or the supposedly necessarily resultant correlate of that story that says that Divinity is a 'Personalilty' (in the same manner that we se that term to talk about our individual inclinations and traits) and that that personality is tripartite in the manner in which you describe . . .

I think, oddly enough, that you might be close: there is Mind whch is similar to what we refer to as mind, our minds . . . and we can, if we are so inclined, talk about experience as three fold: self, other and the relationship of self to other as a mediation . . . but that is a sort of dialectic and leads tto traditional metaphysical models such as Hegel's system and, most likely, to unnecessary and misleading systematizing . . .

anway, two sleepy cents worth for now
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #320 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
The J Watt is a paraphrase form the time and has absolutely nothing to do with Moyers . . . . my reference to Watt comes from my memory of having to live with him and RReagan . . . it was common knowledge that thse were Watt's ideas, one reason that he was forced to resign early . . . as far as my memory recalls . .

as for the other problem, yes metaphysics may itself be the very problem that is keeping me from you point of view: either it simply makes no sense, or it is a by product of a system of human thought that is inherently problematic: like a 'metaphysical' system . . . you know, the kind of systematic world-construction thinking that Kant's critique had a lion's share in making untenable?

There are poetic tones and resonances that can result in truly interogating the notion of 'personality' and to taking a giant leap with that concept and anthropomorphising it to the 'Absolute' . . . it can be powerful and can probably rener some insights into the innefable nature of our Self-hood and Being in general. I don't think, though, that anything that you have said, orthat your theologian friends have said, forces me to adopt the myth/story of a man in the middle-East 2 thou years ago being the 'son of God' and or the supposedly necessarily resultant correlate of that story that says that Divinity is a 'Personalilty' (in the same manner that we se that term to talk about our individual inclinations and traits) and that that personality is tripartite in the manner in which you describe . . .

I think, oddly enough, that you might be close: there is Mind whch is similar to what we refer to as mind, our minds . . . and we can, if we are so inclined, talk about experience as three fold: self, other and the relationship of self to other as a mediation . . . but that is a sort of dialectic and leads tto traditional metaphysical models such as Hegel's system and, most likely, to unnecessary and misleading systematizing . . .

anway, two sleepy cents worth for now

Interesting post -- I think you're definitley tapping an age-old question or two, there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"