Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Necromancer]

The true delusion is with the schizophrenics and they are (maybe) hugely/largely immoral which detaches them from the World of the senses making them delusional.

So, in fact, Christians by solid Christian Ethics or Kantian Ethics, if you like, are the people who are in the right minds! Therefore, a possible God that exists may hold greater power of credibility than whatever the Atheists come up with, "no matter how strongly they appreciate (evil?) science"!

"Being a monster is like tripping on acid/LSD!"

[Belinda]

Scientists speak much about the Holocene extinction event currently in train but they don't tend to posit human extinction any time soon due to our spread, adaptability and technological advancements.

But we are not adapting soon enough or well enough. True, Australia is going to do something to protect the Great Barrier Reef as of yesterday or very recently anyway. I hope the intervention will be in time. Meanwhile the Pacific is killing its livestock due to plastics pollution. The world's soils are overburdened due to out eating habits. I could go on in this way but finish with mention of our death-dealing social structures.

The end of faith happened and old time faiths are used now by the superstitious seeking solace, or by some power elites that use faith or its analogue for crowd control. There is no global god which has appeared in place of the old tribal gods.

Humanism, and the United Nations, lack symbols, ritual, and myth.

You are only talking about the masses. What chance that Donald Trump or Xi Jinping and their cohorts and descendants will face danger? Less than anyone else, hence the relaxed attitude towards climate change by those in power. I'm alright, Jack!". Humanity is splitting, with the perils for the many not being shared by the few, and with the aid of AI that gulf will widen.
[/quote We agree then.We pessimists are right. There are choices however. Pessimists can unite to save something of dignity for humanity. Or pessimists can give up and do nothing.
The title fails to make sense. There is no "The" concept of God. There are several concepts of God. There are also syntheses of Godless religions such as animism with Buddhism and Islam.

There is a need for religion . The religion which will help us now has to be not national, or ethnic, but involves all people everywhere who are united, not by geographical propinquity, but by their being of similar mind.

[Reflex]

The title fails to make sense. There is no "The" concept of God. There are several concepts of God. There are also syntheses of Godless religions such as animism with Buddhism and Islam.

There is a need for religion . The religion which will help us now has to be not national, or ethnic, but involves all people everywhere who are united, not by geographical propinquity, but by their being of similar mind.

Here is an interesting article. We can think of God as a "code."
Civilization Is Built on Code

[Belinda]

Reflex, that's an interesting article. What is the difference if any between code and culture? Did you mean that God is a personification of code, or of culture? In any case don't you think that beliefs and practices are separate in that 'God' is what you believe in whereas practice is what you do for a living?

[Nick_A]

Belinda

There is a need for religion . The religion which will help us now has to be not national, or ethnic, but involves all people everywhere who are united, not by geographical propinquity, but by their being of similar mind.

You refer to the religion of the Great Beast in which all will be indoctrinated into a similar mind which glorifies the Great Beast as the source of human meaning. It will not take too many years until our methods of indoctrination will be sufficient to assure universal agreement. Man's purpose will be defined by the Beast and the emotional need for meaning will be supplied by the Beast. You propose a lovely future.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The key to building your proposed all purpose religion to satisfy the Beast requires indoctrination masking itself as education. We're getting there.

[Nick_A]

Dubious

You do ramble on with all the secularism and Great Beast nonsense! I never thought of myself as a secularist because, for one thing, I don’t know to whom it’s supposed to specifically apply, secularism being so diverse in its views. Don’t even know for sure if there is such a thing as a purely secular being; if there is, they must be rare. What I am certain of is that I’m not a theist; also that Nietzsche was a first rate analyzer (though not in all cases) of the human condition, his prose style as well being among the best in all of literature. Wagner should have noticed! Instead, he kept on talking about Schopenhauer.

Secularism refers to people who are governed by their senses and emotions generated by them to satisfy the human need for meaning. As such, a secularist cannot be open to the concept of levels of reality. A simple way to explain it is by referring to Plato’s concept of the divided line in which everything below the line or the visible realm appeals to the senses. The intelligent realm functions above the line beyond the limits of our senses. Opening to reality above the line requires a particular quality of reason and the potential to experience noesis: the highest of the four cognitive states. This is a description of essential levels of reality.

Large diverse secular societies are doomed to failure IMO simply because they must deny the human need to experience what is above the senses. Blind indoctrinated secularism limited to one level of reality cannot accept the division of Plato’s divided line so struggles against it. The Ways and the techniques they have introduced help a person to awaken to the experience that objective human meaning and purpose as opposed to animal is actually an expression of reality above the line. The conflict between what we feel from above the line and our conditioned reactions to our sense experiences below the line leads to human hypocrisy. But we are conditioned to accept that human meaning and purpose is like any other animal, an expression of animal reaction provoked by the senses and given the force to actualize them by negative emotions. A balanced human being seeks to balance these two opposing influences. Plato describes this struggle with his Chariot analogy describing the need to heal the black horse.

Secularism including secularized religion indoctrinates while the ways seek to awaken. If a human being can awaken to objective human meaning and purpose, which do you prefer: indoctrination or awakening and the experience of objective conscience?

[Reflex]

Reflex, that's an interesting article. What is the difference if any between code and culture? Did you mean that God is a personification of code, or of culture? In any case don't you think that beliefs and practices are separate in that 'God' is what you believe in whereas practice is what you do for a living?

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Rather, religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. Culture can only emerge where there is a common code, but they are so intertwined It can be hard to tell the difference.

“God” symbolizes the source of our consciousness of moral duty and our practices represent a value level — an experiential reality — which is difficult of symbolization.

[Dubious]

Secularism refers to people who are governed by their senses and emotions generated by them to satisfy the human need for meaning. As such, a secularist cannot be open to the concept of levels of reality

That's how you see it but not how most secularists (as non-theists) would define it. So in stating a secularist cannot be open to the concept of levels of reality, why attempt debate with those who are so clearly short-changed in that way? Why not simply ignore them, responding only to those with whom you have something in common and don’t come across as illogical, dysfunctional, fanatical?

A secularist, as any normal human, is open to any concept or levels of reality he or she wishes to ponder. What’s to prevent them? They’re only concepts or beliefs at best. It’s only when such are amplified into some ultimate reality that screw-ups happen...not unusual, yours being only one example. Once you ride that horse, it’s almost impossible to dismount and reconsider. It won’t stop for anything and can't be controlled through normal critical faculties or the equally profound thoughts of those you have chosen NOT to examine; it’s that condition which comes across reading any one of your posts.

Example: You’ve quoted Nietzsche a few times but even a short reading of N confirms being totally contra Nick. You only read what supports your views extracting whatever is necessary even from those who wouldn’t give a fig for yours.

That’s what preachers do, scripture in hand, quoting to reinforce their creeds while ostracizing those who don’t conform or ask too many questions. Your discriminatory ideas are premised on exclusions under the rubric of Secularism & Secularists. Such simple labels make definitions easier to separate what one wills to be separated.

A balanced human being seeks to balance these two opposing influences

True for a “balanced human being” who will not thoroughly negate one in favor of the other as your posts have made clear. There is no strict dividing line between secular and non-secular only a vast neutral field in which they intersect; the main reason the secular itself is so diverse being so inclusive and labels only serve to confuse.

[Reflex]

Secularism refers to people who are governed by their senses and emotions generated by them to satisfy the human need for meaning. As such, a secularist cannot be open to the concept of levels of reality

By definition this is true, notwithstanding the whitewashing sophistry.

Also, secularism is an ideal that has to impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals.

[Nick_A]

Dubious

That's how you see it but not how most secularists (as non-theists) would define it. So in stating a secularist cannot be open to the concept of levels of reality, why attempt debate with those who are so clearly short-changed in that way? Why not simply ignore them, responding only to those with whom you have something in common and don’t come across as illogical, dysfunctional, fanatical?

Why do you believe that beliefs as opinions must be etched in stone? St Paul was killing Christians right and left but became a Christian by direct experience. What is so wrong about trying to experience the power of the attachment to secularism. Is philosophy really just people with the same basic beliefs getting together and cursing out the disbelievers? Does the fanaticism of deniers rally matter if it isn’t etched in stone?

A secularist, as any normal human, is open to any concept or levels of reality he or she wishes to ponder. What’s to prevent them? They’re only concepts or beliefs at best.

The beliefs of the universalists begin with a God concept and the gradual involution of elemental forces producing the levels of reality that taken together are called creation. Objective values are an expression of what is necessary to sustain the complimentary processes of involution and evolution of which Man is a part..

The secularist is unconcerned with any of this and is only concerned with what takes place in the world which it views as isolated from the rest of the universe. The universe and its levels of reality is the source of objective meaning and purpose for the universalist while the way we perceive the world through our senses is the source of meaning and purpose for the secularist. You give me the impression that you are a secularist. Am I wrong?

Example: You’ve quoted Nietzsche a few times but even a short reading of N confirms being totally contra Nick. You only read what supports your views extracting whatever is necessary even from those who wouldn’t give a fig for yours.

Quite true. Nietzsche criticized the effect of the human condition and wrote of the possibility of the overman as the ultimate expression of Man. From my point of view, the overman and its will to power is really a beginning. The overman and its inner freedom has the potential for both conscious evolution and world domination. Jesus when tempted by the Devil to choose world domination decided to serve universal purpose. Which would you choose if you outgrew wretched contentment and became the overman?

True for a “balanced human being” who will not thoroughly negate one in favor of the other as your posts have made clear. There is no strict dividing line between secular and non-secular only a vast neutral field in which they intersect; the main reason the secular itself is so diverse being so inclusive and labels only serve to confuse.

Why would I negate the value of our five senses for experiencing the external world? I have written that the human condition has turned us upside down. Balanced Man would be governed by the mind, powered by emotion, and actualized by the body. As we are, our sensory desires are dominant and given the force of our emotions to satisfy their needs. The mind becomes a tool to justify our sensory desires. Conscious Man is led by the conscious mind while animal man is led by sensory desires or animal mind.

A person can experience the point of transition between levels of reality.

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." -Simone Weil

The philosopher and their love of wisdom values experiencing the contradiction in order to experience the door and the higher level of reality on the other side. They become open to abandoning dualistic analysis for the sake of opening to intuition. It can be done.

[Greta]

Greta wrote:

I'm not much keen on a hierarchic notion of reality, as though some levels are superior or "more real" to others. If there is another reality, it is only going to be another aspect of the one thing, not some superior, more fundamentally real aspect.

Are hallucinations or delusions not less real than sane or concepts?

Yes, my statement was too broad - there do appear to be hierarchies of mental control, as reflected in the minds of the various types of life; parsing is needed.

However, I can't see the analogy between your comment about delusions and Reflex's "shadows on the cave" Platonism. When a person is having an illusion or delusion, that just means their perceptions are inner rather than outer - not higher, lower or derivative, just different.

Maybe Platonism is real? Maybe something else is going on, or perhaps something we haven't thought about yet? Who knows? Many make the claim to know for sure but they cannot know. So, of course "secularists" [sic] are open to levels of consciousness or reality - along with numerous other things that theists are not at all open towards. The difference is that "secularists" don't tend to convince themselves that abstract ideas that they enjoy are necessarily true - certainly not without corroborating evidence.

[Belinda]

Belinda

There is a need for religion . The religion which will help us now has to be not national, or ethnic, but involves all people everywhere who are united, not by geographical propinquity, but by their being of similar mind.

You refer to the religion of the Great Beast in which all will be indoctrinated into a similar mind which glorifies the Great Beast as the source of human meaning. It will not take too many years until our methods of indoctrination will be sufficient to assure universal agreement. Man's purpose will be defined by the Beast and the emotional need for meaning will be supplied by the Beast. You propose a lovely future.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The key to building your proposed all purpose religion to satisfy the Beast requires indoctrination masking itself as education. We're getting there.

The Beast exists to our peril, and needs to be tamed. Your religion can't accomplish this. Your religion can affect only a very small number of people whereas the Beast is global.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

There is a need for religion . The religion which will help us now has to be not national, or ethnic, but involves all people everywhere who are united, not by geographical propinquity, but by their being of similar mind.

You refer to the religion of the Great Beast in which all will be indoctrinated into a similar mind which glorifies the Great Beast as the source of human meaning. It will not take too many years until our methods of indoctrination will be sufficient to assure universal agreement. Man's purpose will be defined by the Beast and the emotional need for meaning will be supplied by the Beast. You propose a lovely future.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The key to building your proposed all purpose religion to satisfy the Beast requires indoctrination masking itself as education. We're getting there.

The Beast exists to our peril, and needs to be tamed. Your religion can't accomplish this. Your religion can affect only a very small number of people whereas the Beast is global.

You are an advocate of this global God which will tame the Beast. You are an atom of the Great Beast. What will be required to tame you?

[Dubious]

Why do you believe that beliefs as opinions must be etched in stone?

Not what I'd prefer to believe but in your case that's exactly how it seems never acknowledging any other perspective provided or allowing it the least credence. That's no debate, so again I ask why attempt to debate since that only has a chance of happening with those who are in harmony with your beliefs.

The secularist is unconcerned with any of this and is only concerned with what takes place in the world which it views as isolated from the rest of the universe.

...this says it all on how you think and you wonder why it's useless to debate with you.

This is forcing absurdities to go logarithmic!

Why would I negate the value of our five senses for experiencing the external world?

Don't know what you're talking about! I never said you did. We kind of depend on them to do exactly that...experiencing the external world!

A person can experience the point of transition between levels of reality.

On this we're in agreement though it often happens in slow motion.

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." -Simone Weil

That's partly true; depends on the type of contradiction. The statement is too generic to be as true as you suppose it to be never dreaming of questioning Simone; not only would that be a contradiction for you but border on sacrilege as well.

But I would ask her (not you), can a contradiction which requires to be resolved ever be concluded by a lie; isn't that in itself a contradiction? I don't believe in any one statement that can do full justice to the nature of contradictions. One "door" can lead to many others; and until the "final" contradiction gets resolved, the prior ones remain in limbo going back to the first time the contradiction was noticed.

At one extreme are the politically correct lies called oxymorons. At the other are the scientific and philosophic types such as the possibility that the 2D shadows on the walls of Plato's cave IS the reality creating a 3D projection as a derivative of the "surface" which is it's source.

The inherent contradiction being...does Plato's cave analogy imply (I won't say prove) the opposite of what it was meant to imply!
Is higher, or in absolute terms, the ultimate reality the projection itself or what it was projected from? Does lower equal higher or is the opposite of greater value; also, is there a door to this quandary...being one among many.

These are all highly SECULAR questions and of no consequence to you but I'm sure Simone would have come up with some interesting ideas that may boil one's noodle into spaghetti.

[Greta]

Dubious

You do ramble on with all the secularism and Great Beast nonsense! I never thought of myself as a secularist because, for one thing, I don’t know to whom it’s supposed to specifically apply, secularism being so diverse in its views. Don’t even know for sure if there is such a thing as a purely secular being; if there is, they must be rare. What I am certain of is that I’m not a theist; also that Nietzsche was a first rate analyzer (though not in all cases) of the human condition, his prose style as well being among the best in all of literature. Wagner should have noticed! Instead, he kept on talking about Schopenhauer.

Secularism refers to people who are governed by their senses and emotions generated by them to satisfy the human need for meaning.

This is simply more evidence that Nick sees those who don't believe implicitly in his deity (aka "secularists") as philosophical zombies, entirely lacking an inner life. In that he displays solipsism, assuming that the "tip of the iceberg" that he is exposed to in other people's minds is the entire mind.

He also does not seem to appreciate that people don't always speak freely about our inner lives, preferring that they remain private rather than splashed around to be besmirched by those who wouldn't understand. Hence, we confide in those close to us, not to aggressive and hostile parties online.

Your fellow humans are far more complex and interesting than you realise.