Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ asked:

"Who has set this all up? What intelligence stands behind it? And what, knowing what we can know if we do realize our situation, conceive it accurately and clearly, what are we to do? what are we to choose?"

...our own.

Processing what you say means getting to the core and the heart of your perceptual stance and your *belief*. With this statement you return to the essential assertion that we make it up. But at the same time you *skip* the core question I ask which again, to repeat it, suggests that all of this has been created for us and not by us. Your view is, I think, that all of this (the Kosmos let's say) simply came to be and who knows how? But the 'how' does not concern you and what you seem to do is turn away from that question (who, what, how?) and to suggest that there is no real sense to things, and no revealing story to be told. There is however story but, if I read you right, all stories are false. I.e. made up, human inventions.

Once the basic idea is placed out into the light its simplicity becomes plain.

It's one in which the transcendental becomes a personal abstraction, indigenous to the species which conceives and requires it. It is a subjective emanation of intelligence, though not all intelligences may require it.

Here you assert that 'necessity is the mother of invention'. It is the *need* to invent a transcendental order that provokes the mind-stuff of man to devise a Story. But this is simply another way of saying 'make up'.

It is not something which exists outwardly to which we may ascend, but rather that which blends alchemically with the mind to transmute the rust and iron of reality with the conceptualized gold of a higher existence.

What I note is the declarative stance. The language you employ seems to indicate admiration or respect yet again when the core tenets are examined you would only be able to say that *it is all made up*. If so then some one will come along to point this out more directly or perhaps with militant emphasis. And when we (that is we human beings) encounter something that is *essentially false* it cannot be masked by proposing it is *useful* and utilitarian. It must be collapsed. Or the truth of the real situation (*It is all false*) is maintained by an élite while 'the masses' are allowed to believe those necessary fibs that allow them to be manipulated by Rulers.

It is this which imagination coerces into the foreground as real or hyperreal with the power to thrust life itself into a separate state of temporary illusion boosting the palpability of an after-life to become more intense.

Again I am simply trying to notice and restate the *central operative tenets* in your assertions of truth. Coercive imagination. Metaphysical a=or transcendental descriptions as either (false)real of hyperreal. A mutable illusion. Fabrication of 'intensity' which have a locking-in function.

I would have to say you are ever-so slightly a Modern!

At the end one defaults to nature's reality nevertheless; visions of transcendence survive only as long as one is alive being the mind's way of surmounting the perceived hideous indifference of nature through the imagination's vast arsenal of forcing it into a more friendly countenance.

I guess you are referring to or riffing off my assertion that Nature is a rule all unto itself. If there is a *logic* in it, and there certainly is, it is something unalike what we *impose* on it through our idealisms. Therefore, what is asserted as transcendent and eternal and that which opposes the *mutable* world of 'becoming' is again seen as illusory. And again what is illusory is false in essence. And what is false cannot be sustained as truth.

This does contradict the entire proposal of metaphysics and also of the transcendent which reverses, let's say, the order of assertions. What is defined as transcendent and eternal is given precedence over the mutable and perishable.

In spite of science and its stringent methods, humans have always been at war with reality in as many ways as possible.

But the 'science' you define is extremely novel, which I am sure you are aware of course.

But is it best to describe *it* as a war? That is, the war of the armies of the unreal battling against a real that you define as the view that you are presenting? Which as I say undermines all previous orders and renders them false and untrue?

[Alexis Jacobi]

One wonders what you mean by "prayer".

People can be Dionysian and still love goodness, truth, and beauty.

Yes, but you are expressing a rather upscale, even a bourgeois, grasp of things. Let me contrast that with stories from the cultural context in which I live (South America). Your proposition about *the Dionysian* presents it as just one choice among different choices. But in the world that I am close to every day I see people who descend into and get lost in and entrapped by the sensuous world (the bourgeois term would be voluptuous world) of physical desires, sexuality, and also basic brutality. So I would draw a distinction between, say, a sensual delight that is managed by an aware person, and what actually does seem to happen to wide swaths of people: without an anchor in those intangible 'higher things' and when they are confronted by the power of physical attractions (not to mention the seductiveness of chemicals) they fall into forms of enslavement.

So then the idea comes to the fore (Augustine) that "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave." The *wicked* man is defined as one who has given himself over to passions and cannot control himself.

Now, what I can say is that among the semi-literate -- and most of the world is semi-literate and this is far more true in all of Latin America where *culture* is about 80% non-literate and thus not really capable of self-articulation and also of self-defense, people not only fall into these entrapments I outline but the economic structures that rise up around them, and come to them through TV and cellphone as well as music-culture, quite literally destroy their capacity to recognize what I describe as a 'higher world'. You will perhaps think I am making this up and that I am merely some sort of conservative wet-blanket or contemptuous of average people, but that is not so.

What I notice is that when people fall away from what are the traditional means of preservation of those *conceptual pathways* to the Higher Orders that they fall into brutality. Is this temporary? Will they eventually catch themselves in this 'fall' if they are better educated? Like those in Denmark, Sweden and Finland? That is the assertion of course.

Sorry that the word brutality contains the notion of 'brute' but I did not invent the language!

Brute comes from an Indo-European term gwerə-

Gwerə = Heavy.
Oldest form *gwerh2-.
▲ Derivatives include grave2, grief, aggravate, baritone, guru, brute, blitzkrieg.
I. Zero-grade form *gwr̥ə-.
1. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-wi-. grave2, gravid, gravimeter, gravitate, gravity, grief, grieve; aggravate, aggrieve from Latin gravis, heavy, weighty.
2. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-u-. a. barite, barium, baryon, baryta; baritone, barycenter, barysphere, charivari from Greek barus, heavy; b. guru from Sanskrit guru-, heavy, venerable.
3. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-es-. bar2, baro-; centrobaric, isallobar, isobar from Greek baros, weight.
4. Possibly *gwrī̆- in Greek compound *u(d)-bri- (see ud-)
II. Suffixed extended form *gwrū-to-. brut, brute from Latin brūtus, heavy, unwieldy, dull, stupid, brutish.
III. Suffixed extended form *gwrī-g-. a. brio from Spanish brio or Provençal briu, vigor, from Celtic *brīg-o-, strength; b. brig, brigade, brigand, brigantine from Old Italian briga, strife, from Celtic *brīg-ā-, strife; c. blitzkrieg, sitzkrieg from Old High German krēg, chrēg, stubbornness, from Germanic *krīg-..
IV. Suffixed full-grade form *gwerə-nā-, millstone. quern from Old English cweorn, quern.

It is interesting to examine the cognates because they reveal how and why the terms arose and why they have these inflections.

I would reverse your question and ask: What is meant when the idea of 'prayer' is negated? First, there is nothing to 'pray to' and no hearer on the other end! So then it is self-talk. But self-talk within an illusion-based perceptual stance.

And as we all know there are essentially two factions here in this conversation: those who define atheism (no god, not transcendental order, no higher order, no metaphysical reality) and those who, with some difficulties (!!) make an effort to indicate how it is that this *order* indeed exists, but intangibly and non-demonstrably except as secondary effects!

The psyche is metaphysical and it determines our *world*. And if this is so the atheist-materialist has no choice but to reduce *all this* to some function of the brain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, demonstrate substantively why I and all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it as well.

Well, first notice that you self-assert that you own, control, define and dominate 'the rational'. Also note that your entire discourse, at least as I am aware of it, is one where you deny through assertions that to believe in God or higher orders of intelligence is irrational. You base your opinion on the assertion that it is non-rational and irrational, etc. And this is true insofar as rationality is defined as dealing in strict tangibles (mass, weight, measure, etc.)

You ask (you demand really) a specific sort of *dance* to be performed for you that will convince you. But this is a sham, isn't it? Or to put it more understandingly and forgivingly you cannot cross an internal barrier to *belief* or *faith* because this involves other dimensions or faculties of Self. I sympathize with your problem and in fact I think we all deal with the same problem. There is a structure of mind, there is a set of definitions, that keeps us from being able to recognize and respect what I refer to as higher orders. We call that *rationalism* and we define rationalism as the right, good and proper base to operate from.

So as things stand, and this is in accord with your basic and established predicates, you will not be able to move beyond this position because, again according to your own predicates, it is the only position that you can define.

So I guess it comes down to you asking for a rationalized solution to an issue which is incommensurate with your predicated system. It is an impasse.

Indeed, your own narrative here is far, far removed from what I would hope to encounter in a philosophy venue.

Well, that is because (I gather) I see existence itself not as amenable to the terms defined through strict rationalism. But when I say this I know that I have stepped outside of rationalism (a mental position) and also to a degree that of philosophy. And it is true that I must resort to poetics (theo-poetics if you wish) to express things that are not amenable to rationalistic, mathematic-like, discourse. Since I have already encountered the obstacle I see you facing, and have to a degree overcome it, I try to communicate my ideas and yet doing that realize that I am, say, working in another territory. This is why I understand what Nick talks about.

On the other hand, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, I can also understand why some will cling to just about any rationalizations in order to tote God along with them all the way to the abyss.

Unlike traditional Christians or Catholics I see life -- my awareness, my consciousness -- as having an eternal core or seed (or residue if you wish) that is as eternal as Existence is eternal. Is this a 'rational' position to have? I cannot say that it is. But if it is 'irrational' it is yet an idea that I am allied with and I define as *true*. And because I am aligned with this idea (which I should capitalize as Idea because it defines a much larger conceptual stance) I cannot do else but adapt the way I live to the Idea.

I struggle though against a wide range of obstacles -- conceptual obstacles -- that seem to desire to throw me off my base. I drift away or I am pulled away, but then I am drawn back to what I define as 'more real' than that which desires, consciously or unconsciously, to pull me away.

But I do not believe in traditional 'hell' and I do not believe in traditional conceptualizations of 'heaven'. I find that I cannot. Consciousness, as I define it, is eternal. What is 'conscious' in us is part-and-parcel of that which is Eternal. These are ideas that transcend the specificity of any specific religion. In this sense they are mystic-philosophical. I know this and I also know that there is no way to *prove* any of this to someone -- like you in this case -- who has made other commitments. And therefore what I do is simply to point out that you have, indeed, made other commitments. You have your reasons.

Again, I would if I could.

But that is just it: You cannot. What blocks you? Well, it is a whole range of things really. But it is not my belief nor my understanding that you will 'suffer in hell for eternity' because you cannot, honestly, surmount the obstacle. My way of understanding our reality is to see it much more expansively. I have no idea what the primary lesson of your life has been. Is it to have seen through all the religious descriptions and to have rejected them? Maybe that is, in reality, a good thing? But is there another side to it for you? That is, for that part of you that remains and *goes on*? Believing in Life as I do believe in Life things are always in motion.

Who can say definitely? No rational discourse can define this. But no rational discourse can define existence, either. It is completely outside of the realm of rationalism. (I recognize my own assertion here for what it is).

I keep hoping for a miracle...that I will encounter an argument that really does jolt me back to my Christian roots.

Personally, I would not recommend 'returning to roots'. I do not think going back or going backward is good, helpful or possible. I think personally that there is a more comprehensive way to see and understand Christianity in its essence. But to see it in this way is, in a way, to step out of it and to look at it from a point outside. But that opens one to a more nebulous territory.

I am unsure you would take this as 'genuine or helpful advice' but in my own view the better we understand the 17th century shift the better we can understand why we, and why things, are turning out as they are. And my view is that we have to become *master metaphysicians* ourselves!

[Belinda]

One wonders what you mean by "prayer".

People can be Dionysian and still love goodness, truth, and beauty.

Yes, but you are expressing a rather upscale, even a bourgeois, grasp of things. Let me contrast that with stories from the cultural context in which I live (South America). Your proposition about *the Dionysian* presents it as just one choice among different choices. But in the world that I am close to every day I see people who descend into and get lost in and entrapped by the sensuous world (the bourgeois term would be voluptuous world) of physical desires, sexuality, and also basic brutality. So I would draw a distinction between, say, a sensual delight that is managed by an aware person, and what actually does seem to happen to wide swaths of people: without an anchor in those intangible 'higher things' and when they are confronted by the power of physical attractions (not to mention the seductiveness of chemicals) they fall into forms of enslavement.

So then the idea comes to the fore (Augustine) that "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave." The *wicked* man is defined as one who has given himself over to passions and cannot control himself.

Now, what I can say is that among the semi-literate -- and most of the world is semi-literate and this is far more true in all of Latin America where *culture* is about 80% non-literate and thus not really capable of self-articulation and also of self-defense, people not only fall into these entrapments I outline but the economic structures that rise up around them, and come to them through TV and cellphone as well as music-culture, quite literally destroy their capacity to recognize what I describe as a 'higher world'. You will perhaps think I am making this up and that I am merely some sort of conservative wet-blanket or contemptuous of average people, but that is not so.

What I notice is that when people fall away from what are the traditional means of preservation of those *conceptual pathways* to the Higher Orders that they fall into brutality. Is this temporary? Will they eventually catch themselves in this 'fall' if they are better educated? Like those in Denmark, Sweden and Finland? That is the assertion of course.

Sorry that the word brutality contains the notion of 'brute' but I did not invent the language!

Brute comes from an Indo-European term gwerə-

Gwerə = Heavy.
Oldest form *gwerh2-.
▲ Derivatives include grave2, grief, aggravate, baritone, guru, brute, blitzkrieg.
I. Zero-grade form *gwr̥ə-.
1. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-wi-. grave2, gravid, gravimeter, gravitate, gravity, grief, grieve; aggravate, aggrieve from Latin gravis, heavy, weighty.
2. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-u-. a. barite, barium, baryon, baryta; baritone, barycenter, barysphere, charivari from Greek barus, heavy; b. guru from Sanskrit guru-, heavy, venerable.
3. Suffixed form *gwr̥ə-es-. bar2, baro-; centrobaric, isallobar, isobar from Greek baros, weight.
4. Possibly *gwrī̆- in Greek compound *u(d)-bri- (see ud-)
II. Suffixed extended form *gwrū-to-. brut, brute from Latin brūtus, heavy, unwieldy, dull, stupid, brutish.
III. Suffixed extended form *gwrī-g-. a. brio from Spanish brio or Provençal briu, vigor, from Celtic *brīg-o-, strength; b. brig, brigade, brigand, brigantine from Old Italian briga, strife, from Celtic *brīg-ā-, strife; c. blitzkrieg, sitzkrieg from Old High German krēg, chrēg, stubbornness, from Germanic *krīg-..
IV. Suffixed full-grade form *gwerə-nā-, millstone. quern from Old English cweorn, quern.

It is interesting to examine the cognates because they reveal how and why the terms arose and why they have these inflections.

I would reverse your question and ask: What is meant when the idea of 'prayer' is negated? First, there is nothing to 'pray to' and no hearer on the other end! So then it is self-talk. But self-talk within an illusion-based perceptual stance.

And as we all know there are essentially two factions here in this conversation: those who define atheism (no god, not transcendental order, no higher order, no metaphysical reality) and those who, with some difficulties (!!) make an effort to indicate how it is that this *order* indeed exists, but intangibly and non-demonstrably except as secondary effects!

The psyche is metaphysical and it determines our *world*. And if this is so the atheist-materialist has no choice but to reduce *all this* to some function of the brain.

If there is a smidgin of intention towards goodness, truth, or beauty in Dionysian activities then God is there . Apollonian activities can be equally as death-dealing as Dionysian activities. The human psyche, the experiencer, is impossible unless it is other than its environment i.e. the other.

I would reverse your question and ask: What is meant when the idea of 'prayer' is negated? First, there is nothing to 'pray to' and no hearer on the other end! So then it is self-talk. But self-talk within an illusion-based perceptual stance.

With the proviso that the experiencer aims their activities at whatever they conceive to have attributes of goodness, truth, or beauty then their aim is towards God. We may not be clever thinkers and we may lead dangerous lives however we are all silly and stupid compared with absolute virtue.

Absolute virtue is impossible to define so ,as regards the object of prayer, praying is either humble or wordless. The only stipulation about prayer is that the object of prayer is other than self.

The other-than-self may be a lifeless object , or it may be a dangerous activity such as recreational drugs, or it may be a force of nature such as were the Greek pantheon, or it may be a mystical communication with what is not-self. What God cannot be is a reflection of one's current or projected desires which is what idolatry is. There can't be a subject without an object.

Since there there can't be a subject of experience without an object of experience, then ontic chaos is impossible, therefore God exists as the Absolute experience. The Absolute is well able to include men who are destroying their own lives.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there is a smidgin of intention towards goodness, truth, or beauty in Dionysian activities then God is there . Apollonian activities can be equally as death-dealing as Dionysian activities.

I am not sure if I should accept the binary definition of either Dionysian or Apollonian. I get your point though. The issue as I tried to describe it hinges more on the division between healthy/productive/intelligent and self-destructive/destructive/non thought-through.

The Bacchic infection of sudden intoxicated mountain-dancing that gets hold of unbelievers is psychologically intelligible to us. And curious that the first converts were among the women. Poor Pentheus though! To be forced into cross-dressing before he is ripped to shreds and devoured.

C’est la vie, je suppose.

I may have shared this clip from the movie Seconds. It is illustrative of the Dionysian mood. And fits in to the ethics and desire of the age.

For some of course the evidence of being on the right track and knowing you are on the right track is when the women undress of their own volition.

For others that they choose to keep their clothes on . . .

[Dubious]

Once the basic idea is placed out into the light its simplicity becomes plain.

It does seem fraught with simplicity. On the other hand it is anything but simplistic considering how consciousness manifests and creates its own reality, meaning, in effect, an emergence of purpose within a cosmic landscape which offers nothing of the kind. I know that’s anathema to you and others who believe there is some hidden purpose for human existence, perhaps inscribed in some cosmic Voynich Code forever indecipherable! But why, realistically, should that be the case within a universe containing billions of galaxies where what is created is simply a matter of process without intent. Ultimate indifference yields ultimate simplicity. Complexity resides in a counter conscious process of negating that to the point where it becomes an art.

Here you assert that 'necessity is the mother of invention'.

That’s a somewhat trite way of putting it. I would say we require more to our existence than what the universe has to offer which is without intent in anything it does including the fact that we exist.

What I note is the declarative stance.

Language was meant to be declarative as well as questioning, indicating doubt or uncertainty when such is imperative to the subject...or what’s a language for!

And when we (that is we human beings) encounter something that is *essentially false* it cannot be masked by proposing it is *useful* and utilitarian.

Just the opposite depending on what is proposed! I think I’ve already covered that.

Again I am simply trying to notice and restate the *central operative tenets* in your assertions of truth.

What makes you think I care about asserting any truth!? I’m merely describing the world as I see it and our reaction to it, psychologically, creatively, artistically in which Purpose amounts to giving ourselves the impetus toward Purpose. What is not given must be created...a very human prerogative!

What is defined as transcendent and eternal is given precedence over the mutable and perishable.

Transcendent & eternal! The mother of ALL illusions! Can you truly name anything that’s truly transcendent & eternal when the universe itself is nothing of the kind?

In spite of science and its stringent methods, humans have always been at war with reality in as many ways as possible.

But the 'science' you define is extremely novel, which I am sure you are aware of course.

But is it best to describe *it* as a war? That is, the war of the armies of the unreal battling against a real that you define as the view that you are presenting? Which as I say undermines all previous orders and renders them false and untrue?

It’s neither false nor untrue. The hope in mystery has always been and remains an extremely potent event driver. If the universe is indifferent it becomes the background upon which to inscribe all our psychological sustainers.

The hope in mystery paradigm has always been one of the most potent psychological aids of our existence in a universe where value was never a motive for any emergent active process. It keeps the heart beating – so to speak – to move itself forward in any manner it chooses, even if its vectors gravitate toward annihilation.

[Dontaskme]

Transcendent & eternal! The mother of ALL illusions! Can you truly name anything that’s truly transcendent & eternal when the universe itself is nothing of the kind?

While 'things' are temporal and transient in time.. 'No thing' is eternally time-less..by comparison aka (transcendental)...meaning to know a thing is to know no thing.... that's the nature of palindrome knowing.. where time can be experienced to move both backwards and forwards in the timeless none-moving NOW...and is indeed the mother of all illusions.

[Belinda]

In a hypothetical reality for a second let's assume there's no rational proof of 'god' but there is revelatory knowledge of 'god' - direct experience of 'god' through some kind contact either with 'god' or some supernatural phenomena in some experience.

First, how could you be sure the 'god' that was, was the 'god' of Christianity and not just a Cartesian demon-god with a demi urge playing a trick?

Second, what does that say for those who have not the privilege of having such experiences and on account of that, rely on rational proofs for 'god's' existence?

In different words, how could 'god' disapprove of atheists if he knows that only revelatory knowledge of 'him' is possible... while providing such knowledge only to a proportionate few.

'god' can't expect a skeptic to believe and trust a 'chosen one' who tells us 'he' exists... and yet still he disapproves of those whom he hasn't given the privilege of revelatory experience.

It would be terribly unfair to put these two on equal footing; the one has the burden of believing while the other has had direct revelatory experience of 'god'.

You think about dat for a minute.

'Atheists' and 'believers' both are mistaken about God unless both of them approach Him humbly like Socrates did when he said The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. · I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

The worst thing about Christianity compared with other sects is that while Jews and Muslims are mostly about doing rituals (praxis) Xianity is mostly about believing(theory).

The best way to avoid undue theorising is apophatic or negative theology:

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.

(Googled)

[Alexis Jacobi]

The point is that in my mature atheist stage I don't feel too terribly terrible about those origins because I got out of it quickly enough. Contrarily, if I had not become an atheist by twenty-five, I'd prolly feel a bit shameful about it. Like it took me too long to mature past it. A sign of a slow and/or weak intellect. That's how I would evaluate myself.

Now what would be unspeakable, unheard of, would be to continue to be a Christian past thirty.

I find that the anecdotal provides a better picture than an intellectualized description and so I am interested in what you write about your background. I have found that many who reject Christianity and 'the religion of their fathers' do so because of negative, restrictive, oppressive experiences within Christian cults. That seems to be the experience of you, of Lacewing and also of Iambiguous.

It is interesting -- therefore -- to understand the rejection of a restrictive Christian cult and the need to escape it as personally, psychologically, socially and intellectually necessary. Something that had to be done. And if this is so, and if an intelligent god does exist, such an intelligence would certainly understand. Actually such a god would stand behind the desire and need to move beyond such restriction. I realize the absurdity of speaking of God in this way -- as if he or it is a listener and a watcher of all our acts and thoughts. The way to resolve the absurdity of that image is to understand that if God exists he-it exists as some part of our own self. As in 'higher self' or as the Vedics say as something like 'atman' and internal conscious seed.

Since Belinda brought up the Dionysus-Apollonian contrast I have been reviewing ER Dodds' introduction to the Bacchae of Euripedes. What is this Dionysus? It is not easy to understand. Dionysus as a 'god' was linked in concept to the force of sap circulating with unstoppable life-power in living trees. Obviously, the connection is made between something in us which is, naturally, completely non-rational and part-and-parcel of our being -- but at some other level well below, to put it in prepositional terms, our 'rational mental order'. But Dionysus is not quite 'sex power' or sex-intensity', though the devotees of Dionysus were said to engage in unrestrained sexuality and thus offend 'civil society'. That role is given to Aphrodite as in Euripides' Hippolytus:

"The tide of love, at its full surge, is not understandable. Upon the yielding spirit she comes gently, but to the proud and the fanatic heart she is a torturer with a brand of shame. She wings her way through the air; she is the sea, in its foaming billows; from her everything, that is, is born. For she engenders us and sows the seed of desire whereof we are born."

So Dionysus represents some other sort of urge. And the best way (in my view) to understand it is to examine our quite recent past: the Sixties movement in a wide range of manifestations (and for this reason the clip I posted from the film Seconds (1966, from a book by David Ely) speaks to something strange but completely real: the desire, the overpowering need, to break out of restraining boundaries, which result in consequences that are destructive to the social life or standing, but to which one is inclined to sacrifice everything just for the experience -- that is of life-ecstasy. I recall a scene from My Dinner with Andre (the Beehive Scene) and then the documentary The Source Family which described a strange California Sixties cult in LA. Consider Keroauc's novel On The Road. There are a thousand references to a generation seeking to crash through barriers and limits seeking such vital experience. And damn the consequences!

In contrast, what function did the early Christian cultus have? It was seen as radical and opposed to the status quo, yet it was inherently conservative and opposed to pagan ecstasy and the excesses of the time. So it is interesting to consider our own present time and The Culture Wars that are on-going. One faction seeks to rein-in the excesses of the Sixties and bring things back to acceptable normalcy. And the Christian religion -- take its Evangelical form -- is really a religion or a cult of conservative social values and a shared ethic. It will naturally be inclined to restraint and control of wild, reckless impulses. So when one defines this God -- the God of Christianity -- what really is it? and what really does it want? At the point of examining it in this way one sees that it is largely a religion of restoration of social and ethical normalcy.

In a hypothetical reality for a second let's assume there's no rational proof of 'god' but there is revelatory knowledge of 'god' - direct experience of 'god' through some kind contact either with 'god' or some supernatural phenomena in some experience.

And this is a good description of, let's say, the Dionysian entheos: the adjective entheos translates to English as "full of the god, inspired, possessed", and is the root of the English word "enthusiasm". The Greeks used it as a term of praise for poets and other artists. A sort of *direct experience* that people sought in the Sixties. And let's say that doing this all boundaries were pushed to their limits. And now the *outcome* of this is a sort of social chaos, a chaos and confusion of values, after an overturning of values, such that now there is arising a social and cultural movement to rein it in. And this explains the recent rise of restraining, conservative movements that seek to recover order.

First, how could you be sure the 'god' that was, was the 'god' of Christianity and not just a Cartesian demon-god with a demi urge playing a trick?

The fact is that the *gods* that are visualized by the sort of mind that exists today will be and perhaps can only be something similar to "a Cartesian demon-god with a demi urge". Because seen in this way 'god' is a projection of inner content.

Second, what does that say for those who have not the privilege of having such experiences and on account of that, rely on rational proofs for 'god's' existence?

OK, so let's examine the 'rational proof' aspect to the question. Consider for a moment something that Ortega y Gassett wrote:

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

So we can see here that Ortega y Gassett -- decidedly conservative -- seeks to turn back to those rational definitions and away from the force & power of ecstatic revelation.

In different words, how could 'god' disapprove of atheists if he knows that only revelatory knowledge of 'him' is possible... while providing such knowledge only to a proportionate few.

The view that there is a God that is watching & recording & opining & preparing thunderbolts or who will round you up and send you to Hell -- is an example of something like "a Cartesian demon-god with a demi urge". It is a social picture with a social purpose. Right?

'god' can't expect a skeptic to believe and trust a 'chosen one' who tells us 'he' exists... and yet still he disapproves of those whom he hasn't given the privilege of revelatory experience.

It would be terribly unfair to put these two on equal footing; the one has the burden of believing while the other has had direct revelatory experience of 'god'.

Once we get out from under this sort of concept of God, then what God is (or could be) opens up.

[iambiguous]

Now, demonstrate substantively why I and all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it as well.

First, I would like to note that you avoided altogether responding to the points I raised above:

Of course, the beauty of all this for Christians is that those like me have absolutely no capacity to provide evidence that their God does not exist. Or any other God for that matter. The whole point of belief here for Christians revolves around a leap of faith. More or less blind and more or less as a result of being indoctrinated as a child.

Yes in fact, you do. The entire world, the Earth and its systems, the galaxy, the Kosmos, the Universe -- all of these things, if you accept Infinite Regress, seem to indicate an originating idea (for want of a better description). But nothing about any aspect of this World actually gives any direct knowledge of God. If that God created all this, that God is weird indeed, and not Christ or God the Father.

But examine the Greek gods. They are far more linked to natural processes; to the ways that natural forces act and interact with each other. Then examine the gods of the African religions -- say Yoruba. These are gods of mountains, or rivers, of elements. Oshun for example corresponds to Aphrodite. In Africa Oshun rules *rivers* and fresh water. But in practical application Oshun rules 1) women of certain characteristics. Usually alarmingly pretty. Not very intellectual but very sensual. 2) everything that has to do with love, sex, the sexual act, love-affairs, and also money, gold and successful business.

There are other feminine prototype gods as well -- Yemaja for example seems to embody another type that is easily distinguishable. Usually darker, a bit more reserved than boyant Oshun. Very feminine but more motherly. Yemaja is associated with the sea (salt water).

Now I could also mention Eleggua. Ellegua corresponds to Mercury and is masculine. But being corresponded with Mercury this also means with Hermes. And Hermes rules communication and the passageway of communication. He also therefore rules the mind and the sort of intelligence of one who *sees*. In the Yoruba tradition they recognize that people's heads can get all messed up. They get unclear. Their thinking processes and their choices are bad. They wind up with legal troubles, relationship troubles, familily troubles, spiritual troubles essentially. The object of the Yoruba curandero is to *lift* that unclarity from that head. This is done through various sorts of purification -- literally cool balms applied to the head. The head has to be *purified* of bad energies and sort of reset.

And then that person, with a refreshed guidance-system, can plot new and better life-courses. It is very practical spirituality. The things that are important are the things that are closest to the individual and his well-being.

So these are 'the gods of the earth' and in former times, among the Greeks, and in all primitive European cultures. these were the gods who were understood and evoked.

Sure, make note of any God or any Gods at all.

But: What still is of interest me is bringing them around to this:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

This thread revolves around the Christian God. But I really don't make a denominational distinction in regard to the four factors above. All religious and spiritual paths [to me] are about finding and then sustaining a certain measure of comfort and consolation by connecting the dots psychologically between objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side.

Christianity is clearly smack dab in the middle of that, right?

The Christian God may be "something else" for some, but not for me. He just happens to be [historically] among the most widely worshipped and adored Deities "out there".

Well, first notice that you self-assert that you own, control, define and dominate 'the rational'. Also note that your entire discourse, at least as I am aware of it, is one where you deny through assertions that to believe in God or higher orders of intelligence is irrational. You base your opinion on the assertion that it is non-rational and irrational, etc. And this is true insofar as rationality is defined as dealing in strict tangibles (mass, weight, measure, etc.)

You ask (you demand really) a specific sort of *dance* to be performed for you that will convince you. But this is a sham, isn't it? Or to put it more understandingly and forgivingly you cannot cross an internal barrier to *belief* or *faith* because this involves other dimensions or faculties of Self. I sympathize with your problem and in fact I think we all deal with the same problem. There is a structure of mind, there is a set of definitions, that keeps us from being able to recognize and respect what I refer to as higher orders. We call that *rationalism* and we define rationalism as the right, good and proper base to operate from.

So as things stand, and this is in accord with your basic and established predicates, you will not be able to move beyond this position because, again according to your own predicates, it is the only position that you can define.

So I guess it comes down to you asking for a rationalized solution to an issue which is incommensurate with your predicated system. It is an impasse.

I'm sorry but, in my opinion, this is precisely the sort of "general description spiritual/intellectual contraption" "world of words" that avoids altogether discussing the four factors I note above.

In other words...

Indeed, your own narrative here is far, far removed from what I would hope to encounter in a philosophy venue.

Well, that is because (I gather) I see existence itself not as amenable to the terms defined through strict rationalism. But when I say this I know that I have stepped outside of rationalism (a mental position) and also to a degree that of philosophy. And it is true that I must resort to poetics (theo-poetics if you wish) to express things that are not amenable to rationalistic, mathematic-like, discourse. Since I have already encountered the obstacle I see you facing, and have to a degree overcome it, I try to communicate my ideas and yet doing that realize that I am, say, working in another territory. This is why I understand what Nick talks about.

Again, this is the sort of intellectual mumbo-jumbo -- didacticism -- that I often encounter among Will Durant's "epistemologists". It's almost as though you are imagining that this is how philosophers are supposed to sound to other philosophers. As though what is at stake [existentially] with God and religion -- objective morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then -- was not even worth exploring at all. Given the lives we actually live and the behaviors we actually choose.

Stick with Nick then. My interest in God and religion is entirely more...existential.

On the other hand, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, I can also understand why some will cling to just about any rationalizations in order to tote God along with them all the way to the abyss.

Unlike traditional Christians or Catholics I see life -- my awareness, my consciousness -- as having an eternal core or seed (or residue if you wish) that is as eternal as Existence is eternal. Is this a 'rational' position to have? I cannot say that it is. But if it is 'irrational' it is yet an idea that I am allied with and I define as *true*. And because I am aligned with this idea (which I should capitalize as Idea because it defines a much larger conceptual stance) I cannot do else but adapt the way I live to the Idea.

I struggle though against a wide range of obstacles -- conceptual obstacles -- that seem to desire to throw me off my base. I drift away or I am pulled away, but then I am drawn back to what I define as 'more real' than that which desires, consciously or unconsciously, to pull me away.

But I do not believe in traditional 'hell' and I do not believe in traditional conceptualizations of 'heaven'. I find that I cannot. Consciousness, as I define it, is eternal. What is 'conscious' in us is part-and-parcel of that which is Eternal. These are ideas that transcend the specificity of any specific religion. In this sense they are mystic-philosophical. I know this and I also know that there is no way to *prove* any of this to someone -- like you in this case -- who has made other commitments. And therefore what I do is simply to point out that you have, indeed, made other commitments. You have your reasons.

As noted, my own interest here revolves not around what you believe so much as what you can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. Less about definitions and concepts and more about taking those definitions and contexts out into world where others pursue conflicting definitions and concepts.

Meanwhile the reality of human interactions in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change goes on. Just follow "the news" for a few days. Where does the Christian God fit into those headlines?

Too "down to Earth" for you?

Then I'd steer clear of me here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, demonstrate substantively why I and all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it as well.

First, I would like to note that you avoided altogether responding to the points I raised above:

No, I do not avoid altogether anything. I answer in a way that comes at your issues from other angles. You need to understand (because I already understand) that nothing I can say or do say moves you or *convinces* you. Why? Because you are unconvinmible. You have made a range of commitments that prohibit changing course. I know this and I think you should know this, too.

Your question: "Now, demonstrate substantively why I and all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it as well" can only be answered by suggesting that you do a great deal more reading, and reading outside of your chosen zone. As one example of a way to *answer* your question I refer to Ortega y Gassett from an essay of his:

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

So, this is what I did: I read a good deal of theology and I realized that, in many ways, I feel what he says is true: We need to look at the ordered expositions of theological thought where outlines of solid, good and productive activities and stances are expressed.

You ask "Why should I be obligated to believe" that what I say about theological conclusions is 'true' or even 'good'. And my answer is that you are under no obligation at all. The fact is that you are committed to your terms, your conclusions, your assertions and your commitments. Why convince yourself of anything else?

My decisions, and my commitments, have also been made -- along the luminous paths of discursive thought.

I'm sorry but....

You don't have to be sorry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[double post]

[Nick_A]

iambiguous wrote:

Does anyone else here have any other evidence beyond a leap of faith that might persuade me that, of all the many, many, many, many, many claims for this or that God, the Christian God is in fact the "real deal"?

Maybe if you solved Meno's Paradox it would indicate the inner psychological direction leading to our Source.

And this...

"If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible."

...has exactly what to do with my attempt to bring the Christian God "down to earth" pertaining to these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God

Or, if some prefer to call it "the Source", then that.

That's my own interest in either the Christian God or in all other Gods and spiritual paths. Connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

Not yours?

No problem. There are plenty of others here [and at ILP] who do not seem particularly interested in what, from my point of view, is the fundamental reason why Gods and religions exist in the first place. And that's always puzzled me.

Though, truth be told, not really.

The reason people have difficulty with Meno's paradox is that they try to reason it by associative thought rather than noesis. According to Plato we have four qualities of reason beginning from the top down:

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)


Pistis and eikasia are really just blind beliefs. Dianoia is rational thought but limited to two dimensional thought and our senses. It is necessary to function in everyday life but useless to experience higher knowledge beyond what our senses can experience.

Noesis explains Men's paradox through anamnesis or remembrance of what has been forgotten. Thinkers prefer to analyze but seekers of truth are open to the experience of anamnesis or recollection to verify the truth behind our contradictions

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/ ... impossible.

The Theory of Recollection

Concedes that, in some sense, inquiry is impossible. What appears to be learning something new is really recollecting something already known.
This is implausible for many kinds of inquiry. E.g., empirical inquiry:
Who is at the door?
How many leaves are on that tree?
Is the liquid in this beaker an acid?
In these cases, there is a recognized method, a standard procedure, for arriving at the correct answer. So one can, indeed, come to know something one did not previously know.
But what about answers to non-empirical questions? Here, there may not be a recognized method or a standard procedure for getting answers. And Socrates’ questions (“What is justice,” etc.) are questions of this type.
Plato’s theory is that we already have within our souls the answers to such questions. Thus, arriving at the answers is a matter of retrieving them from within. We recognize them as correct when we confront them. (The “Aha!” erlebnis.)

So if I am right, a source for human existence was always known but misinterpreted first by fear and secondly by creating the idolatry of personal gods. Only recently God, the great ineffable source Plotinus called the ONE, Has made it possible to appreciate the universe as the body of God and Man's purpose and potential within the body.

To understand why our species is drawn to experience something greater then itself requires the evolution of reason from animal dianoia into human noesis. Now such a person for me at least is worth talking to and to learn from.

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

Dianoia when sincere exposes a person to the contradictions most experience. It is only those with the need for truth who have the courage to go through the door and open to the experience of remembrance or anamnesis which can reconcile contradictions through a higher conscious perspective.

[Walker]

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

2, 3, & 4 are redundancies, if the indulgence is necessary.

[Dubious]

Ortega y Gassett...

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

What Ortega y Gassett is directly saying here is that any innate mystical experience is inferior to that which is dogmatically prescribed by a priesthood. If that were so, religions wouldn't exist and theism couldn't evolve to any supervised clarity as rendered by its elites. Incipient to most theologies is the insurgence of mystery and its concomitant feelings of mind dilation as precursor to a near steady-state of theological structure. As a generational habit, it eventually yields to tradition even when its belief systems are crumbling.

Not least, the influx of a palpable mystery in itself does not require the existence of any god or middleman to reveal itself to one's psyche. Anything may serve as catalyst to self-inflict both mystical and revelatory experiences. Furthermore, discursive thought is the least likely means to invent another god conception. Back and forth logic is not amenable to discussing matters of divinity.

Ortega y Gassett prefers yielding to the construction zone of dogma whose validity is as much or more in question than the kind of experiences which are neither negatable nor negotiable or requires for its effect any proximity to truth or dogma which invariably presents itself as having achieved.

Ortega's views yield aridity throughout!