Philosophy Now Forum

blu wrote:

thedoc wrote:

blu wrote: Indeed it is striking that religions forbid questioning because it is so easy to demonstrate their falsity.

It just doesn't fit that you make this statement that seems to include all religions. The protestant religions were born out of questioning the established Catholic church and has remained part of the mindset of the protestant's that I know. One of the topics of conversation in my church is to question what has been written in the Bible and ask for an explanation.

Fair point as far as it goes. However it's doubtful Christianity would have survived in any significant form long enough for Protestantism to arise, if unquestioning acceptance hadn't been enforced by violence for hundreds of years before.

Yes and the violence was one of the points being questioned, violence was one of the forces that prompted the reformation.

thedoc wrote:

blu wrote:

thedoc wrote:The question of the OP seems to suggest that if God exists there should be no bad things happening, but this doesn't follow if you accept that God has granted humans free will, and now humans are free to do bad things. "Bad" is a subjective human judgment and does not apply to "natural" events.

Fine, but that does imply that God (assuming He is good) is not all-powerful, since if He was He would have created a world where bad things were impossible.

Wrong, it is important to distinguish between "can do" and "will do", God can be "all powerful and capable of eliminating all evil" but God could also choose to let humans have their way, and not interfere with the course humans have chosen for themselves. If you accept that humans have free will, why would expect less of God, could God not choose what God will and will not do? Just because God is "all powerful" does not mean that God is required to use that power. Perhaps a human would choose to eliminate all evil, do you deny God the ability to choose? And why should God conform to human expectations, the Universe doesn't.

Fine, so God is all-powerful but chooses to behave in a bad way. Whatever; you can't have it both ways. As a matter of interest is the god you believe in all-powerful or all-good?

blu wrote:

thedoc wrote:

blu wrote: Fine, but that does imply that God (assuming He is good) is not all-powerful, since if He was He would have created a world where bad things were impossible.

Wrong, it is important to distinguish between "can do" and "will do", God can be "all powerful and capable of eliminating all evil" but God could also choose to let humans have their way, and not interfere with the course humans have chosen for themselves. If you accept that humans have free will, why would expect less of God, could God not choose what God will and will not do? Just because God is "all powerful" does not mean that God is required to use that power. Perhaps a human would choose to eliminate all evil, do you deny God the ability to choose? And why should God conform to human expectations, the Universe doesn't.

Fine, so God is all-powerful but chooses to behave in a bad way. Whatever; you can't have it both ways. As a matter of interest is the god you believe in all-powerful or all-good?

Does not follow, again why do you expect God to be limited by human standards?

I don't know, I am reasonably certain that God exists, beyond that, I leave it to faith that God is good, as in having my best interest in mind.

One other point, "Bad" is a human judgement and does not necessarily apply to the actions of God. It seems that you are trying to judge God by human standards, and that doesn't necessarily apply.

thedoc -

I agree that ' "bad" is a human judgement', however children made blind by having their eyes bored out by a parasitic worm is incontrovertibly bad. Furthermore it is religions such as Christianity that insist that "bad" is not a human judgement, but God's, so I feel you are confused on this point.

"Leaving it to faith" is scarcely a philosophical argument, more a rejection of reason or admission of a preference to believe whatever makes you comfortable rather than face uncomfortable evidence.

thedoc wrote:I am reasonably certain that God exists ...

Why?

Maybe gods only exists when we create them in our heads? Deities represent pinnacles of potential, something to aim for. The personification of ideals of universal love, joy, wisdom and creativity appear to help many to absorb those ideals. An internal conversation is surely be more engaging and rousing for many than abstracted ideas without an attention-grabbing conduit.

In the end, it's all about conduits leading to growth and personal development, whatever one finds most effective at the time. I see little difference in the described raptures of genuine theists from their internally generated states and the awe of biologists when interacting with exotic nature. The experiences and subsequent development are more ultimately more important than the paths used to gain those things. The main consideration when choosing a path is not so much the accuracy of our conceptions but the ethics. If a path leads one to development but unnecessarily hinders others' paths (eg. asset-stripping billionaire), then that would seem less optimal than growth and development that does not come at such a high expense for others. After all, we are ultimately all part of a single biosphere.

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:I am reasonably certain that God exists ...

Why?

Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence on the Holy Spirit, and based on that I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God. I also understand that the particular experience was for the edification of those present and those who were not there will have their own experience to accept or reject, and will probably not accept that my experience applies to them. Arron Ra claims that faith and religion is a belief in something without evidence, but I have some evidence that is acceptable to me. I can try to give you the details, as best I can remember them, but the whole experience was accompanied with a feeling of knowing who was responsible, and that I don't believe that I could convey in words.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:I am reasonably certain that God exists ...

Why?

Many years ago (over 30) I had an experience that I could only explain as the presence on the Holy Spirit, and based on that I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God. I also understand that the particular experience was for the edification of those present and those who were not there will have their own experience to accept or reject, and will probably not accept that my experience applies to them. Arron Ra claims that faith and religion is a belief in something without evidence, but I have some evidence that is acceptable to me. I can try to give you the details, as best I can remember them, but the whole experience was accompanied with a feeling of knowing who was responsible, and that I don't believe that I could convey in words.

Thanks doc. I have had two peak experiences myself, a very brief one one in 2000 and another in 2012, the latter being of the type that many would interpret as the "holy spirit". The holy spirit is not something that's ever been on my radar, just one of the many cliches of my youth. I did wonder about God at the time because it's hard not to when you are blown away by an overpowering sense of unconditional love, very similar to what mystics and NDE reports describe. I found it all extremely encouraging but I try not to jump to conclusions.

I suppose where I'm at now is that, if God exists, it is most likely subjectivity experience per se, in which case we briefly just fell into a deeper slipstream. So that would make us all a little piece of "The All" (to avoid anthropomorphication) , but related to everything else via fractal relationships. Based on this perspective, those who are less destructive can be considered to be relatively mature while those who are highly destructive are not "bad", just undeveloped. There was a sense - which I admit accords with my previously-held musings - that evil does not exist, just degrees and types of development.

Interesting that we can have similar experiences but come away with perhaps very different interpretations. I know what you mean about "evidence". One subjective experience does not constitute formal evidence, although when something amazing has happened to you there is a tendency to say "stuff 'em". In the end, formal evidence - objective verification - is needed to render a phenomenon useful for the many. Love it. Best thing since sliced bread (another product of the scientific method). Objective info is also useful when applied to inner experiences, but aspects of our emotional and experiential aspects are well beyond our capabilities to understand at present.

I am reminded of movies where someone sees an alien (or whatever) and everyone thinks they're crazy. "But ... but ... I DID see them!" Oh well, soon enough we'll find out (or not) whether our subjective impressions did in fact point to a deeper reality, or if they were simply the lucky result of a dopamine spike :)

Greta wrote: I am reminded of movies where someone sees an alien (or whatever) and everyone thinks they're crazy. "But ... but ... I DID see them!" Oh well, soon enough we'll find out (or not) whether our subjective impressions did in fact point to a deeper reality, or if they were simply the lucky result of a dopamine spike

I sometimes make odd connections, and this might seem like one of them. There is an argument against God, quoting the chapters in the Bible describing how the Israelite's were in a battle and the day was ending and they hadn't finished, so God stopped the Earth's rotation so it would stay daylight long enough for the Israelite's to finish the battle. The criticism centered on the idea that if God stopped the rotation of the Earth, everything loose would fly off at 1,000 MPH. It seems that the critics failed to take into account that If God were powerful enough to stop the Earth's rotation God would also be powerful enough to stop everything on the Earth such that no-one would feel anything. It seems that the critics were willing to grant God the power to do one thing, but not the other. The point is, could God have triggered the Dopamine spike? Who is man, to set limits on what God can or will do?

thedoc wrote:I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.

It's hardly a conclusion you would expect to result from sound reasoning. Maybe you only imagined you reasoned.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:I reasoned that if the Holy experience was real then God was also real, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.

It's hardly a conclusion you would expect to result from sound reasoning. Maybe you only imagined you reasoned.

What is unsound in the reasoning that from the existence of the Holy Spirit, you can deduce the existence of God, if you accept that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God?
Perhaps it depends on your point of view, I know what my point of view is, what's yours?

thedoc wrote: What is unsound in the reasoning that from the existence of the Holy Spirit, you can deduce the existence of God, if you accept that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God?
Perhaps it depends on your point of view, I know what my point of view is, what's yours?

The lifetime of experience on which I base my point of view does not allow for the inclusion of "Holy Spirit" in the world I inhabit. I've been around for quite a long time and feel sure I would have come across it at some time, had it been there. I think you've had a hallucination.

Greta wrote:I am reminded of movies where someone sees an alien (or whatever) and everyone thinks they're crazy. "But ... but ... I DID see them!" Oh well, soon enough we'll find out (or not) whether our subjective impressions did in fact point to a deeper reality, or if they were simply the lucky result of a dopamine spike :)

thedoc wrote:I sometimes make odd connections, and this might seem like one of them. There is an argument against God, quoting the chapters in the Bible ...

If you are interested in reality I suggest giving your Bible to a charity and paying more attention to where the real action is - your own consciousness and its interaction with environment. The Bible is just mythology mixed with parts of romantically conveyed history. Many of the famous stories of the Bible, including that of Jesus himself, were lifted from older myths, many of them pagan in origin.

No religious text is the exclusive word of God. If God exists, then it is everywhere (a la Spinoza?), in which case Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene is every bit as much the word of God as any religious text.

thedoc wrote:It seems that the critics were willing to grant God the power to do one thing, but not the other. The point is, could God have triggered the Dopamine spike? Who is man, to set limits on what God can or will do?

Chicken-and-the-egg. What is most fundamental? The physical, the metaphysical or neither?

My guess is that the physical and metaphysical are one and the same - that physical correlates of what we think of as metaphysical phenomena will be found, ie. "metaphysics" refers to physical phenomena that we are yet to understand. At least some of the strange and unexplained in reality, including mysteries around consciousness, that are attributed to the supernatural will be found as stored information of absolutely everything that has ever happened at the Planck scale (or perhaps an even more fundamental, purely informational domain?).

Projecting from this guess (since no one really knows), if humans interrogate and control aspects of whatever is the fundamental physical basis of reality, then technology and spirituality will merge, resulting in something akin to The Omega Point sans Chardin's romanticism.

Re: the OP question. Based on this notion, "bad" things are simply the result of an immature, developing universe that will increasingly solve the problems associated with being alive.

Harbal wrote:I've been around for quite a long time and feel sure I would have come across it at some time, had it been there. I think you've had a hallucination.

Alfie, I don't think it was a hallucination, just a matter of interpretation.

Peak experiences like those the doc and I have enjoyed really are something else so I find doc's interpretation as understandable, although IMO he has jumped to conclusions.

Greta wrote: Alfie, I don't think it was a hallucination, just a matter of interpretation.

Peak experiences like those the doc and I have enjoyed really are something else so I find doc's interpretation as understandable, although IMO he has jumped to conclusions.

OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope it doesn't turn out like last time.

Harbal wrote:OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope it doesn't turn out like last time.

Hah! As long as people don't bully the vulnerable or misrepresent me, all is well.