Philosophy Now Forum

...Ahem.....okay. I think I have myself under control.

What you call “dignity,” I call “dysfunctional,” a denial of your humanness. The fear of death may indeed be some of the reason people turn to religion, but the fear of meaninglessness is much more deeply rooted in the human psyche. It is fear of meaninglessness, not reason, that prompts you to cloak your lack of belief with dignity. But it's just putting lipstick on a warthog and expecting it to win the Miss Universe contest. “Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.” (Blaise Pascal)

To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man’s only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

The above paragraph is from the much maligned Urantia Book. You can complain all you want about how it depicts the “unbelieving materialist,” but you cannot deny its veracity. Your idea of dignity is nothing more than childish bravado and/or a denial of everything that makes you human.

I suggest that you read Blaise Pascal's Pensees (it's a free Kindle download) or at least find his quotes online.

uwot wrote: So no, I don't have rigid ideas and beliefs about religion, because I know perfectly well that when someone is describing their 'god', they are projecting their personal wishes and dreads.

Yes, you do. You seem to insist, along with Xenophanes, that all gods are anthropomorphic.

Reflex wrote:...Ahem.....okay. I think I have myself under control.

You have an enviable sense of humour.

Reflex wrote:What you call “dignity,” I call “dysfunctional,” a denial of your humanness.

Again, that's because you interpret words to suit you ends. Granted that inventing supernatural beings is a very human endeavour, but so are singing and dancing, neither of which I do with much enthusiasm, but I don't consider myself less human for that.

Reflex wrote:It is fear of meaninglessness, not reason, that prompts you to cloak your lack of belief with dignity.

I can only give you the facts. If you lack the courtesy to believe me, too bad, but no it isn't.

To the unbelieving materialist...

I'll stop you there. I'm not a materialist.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote: So no, I don't have rigid ideas and beliefs about religion, because I know perfectly well that when someone is describing their 'god', they are projecting their personal wishes and dreads.

Yes, you do. You seem to insist, along with Xenophanes, that all gods are anthropomorphic.

It's a bit rich your telling others to take a course in comprehension. What does it say above? Even so, I would be surprised if you were so unsophisticated as to mean anthropomorphic literally. It is not that gods have human bodily form, although that is a common enough belief, even the bible says we were created in god's image, which some people believe means god has two arms, two legs and so on. Rather, as i said, it is often the case that people customise their god to accommodate their own hopes and fears; just as you do:

Reflex wrote:In the end, however, God is what I want God to be.

In that light, I don't insist that all gods are 'anthropomorphic, but by your own admission, yours is.

Sacrifice wrote:Reflex, would you not say that there are many dimensions to religion and that what religion is about might change from one to another?

Yes and no. When I say "religion is not about God," I'm saying that rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Rather, it is primarily a pursuit of values followed by a system of interpretative beliefs. Religion is an intensely personal experience so, in that sense, it is multi-dimensional, but its motivation -- whether fear-based or based on a personal and loving God -- is driven by values.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:What you call “dignity,” I call “dysfunctional,” a denial of your humanness.

Again, that's because you interpret words to suit you ends. Granted that inventing supernatural beings is a very human endeavour, but so are singing and dancing, neither of which I do with much enthusiasm, but I don't consider myself less human for that.

There's also hopes, longings, aspirations, etc.. Unlike other creatures, human beings know that they are destined to die. Knowing that all that in them that is noble, lofty and good dies with them weighs heavily on the mind if even at the unconscious level. Not caring is living at a level that is less than human.

You agreed that the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal. What kind of human appeal is there in "unyielding despair"?

Reflex wrote:It is fear of meaninglessness, not reason, that prompts you to cloak your lack of belief with dignity.

I can only give you the facts. If you lack the courtesy to believe me, too bad, but no it isn't.

The facts are uncertain. When pressed, even the most hard-nosed atheist (Dawkins, for example) falls back to an agnostic position. So why pretend putting lipstick on a warthog makes it a thing of beauty?

To the unbelieving materialist...

I'll stop you there. I'm not a materialist.

Taken down to the bare bones, to deny the personality of the First Source leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism. (This, by the way, is the reason my idea of divine simplicity is unorthodox.)

It's a bit rich your telling others to take a course in comprehension. What does it say above? Even so, I would be surprised if you were so unsophisticated as to mean anthropomorphic literally. It is not that gods have human bodily form, although that is a common enough belief, even the bible says we were created in god's image, which some people believe means god has two arms, two legs and so on. Rather, as i said, it is often the case that people customise their god to accommodate their own hopes and fears; just as you do:

Reflex wrote:In the end, however, God is what I want God to be.

In that light, I don't insist that all gods are 'anthropomorphic, but by your own admission, yours is.

Very good! You are hit upon the very reason for the title of this thread. I have said many, many times that the god conceived (small "g") is not God (capital "G"). "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason." (Blaise Pascal) Reason is the mediator. Psychologically, the God-concept represents the ideal-image with which I long to identify, but the reality of God, God-as-He-is-within-himself, is radically different than anything the mind can conjure up.

Reflex wrote: You agreed that the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal. What kind of human appeal is there in "unyielding despair"?

I agree. The human condition follows the process of dust to dust which seen objectively is unyielding despair. However what if Simone is right and the appeal of the essence of religion isn’t just for consolation? Then there is another option.

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~ Simone Weil

Reflex wrote: ...religion is not about God, or even what is factually true, but about formulating a satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live.

Hi Reflex,

Your “satisfying narrative” phrase above is indeed what religions are all about.

To borrow from Buddhist philosophy and to slightly paraphrase something I posited in an alternate forum, the various religions of the world are merely temporary “rafts” (satisfying narratives) to carry us across the waters of earthly life until reaching the shore of death and what lies beyond.

Or better yet, they represent “teats of hope and guidance” for us worldlings to suckle on until we are delivered into the light of the ultimate truth (be it eternal life or eternal oblivion).

(P.S., your comment regarding quantum entanglement being the underlying ("non-local") source of universal simultaneity is spot on.)

Nick_A wrote:

Reflex wrote: You agreed that the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal. What kind of human appeal is there in "unyielding despair"?

I agree. The human condition follows the process of dust to dust which seen objectively is unyielding despair. However what if Simone is right and the appeal of the essence of religion isn’t just for consolation? Then there is another option.

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~ Simone Weil

Oh, I absolutely agree! Not so much with Weil, but with what you said. Argument from consolation is superficial in the extreme. But when in Rome..... cater to the fantasies of the non-religious, who assume religion and belief in God is simply projection or the result of fears, insecurities and "memes."

.

seeds wrote:

Reflex wrote: ...religion is not about God, or even what is factually true, but about formulating a satisfying narrative consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live.

Hi Reflex,

Your “satisfying narrative” phrase above is indeed what religions are all about.

To borrow from Buddhist philosophy and to slightly paraphrase something I posited in an alternate forum, the various religions of the world are merely temporary “rafts” (satisfying narratives) to carry us across the waters of earthly life until reaching the shore of death and what lies beyond.

Or better yet, they represent “teats of hope and guidance” for us worldlings to suckle on until we are delivered into the light of the ultimate truth (be it eternal life or eternal oblivion).

(P.S., your comment regarding quantum entanglement being the underlying ("non-local") source of universal simultaneity is spot on.)

I do admit to having been influenced by Buddhist philosophy and am very familiar with the "raft" analogy, and while there remains a lot I can still learn from it, on balance, I find overt theism to be more motivating.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:What you call “dignity,” I call “dysfunctional,” a denial of your humanness.

Again, that's because you interpret words to suit you ends. Granted that inventing supernatural beings is a very human endeavour, but so are singing and dancing, neither of which I do with much enthusiasm, but I don't consider myself less human for that.

There's also hopes, longings, aspirations, etc..

I've already cited hopes, and wishes for that matter. Yes, we all would have things the way that suits us, but there is not a lot we can do to influence the will of any putative supreme being. If there is such a thing, I would be very surprised if its sole purpose for creating a world of experience is to test our resolve in resisting it. Better I think, to make the most of the opportunity; it is the only life we can be certain of.

Reflex wrote:Unlike other creatures, human beings know that they are destined to die.

Indeed, but who knows? Perhaps there is more to come. I've made the analogy before that consciousness might be to the brain as light is to a lightbulb. You can smash the lightbulb, but the light it generated continues to be part of 'heaven', more or less eternally.

Reflex wrote:Knowing that all that in them that is noble, lofty and good dies with them weighs heavily on the mind if even at the unconscious level.

That's a bit presumptuous. Firstly, what is so noble, lofty and good about, for example, you? Secondly, you will just have to take my word for it, my inevitable death does not weigh heavily on any level.

Reflex wrote:Not caring is living at a level that is less than human.

Well, again, that's because you define a human as a creature that shares your cares.

Reflex wrote:You agreed that the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal.

Insofar as people are motivated by belief rather than knowledge.

Reflex wrote:What kind of human appeal is there in "unyielding despair"?

Not a lot, and I'm very sorry for anyone who finds themselves in that position.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:It is fear of meaninglessness, not reason, that prompts you to cloak your lack of belief with dignity.

I can only give you the facts. If you lack the courtesy to believe me, too bad, but no it isn't.

Reflex wrote:The facts are uncertain.

Not the one I was referring to above.

Reflex wrote:When pressed, even the most hard-nosed atheist (Dawkins, for example) falls back to an agnostic position.

I suspect you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. It is commonly believed that in order to qualify as an atheist, one has to believe there is no god. In fact all that is necessary is to not believe there is one; with your refined comprehension skills, you should easily tell the difference. The latter view is often mistaken for agnosticism, which rather is the assertion that neither 'God exists', nor 'God does not exist' can be proven. In other words, you can be an agnostic, and still believe in god.
Here's Thomas Huxley on the topic:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."
He should know; he invented the term.

Reflex wrote:So why pretend putting lipstick on a warthog makes it a thing of beauty?

You tell me. You're the one making up a story to prettify what you perceive to be the ugliness of death and meaninglessness.

Reflex wrote:Taken down to the bare bones, to deny the personality of the First Source leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism.

In the first place you assume a "First Source", something I think we should all be agnostic about, in the sense meant by Huxley. Secondly, no one is compelled to nail their colours to any particular metaphysics. Better, in my view, to stick to empiricism/phenomenology, for the simple fact that any rationalisation is necessarily underdetermined: essentially it's the problem of induction; no amount of evidence can prove a metaphysical hypothesis.

Reflex wrote:(This, by the way, is the reason my idea of divine simplicity is unorthodox.)

Well, as far as religion goes, anything which strays from orthodoxy is unorthodox.

Reflex wrote:I have said many, many times that the god conceived (small "g") is not God (capital "G"). "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason." (Blaise Pascal) Reason is the mediator.

Yes, all very lyrical. The heart, it should be remembered, is not a perceptual organ, any more than the kidneys or liver. Thinking or perceiving with the heart just means surrendering our critical faculties and thinking or perceiving things we would like to be true.

Reflex wrote:Psychologically, the God-concept represents the ideal-image with which I long to identify...

Well, if your god concept includes rude and evasive, you are at least partially successful

Reflex wrote:...but the reality of God, God-as-He-is-within-himself, is radically different than anything the mind can conjure up.

Apart from the ontological leap you are making, this raises a Wittgensteinian conundrum: if you can't conceive it, how do you know it is inconceivable?

uwot wrote:I've already cited hopes, and wishes for that matter....

To what end? To put lipstick on a warthog? To make your life bearable?

Apart from the ontological leap you are making, this raises a Wittgensteinian conundrum: if you can't conceive it, how do you know it is inconceivable?

Finger -- moon. Atoms, too, cannot be visualized or fully comprehended. Does it therefore follow that they do not exist? Kinda funny, when you think about it: it was Brownian motion that finally convinced scientists that atoms exist, but the complexity of life is only an accidental juxtaposition of unconscious "stuff."


Everything else in your post is non-sequitur, irrelevant, or supports what I've been saying. I would explain all this in greater detail if I were not bored with your playground, which is of interest only to less than fully functioning minds.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:I've already cited hopes, and wishes for that matter....

To what end?

To acknowledge what you say. As I put it in the very next line:

uwot wrote:Yes, we all would have things the way that suits us...

Reflex wrote:To put lipstick on a warthog? To make your life bearable?

As I also said:

uwot wrote:You're the one making up a story to prettify what you perceive to be the ugliness of death and meaninglessness.

Reflex wrote:Finger -- moon.

You've lost me.

Reflex wrote:Atoms, too, cannot be visualized or fully comprehended. Does it therefore follow that they do not exist?

There is so much data about specific, well defined events, that calling the causes 'atoms' is unproblematic. There is effectively no doubt that atoms exist in that sense. They are also easy enough to visualize at whatever your level of comprehension. The phenomena are very well comprehended; what we don't know is what atoms, or rather the fundamental particles that constitute them are made of. For physicists who care about such things, there is some consensus that they are excitation, waves, ripples, knots, twists or some such , in one or more quantum fields. If that is the case, then for all anyone knows, those fields were created by god and may even be god.

Reflex wrote:Kinda funny, when you think about it: it was Brownian motion that finally convinced scientists that atoms exist, but the complexity of life is only an accidental juxtaposition of unconscious "stuff."

If you find a materialist who believes that, you can explain the joke to them.

Reflex wrote:Everything else in your post is non-sequitur, irrelevant, or supports what I've been saying.

I doubt even you believe that.

Reflex wrote:I would explain all this in greater detail if I were not bored with your playground, which is of interest only to less than fully functioning minds.

That's just the latest addendum to your comforting narrative.

I'm tired of repeating myself and responding to your ill-informed comments, uwot. For example, you said "[Atoms] are also easy enough to visualize at whatever your level of comprehension." Ever hear of Heisenberg?

Reflex wrote:I'm tired of repeating myself and responding to your ill-informed comments, uwot.

So respond to the well-informed ones.

Reflex wrote:For example, you said "[Atoms] are also easy enough to visualize at whatever your level of comprehension." Ever hear of Heisenberg?

Yes. What's he got to do with visualising atoms?

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:I'm tired of repeating myself and responding to your ill-informed comments, uwot.

So respond to the well-informed ones.

Reflex wrote:For example, you said "[Atoms] are also easy enough to visualize at whatever your level of comprehension." Ever hear of Heisenberg?

Yes. What's he got to do with visualising atoms?

:::sigh::: You mean aside from the fact that he and other physicists say it's impossible?

Reflex wrote::::sigh::: You mean aside from the fact that he and other physicists say it's impossible?

Do they? What exactly has anyone said to that effect?