Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: In considering usefulness, I think it's hard to go past science and reason. Art, relationships and spiritual practices and other aspects of our personal and cultural lives are important for quality of life after use of the scientific method enables our survival.

No doubt the conception of a deity can provide believers with a conduit to their spiritual selves. Some need that inner conversation so as to access their inner wisdom. Others access it via other means. Others don't access it at all. Many find that nature (and, increasingly, technology) can evoke spiritual feelings of awe and wonder. Belief, or not, seems to come down to how each individual decides to configure their mind and attitudes so as to feel most comfortable.

The reef is indeed useful for the fish, but it's not the whole of its existence.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:I understand the meaning of the words contingent and necessary, but I have not yet seen a sound argument that proves the existence of anything non-contingent.

Yeah, and I don't think you ever will.

Do you not think you could improve my chances by posting your argument?

Reflex wrote:A fish doesn't come the realization of the water in which it swims through sound argument because argument has the nature of a reef.

I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

Reflex wrote:The reef is indeed useful for the fish, but it's not the whole of its existence.

If you mean that science is not the whole of one's existence, it never has been. Scientists too enjoy love, laughter, art and other non-scientific aspects of life. The scientific method is simply a logical way of understanding how nature works. The emphasis is on predictions that can be tested and achieve reliable results.

This, of course, means that ephemeral phenomena tend to slip through the cracks. How to measure the brain in the state when you first fell in love, or when Archimedes had his eureka moment, or during a spontaneous peak experience? Only if these things happened with the subjects wired up in a lab. Researchers might check equivalent states induced by drugs but it's not quite the same. So scientific results are necessarily a simplified sketch of reality, but one that is increasingly being better "drawn". This huge and hard-earned body of knowledge, built by the genius, diligence and sacrifices of our forebears, is more worthy of reverence than dismissal IMO.

So when God is posited as something fundamental and inner, perhaps even subjectivity itself, then it's speculative but reasonable as long as the beliefs do not extend to clash with empirical findings. Many have noted that the "God of the gaps" has historically shrunk considerably as claim after claim has been disproved by methodical testing.

This is not a rebuttal of the Abrahamic deity posited by undeveloped Iron Age people any no more than it is a rebuttal of any other mythological figures used to anthropomorphise aspects of nature or the universe - the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, Allah, and so forth. Or Santa, for that matter. It's all still mythology. The important aspects of mythology are not in the particulars but the resonance, a lesson yet to be fully absorbed by humankind.

uwot wrote: Do you not think you could improve my chances by posting your argument?

Not really. Any possible argument I could make would be like a finger pointing to the moon. It is up to the listener to take his or her eyes off the finger and look to the moon.

Reflex wrote:A fish doesn't come the realization of the water in which it swims through sound argument because argument has the nature of a reef.

I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

Some things can only be intuited. That is, we have to get out of our head in order to see the ocean in which we swim. As Einstein said, "The only real valuable thing is intuition" and, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” I tend to agree with Al.

Greta wrote: If you mean that science is not the whole of one's existence, it never has been. Scientists too enjoy love, laughter, art and other non-scientific aspects of life. The scientific method is simply a logical way of understanding how nature works. The emphasis is on predictions that can be tested and achieve reliable results.

This, of course, means that ephemeral phenomena tend to slip through the cracks. How to measure the brain in the state when you first fell in love, or when Archimedes had his eureka moment, or during a spontaneous peak experience? Only if these things happened with the subjects wired up in a lab. Researchers might check equivalent states induced by drugs but it's not quite the same. So scientific results are necessarily a simplified sketch of reality, but one that is increasingly being better "drawn". This huge and hard-earned body of knowledge, built by the genius, diligence and sacrifices of our forebears, is more worthy of reverence than dismissal IMO.

So when God is posited as something fundamental and inner, perhaps even subjectivity itself, then it's speculative but reasonable as long as the beliefs do not extend to clash with empirical findings. Many have noted that the "God of the gaps" has historically shrunk considerably as claim after claim has been disproved by methodical testing.

This is not a rebuttal of the Abrahamic deity posited by undeveloped Iron Age people any no more than it is a rebuttal of any other mythological figures used to anthropomorphise aspects of nature or the universe - the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, Allah, and so forth. Or Santa, for that matter. It's all still mythology. The important aspects of mythology are not in the particulars but the resonance, a lesson yet to be fully absorbed by humankind.

The God I'm talking about is not so much posited as realized; what's posited is a conceptual interpretation. "The God of the gaps" (like Santa) is completely and totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Invoking it is (wait for it....wait.....) a category error.

Fine. The Santa thing now applies to all versions of God that are avaialble for any discussion. You have awareness of some special secret God that can never be spoken of or doubted. But you cannot share that awareness nor present any argument that travels beyond mere innuendo.

Reflex wrote:The reef is indeed useful for the fish, but it's not the whole of its existence.

It absolutely is for the reef fish.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Fine. The Santa thing now applies to all versions of God that are avaialble for any discussion.

Pretty much.

You have awareness of some special secret God that can never be spoken of or doubted. But you cannot share that awareness nor present any argument that travels beyond mere innuendo.

Now you're getting it! Why do you think apophatic theology was invented? Or, "Neti, neti," as Hundus say?

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:The reef is indeed useful for the fish, but it's not the whole of its existence.

It absolutely is for the reef fish.

Doesn't that comment embarrass you?

Reflex wrote:Now you're getting it! Why do you think apophatic theology was invented? Or, "Neti, neti," as Hundus say?

This is hysterical, so you are saying you are a pantheist now.

Reflex wrote:The God I'm talking about is not so much posited as realized...

How are you 'realizing' 'it'?

Reflex wrote:The reasons I have to invent myself as something other than what I am already goes far, far beyond being for the the sake of human communication. Is it not also a way of escaping the experiential limitations of unqualified infinity?

Waffle upon a Philosophy forum. You need a Theology forum or a New Age love-in.

Reflex wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Fine. The Santa thing now applies to all versions of God that are avaialble for any discussion.

Pretty much.

There is nothing else that needs to be spoken of.
The Santa thing stands.
The specious shit about reefs does not.

Reflex wrote:The God I'm talking about is not so much posited as realized...

What does that mean?

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:Now you're getting it! Why do you think apophatic theology was invented? Or, "Neti, neti," as Hundus say?

This is hysterical, so you are saying you are a pantheist now.

Not quite. The proper term is panentheist.