Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Are you now saying your 'God' is a trick of the mind?

It's in the realm of possibilities, but I have no reason to think it's the case.

What is it you actually do if you haven't used your senses nor your intellect?

Another Zen saying: "Just don't do something, sit there!"

"By discarding baggage." Such as?

Asking questions. I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass, but to answer the question in a serious fashion. A head full of questions has no room for answers. I know my critics will interpret this to mean I am a applauding ignorance, but nothing can be further from the truth. "....Whosoever shall shall lose his life shall preserve it" (Luke 17:33) doesn't mean we should slit our throats in order to save our lives; it means that the ego-self is an invention best left out of the equation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm a student of history. I've no need to "prove it" to an ignorant cur.

So what are you doing in a philosophy forum? Didn't you say that theology belongs in a theology forum, or at least something like that?

Hypocrite.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm a student of history. I've no need to "prove it" to an ignorant cur.

So what are you doing in a philosophy forum? Didn't you say that theology belongs in a theology forum, or at least something like that?
:

I am a student of many things including the history of philosophy, of which you seen to be woefully ignorant.
I'm simply not going to waste my time trying to teach you the most basic facts of history which you seem blind to.
Fuck off and read a book for a change!

Atheism was a capital offence throughout Europe 300 years ago, as it still is today in many countries. It is still even a legal bar to holding positions of office in several American states.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Atheism was a capital offence throughout Europe 300 years ago, as it still is today in many countries. It is still even a legal bar to holding positions of office in several American states.

By your example, doing the history of philosophy sure as hell isn't doing philosophy.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Atheism was a capital offence throughout Europe 300 years ago, as it still is today in many countries. It is still even a legal bar to holding positions of office in several American states.

By your example, doing the history of philosophy sure as hell isn't doing philosophy.

ANd you would know... how exactly????

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:It means that God is 'known' in the sense color is known, but at a deeper level; a level our senses and intellect do not penetrate.

And yet we know the colours by being shown them. What is it you actually do if you haven't used your senses nor your intellect?

For the record, Reflex wrote that, not me. The quote tags were mixed up.

Your question makes sense. For me, a more thought-provoking realisation around qualia and the colour "red" was David Chalmers's thought experiment about a scientist with monochrome vision who learns everything about the colour red. If the scientist later on gains colour vision, despite knowing all the theory, she will learn something new when she first sees the colour red (and everything else). Then again, it may just be that, for the first time, she will have an unconscious emotional response to colour. Maybe there's another level of perception again, perhaps a meta-perception combining both the intellectual and emotional content?

I think it is more helpful to analyse methodically than to leap to The God Conclusion at the first hint of weirdness in reality. If we are to posit the existence of a deity then we should be able to work through logical steps, showing connections with known facts. Some claim that their deity is right in front of our faces every day (cue the "a fish takes water for granted" analogy), that the deity IS our subjective awareness itself. That's hard to refute because we do have a subjective existence. Then it's just a matter of definition and interpretation.

Then we have the anthropomorphised deity, the old man with a white beard. In the patriarchal societies of the middle east 2,000 years ago women and young people looked to their fathers for protection and provisions. With all that responsibility in a cut-throat society, who could hardworking fathers turn to for protection? God. When the father was a violent tyrant, who could the mother turn to for protection? God. However, if they are not "good" then they don't get the "presents". Santa for big kids.

As far as I know the Cherem against Spinoza still stands and woe betide any Jew that reads a Spinoza text, or come within 4 cubits of a Spinoza book.

Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in,” it reads, adding: “The Lord will not spare him, but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man … [and] blot out his name from under heaven

Lacewing wrote:When I set the notions of God aside, I was back in the flow... no longer obstructing it with ideas. "Magic" happens continually in my life... answering my questions/requests... showing me which way to go... and lining things up against all seeming odds. I can see how COMPLETELY NATURAL it is to experience such connection and harmony in the flow... when one gets oneself out of the way. I would call this observable and measurable! And there is no "god" for me.

For others, though, the notion of God into creates a human connection with which they can relate to better than impersonal nature/universe. When they put God's face to their natural inner wisdom they assign responsibility for their big decisions to God. Their contemplations are then no longer stymied by insecurity and a sense of inadequacy (which we all have to some extent) - because "someone who knows better" is guiding them. It works too. Deities are a conduit, one of many, that can help people achieve greater positivity and stability in their lives.

It should be said that Santa helped to provide positivity and reliability to our lives as children too, although perhaps only to a demigod's extent.

Lacewing wrote:The risk of assigning a god to that is, I think, that it would become my knowable creation. And then I could ignorantly bend it to my will. Just as is demonstrated by some of the theists on this site.

Religions have been providing helpful "interpretation" of "The Lord's word" for millennia. The old texts are so metaphorical, mythical and contradictory that a range of spins can be put on them. So theists range from the modern-minded (eg. Bishop Sprong) to disturbed weirdos who carry around "God hates fags" placards.

Yet couldn't our conceptions of God be superficial anthropomorphised notions of noumena that is far deeper again?

Lacewing wrote:It's too bad this line of questioning isn't welcomed and explored by all... but I guess when someone is defined by, and reliant on, seeing the world and identifying themselves in a certain way... they simply cannot realize anything else. For many, to even consider that there are other valid realities is unimaginable... maybe terrifying. Yet to NOT see and understand, is surely only a reflection of the limitations of awareness at this point in time.

While the "other realities" I've glimpsed were wonderful, they were frightening in their oddness. People can lead perfectly good lives without ever glimpsing those mental states. On the other hand, some people who've had that glimpse have seemingly lost the plot, disappearing over the cliff of logic into lala land. It's not essential knowledge to know of other ways of validly experiencing and learning from reality.

The "unity experience" isn't much relevant to our daily lives although they helped me by giving me hope. I gained a hope that the world wasn't going to hell, that reality is actually fundamentally good (as per human standards). Very good. This, of course, sounds rather wacky to those who've not had a powerful peak experience, a bit like the old Lost in Space episode, "The Girl from the Green Dimension" when Dr Smith sees Athena floating around the spacecraft but the Robinsons think he's delusional because she drifts from sight when he tries to show her to them.

Reflex wrote:It's in the realm of possibilities, but I have no reason to think it's the case.

I thought you said intellect plays no part?

Another Zen saying: "Just don't do something, sit there!"

What's Zen got to do with theism pan or otherwise?

Asking questions. I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass, but to answer the question in a serious fashion. A head full of questions has no room for answers. I know my critics will interpret this to mean I am a applauding ignorance, but nothing can be further from the truth. "....Whosoever shall shall lose his life shall preserve it" (Luke 17:33) doesn't mean we should slit our throats in order to save our lives; it means that the ego-self is an invention best left out of the equation.

Since when has Christianity got anything to do with Hinduism or Zen, if that's what this 'ego-self' is about?

Greta wrote:

Lacewing wrote:I can see how COMPLETELY NATURAL it is to experience such connection and harmony in the flow... when one gets oneself out of the way. I would call this observable and measurable! And there is no "god" for me.

For others, though, the notion of God into creates a human connection with which they can relate to better than impersonal nature/universe. When they put God's face to their natural inner wisdom they assign responsibility for their big decisions to God. Their contemplations are then no longer stymied by insecurity and a sense of inadequacy (which we all have to some extent) - because "someone who knows better" is guiding them. It works too. Deities are a conduit, one of many, that can help people achieve greater positivity and stability in their lives.

I agree Greta. Even though I give some theists a hard time, I support anyone to believe/use whatever works for them. What I feel compelled to question is when people elevate and separate themselves based on their belief. If they were to say, "this is what I believe, it works for me -- and I respect that your path works for you too"... that would be wonderful! Too many seem to strut around acting more unique and special than everyone else... and it's just not what I expect from intelligent people... and I thought more people were more intelligent.

Greta wrote:Religions have been providing helpful "interpretation" of "The Lord's word" for millennia. The old texts are so metaphorical, mythical and contradictory that a range of spins can be put on them. So theists range from the modern-minded (eg. Bishop Sprong) to disturbed weirdos who carry around "God hates fags" placards.

Yes... another visible reason (I would think) for more people to be aware of how many interpretations there are. Therefore, posturing over a single interpretation seems embarrassingly foolish.

Greta wrote:It's not essential knowledge to know of other ways of validly experiencing and learning from reality.

I can see that this is true, although I'm often of the mindset to think it's good to consider more. On a site like this, it seems natural to anticipate that other ways will be presented and considered... so it's surprising (to me) when there's so much resistance to that. The main thing I notice is how a person interacts (including myself) with others. What they believe is less important... it's more about what they are doing with it.

Greta wrote:
Your question makes sense. For me, a more thought-provoking realisation around qualia and the colour "red" was David Chalmers's thought experiment about a scientist with monochrome vision who learns everything about the colour red. If the scientist later on gains colour vision, despite knowing all the theory, she will learn something new when she first sees the colour red (and everything else). Then again, it may just be that, for the first time, she will have an unconscious emotional response to colour. Maybe there's another level of perception again, perhaps a meta-perception combining both the intellectual and emotional content?

I think it is more helpful to analyse methodically than to leap to The God Conclusion at the first hint of weirdness in reality. If we are to posit the existence of a deity then we should be able to work through logical steps, showing connections with known facts. Some claim that their deity is right in front of our faces every day (cue the "a fish takes water for granted" analogy), that the deity IS our subjective awareness itself. That's hard to refute because we do have a subjective existence. Then it's just a matter of definition and interpretation.

Then we have the anthropomorphised deity, the old man with a white beard. In the patriarchal societies of the middle east 2,000 years ago women and young people looked to their fathers for protection and provisions. With all that responsibility in a cut-throat society, who could hardworking fathers turn to for protection? God. When the father was a violent tyrant, who could the mother turn to for protection? God. However, if they are not "good" then they don't get the "presents". Santa for big kids.

Very good post, Greta.

The idea of other levels of perception is not a new one. In fact, it goes back thousands of years, famously called by Aldous Huxley (among others) the great chain of being. Given what we know about physics today, it makes sense (even if it cannot be empirically verified).

Lacewing wrote:What I feel compelled to question is when people elevate and separate themselves based on their belief. If they were to say, "this is what I believe, it works for me -- and I respect that your path works for you too"... that would be wonderful! Too many seem to strut around acting more unique and special than everyone else...

To varying extents people are prone to pride, or they go through periods of being proud of themselves.

Lacewing wrote:Therefore, posturing over a single interpretation seems embarrassingly foolish.

If something works for you then you have enough evidence to satisfy you. A naive person might figure that theirs is the only way.

Lacewing wrote:On a site like this, it seems natural to anticipate that other ways will be presented and considered... so it's surprising (to me) when there's so much resistance to that.

Strictly speaking, formal philosophy is conservative and works from the existing body of philosophical knowledge built by the ancient Greeks, Kant, Wittgenstein, Hume, etc., as opposed to reporting first-hand experiences or speculating without academic basis as we usually do here. At least some of the resistance may come from those who'd prefer a more academic approach.

Arising_uk wrote:I thought you said intellect plays no part?

There's interpenetration, but the map ain't the territory.

What's Zen got to do with theism pan or otherwise?

Once you step away from the CEO kind of God and tear down the walls erected by ideologues, you begin to see its mostly just a matter of emphasis; that things are "fuzzy" and the perception of concrete barriers delusional.

Since when has Christianity got anything to do with Hinduism or Zen, if that's what this 'ego-self' is about?

I think I mentioned The Cloud of Unknowing earlier (though it may have been another thread), but if you read that and forget it's Christian attire, it's similarity to Zen is undeniable. However, it seems the notion of concrete differences have pretty much melted away at this stage of the conversation, anyways.

Arising_uk wrote: Since when has Christianity got anything to do with Hinduism or Zen, if that's what this 'ego-self' is about?

Actually Christianity and Zen dovetail very nicely, since Zen isn't very specific about God and the rest of the moral code matches up with the Christian teaching.

Reflex wrote: but if you read that and forget it's Christian attire, it's similarity to Zen is undeniable.

Years ago I was reading a lot of Zen and anything related to it, and I was not attending church at all, so I probably fit your description pretty well. I was struck by the similarity to the Christian message, and actually started attending church again. I had decided that the exact denomination was not so important, as long as there was no basic conflict, so I started attending what I was familiar with. So now, in select company, I would describe myself as a Zen Lutheran.