Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now you have raised for me a personal dilemma. On the one hand, I'm always delighted by other's interest in the ideas I embrace, and, because I really do enjoy others and intercourse with them, I am always willing to explain my views. But I have no interest in convincing anyone else to agree with or adopt my views, because I know everyone is different and has their own mind which they must use to the best of their ability to understand the truth.

My sense is that, to one degree or another, all of us who write here can relate to and respect the set of ideas you presented in your post and in your essays. It is a question of degree though.

What I focus on, and what I sense is definitely missing today -- and this is so obvious to me on these threads and even between people who seem to share some general similarity in their views -- is that we cannot agree on anything at all! What I am trying to discover, and it is proving impossible, are agreements.

In our present and by this I mean our political, social, religious worlds, no one agrees and no solid ground can be found anymore on which to build things together based on agreements. My perception is that people generally are in a lost state and they flounder around and grope for 'solidities' that can provide an anchor for existence on many levels.

It seems to me somewhat odd that someone, you in this case, would say I have no desire to convince. It seems to me that this cannot be an objective -- not to convince, not to influence, not to establish the agreements upon which things can be built.

Something that you write in the essays you posted made me remember what Richard Weaver wrote about those *metaphysical dreams of the world* that all men have. Can one actually operate without a *metaphysical dream*? I have concluded that one cannot. There must be, in each person, some overarching Idea about what the world is and what its purpose is, and thus what our purpose is, in this world.

So when you say "everyone is different and has their own mind which they must use to the best of their ability to understand the truth" I cannot but agree, in a general sense, except insofar as if everyone has their private, personal view that is as tendentious as they may be, how will they communicate? and how will they ever arrive at agreements?

If we cannot arrive at agreements on these larger levels, my assumption is that mechanisms created for the purpose of managing people and systems will inevitably be given the power to *unify* but through mechanisms of control, not of freely chosen use of will.

[iambiguous]

For me, the existence of the Christian God has never interested me as much as, in assuming He does exist, the question of theodicy comes up:

That a "loving, just and merciful" God would allow even one entirely innocent child to suffer grievously is unacceptable to me.

He must be either, as Kushner suggested, a God who was never or is no longer omnipotent, or a sadistic monster.

And the way those here with their own "private and personal" Christian Gods rationalize it is to fall back on His "mysterious ways".

After all, what other possible explanation can there be?

That's why they are uncomfortable in discussing theodicy, in my view. There must be a part of them that recognizes how terrible their God must be if He is both omniscient and omnipotent.

But there is just too much at stake for them to call off the wager.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... t=theodicy

[Immanuel Can]

What I focus on, and what I sense is definitely missing today -- and this is so obvious to me on these threads and even between people who seem to share some general similarity in their views -- is that we cannot agree on anything at all! What I am trying to discover, and it is proving impossible, are agreements.

Yes, we live in a polarized world. And it is not merely the case any longer that some people belong to one faction and some belong to another: instead, in current cases, the two sides do not even agree on what would be an appropriate grounds on which to meet and arbitrate disputes.

There are factions that don't merely disagree on conclusions, but disagree on the question of how a good conclusion ought to be arrived at. There are factions that denigrate the value of logic and reason, factions that deny the possibility of human cognition, factions that deny that anything can be more than a language game, factions that deny that any statement made by the other side can be believed to be sincere or can possibly be taken at face value -- even merely for the purpose of orienting a disagreement, let alone as a grounds for orienting a solution.

And all the while, these foolish and hypocritical people employ reasons, use logic, use language, employ their own cognitions, and believe their own view even while damning the very possibility of unpropagandized views.

With a field of discourse like this, how can any viewpoint find a fair hearing? And without any hearing of each other, how can reconcilliation ever be achieved?

It seems to me somewhat odd that someone, you in this case, would say I have no desire to convince. It seems to me that this cannot be an objective -- not to convince, not to influence, not to establish the agreements upon which things can be built.

A very good point. It clearly cannot be the point of speech not to be heard and received. Those who speak only speak because they assume somebody out there will be receiving the communication. Absent that, a person might just as well be making puerile babble, nonsense-syllables; or more likely, no noise at all.

Something that you write in the essays you posted made me remember what Richard Weaver wrote about those *metaphysical dreams of the world* that all men have. Can one actually operate without a *metaphysical dream*? I have concluded that one cannot. There must be, in each person, some overarching Idea about what the world is and what its purpose is, and thus what our purpose is, in this world.

Weaver's right. But there are two types of people who have "metaphysical dreams of the world": those that know they do, and have a sense of what that "dream" involves, and those who naively believe they have no such "dream," and thus do not know that they dream anything at all. And the latter are by far the more stupid, stubborn and impossible to deal with in terms of producing a mutual understanding. For they do not even know what they do not know about themselves, and regard the rest of the world as not merely "different" but as intransigent and deluded.

But one does not discuss anything with people one believes to be utterly intransigent and irremediably deluded.

So when you say "everyone is different and has their own mind which they must use to the best of their ability to understand the truth" I cannot but agree, in a general sense, except insofar as if everyone has their private, personal view that is as tendentious as they may be, how will they communicate? and how will they ever arrive at agreements?

Good question.

Language is not a personal property: it is a communal agreement. I didn't invent the English language, and therefore I have no freedom to change the meaning of my words without notifying anyone -- not if I have any communicative intention at all. And the purpose of communcation is to "communicate to" somebody. This is where the solipsism of the extreme individualist turns into plain stupidity of the above sort: the extreme cognitive individualist imagines himself to be wonderfully original and free from obligation to others, when all he really is, if he lives his creed and uses language only as he sees fit for his own purposes, is a babbler.

If we cannot arrive at agreements on these larger levels, my assumption is that mechanisms created for the purpose of managing people and systems will inevitably be given the power to *unify* but through mechanisms of control, not of freely chosen use of will.

It's already happening.

We have come to think that since there is no means of arbitration among us that we will any longer recognize, the only way to settle disputes and make changes in society is by the pure flex of power. And we have given up hope of "public reasons" adjudicating anything, to the point where what used to be discourse situations are now merely propaganda-shouting sesssions.

It doesn't bode well for the future.

[Immanuel Can]

For me, the existence of the Christian God has never interested me as much as, in assuming He does exist, the question of theodicy comes up:

That a "loving, just and merciful" God would allow even one entirely innocent child to suffer grievously is unacceptable to me.

He must be either, as Kushner suggested, a God who was never or is no longer omnipotent, or a sadistic monster.

I think that's not obviously the case at all. But let's suppose it were. Then you are left with only two alternatives...namely, no God (so there's no theodicy problem, but there is still plenty of evil -- we just now have no way of recognizing it as such, save our own opinions), or a god, but a cruel and malicious one.

What joy does either alternative give you, as you contemplate it?

That's why they are uncomfortable in discussing theodicy, in my view.

Who's "uncomfortable"? I think it's a great topic.

But I also think it deserves more that the sort of superficial treatment your dichotomy above seems to offer. What makes you so sure God can have no sufficient reason for allowing some evil to exist in the world?

And let me ask you a serious question, with no irony intended. Give it some honest thought, and let me know what you decide, okay?

Here it is: What are the chances, do you think, that in 2,000 years of Christianity and perhaps 4,000 of Judaism, nobody but Rabbi Kushner has ever thought of, or been willing to address with any seriousness, the question you pose above, the question of evil?

What would be your honest estimation? Do you actually think that's probable? Or would you guess that maybe, just maybe, somebody actually has given that issue some serious thought before?

[iambiguous]

For me, the existence of the Christian God has never interested me as much as, in assuming He does exist, the question of theodicy comes up:

That a "loving, just and merciful" God would allow even one entirely innocent child to suffer grievously is unacceptable to me.

He must be either, as Kushner suggested, a God who was never or is no longer omnipotent, or a sadistic monster.

I think that's not obviously the case at all. But let's suppose it were. Then you are left with only two alternatives...namely, no God (so there's no theodicy problem, but there is still plenty of evil -- we just now have no way of recognizing it as such, save our own opinions), or a god, but a cruel and malicious one.

What joy does either alternative give you, as you contemplate it?

So, is that the point of exploring God and religion in a philosophy venue: To being one joy?

That's why they are uncomfortable in discussing theodicy, in my view.

Who's "uncomfortable"? I think it's a great topic.

But I also think it deserves more that the sort of superficial treatment your dichotomy above seems to offer. What makes you so sure God can have no sufficient reason for allowing some evil to exist in the world?

Some evil? How about a sufficient reason from Christians to explain this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _disorders

And if the Christian God created these terrible afflictions in children, perhaps it is evil for mere mortals to attempt themselves to cure them. Indeed, some Christian sects take precisely that approach in not allowing their own children to have access to medical treatment. Ever and always, it is left in God's hands.

And let me ask you a serious question, with no irony intended. Give it some honest thought, and let me know what you decide, okay?

Here it is: What are the chances, do you think, that in 2,000 years of Christianity and perhaps 4,000 of Judaism, nobody but Rabbi Kushner has ever thought of, or been willing to address with any seriousness, the question you pose above, the question of evil?

It's not the questions of evil but the answers that most interest me. Nature itself is nothing less than a horrific slaughterhouse of predators and prey. Watch enough nature documentaries and how can you not but ask yourself: "What was our loving, just and merciful Lord thinking?!!"

What would be your honest estimation? Do you actually think that's probable? Or would you guess that maybe, just maybe, somebody actually has given that issue some serious thought before?

Other than "God works in mysterious ways" what possible serious thought can there be in reconciling a loving, just and merciful Christian God with the world as, in fact, it actually is?

Give it your own best shot.

If you are yourself a Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

What joy does either alternative give you, as you contemplate it?

So, is that the point of exploring God and religion in a philosophy venue: To being one joy?

No, but I am trying to figure out what you find attractive in the view. For people do not usually choose to believe things unless they are so verifiable as to be incapable of question at all, or unless they have some personal interest in doing so.

I think we can rule out the suggestion that the answer to the theodicy problem is simply obvious and indisputable, can't we? So that leaves us with my question: what would be your motivation in choosing that explanation?

Some evil?

Yes, "some." For you and I surely agree that if this place isn't Heaven, it sure isn't Hell either. So here we have a mixture of the good and bad. If we can answer the primary question, that is, why is there any evil at all, I think we can go right on to discussing proportionality. But I don't think we've yet resolved the primary question, have we?

Or are you prepared to accept that "some" would be okay, but as much as we have is "too much"?

And let me ask you a serious question, with no irony intended. Give it some honest thought, and let me know what you decide, okay?

Here it is: What are the chances, do you think, that in 2,000 years of Christianity and perhaps 4,000 of Judaism, nobody but Rabbi Kushner has ever thought of, or been willing to address with any seriousness, the question you pose above, the question of evil?

It's not the questions of evil but the answers that most interest me.

Of course.

Nature itself is nothing less than a horrific slaughterhouse of predators and prey.

Yes and no.

Of course, nature is also beautiful and intricate and delicate and wild and majestic...and all that. We all know that. There are both. But we're not onto the proportionality issue yet, so let's hold onto that thought for when we've made some headway with the "Why is there any evil at all" question, shall we?

But here's something you'll never have thought about yet, I suspect. There is an argument against Atheism FROM the same observation you make above.

It goes like this:

If Atheism is true, there is no objective truth to perceptions of good and evil.
But there is objective truth to the existence of evil (or good).
Therefore, Atheism cannot be true.

So what you perceive to cut against the Theist also cuts equally against the Atheist. And if the Theist owes the Atheist any account of why evil exists, then the Atheist first owes the Theist an explanation of how he can ground his claim that objective evil exists at all.

What would be your honest estimation? Do you actually think that's probable? Or would you guess that maybe, just maybe, somebody actually has given that issue some serious thought before?

Other than "God works in mysterious ways" ...

Ah. I see. You are actually not familiar with the field of theology you mentioned, namely the theodicy problem. It has a long history and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds in history. But you were, until now, unaware of all that? You never looked at it?

Give it your own best shot.

If you are yourself a Christian.

I am. And I'll happily give it a shot. As I say, I think it's terribly interesting.

But lest we leave holes in the argument behind us, we must move slowly and carefully. For this is not a light or easy question, and the thought that has gone into is is likewise not simplistic or shallow, as you will surely find out whenever you choose to look into theodicy as a discipline. So lest a step in the process should become unclear, we'll have to move systematically.

Let's start with this: you say that evil exists. (I must assume you do, because if you don't believe in objective evil, then what can your theodicy objection possibly be?) But you do not believe in God, correct? I want to understand your claim, therefore.

Can you explain what you mean by "evil"?

[RCSaunders]

So long as the idea of, "truth," is not misconstrued as having some kind of mystic existence independent of human minds.

Truth is not a, "thing." Truth, like, "importance," or, "significance," only has meaning relative to conscious propositions. Only some statement about some aspect of reality can be true or false. It is reality that determines whether a statement is true or not, but truth itself, sans statements, does not exist.

So, this quote is from the thread you linked to in the first article Hatred of Reality.

I guess you will see this as obvious, given my orientations, but I definitely suspect, and it seems logical and also coherent to me, that truth has an independent existence from our own mind. Note that when you say 'mind' you mean 'brain'.

Good grief, no! The brain is not the mind. It is not even conscious and does not produce consciousness. The brain, as part of the entire neurological system only provides the whatever is physiologically required for an organism's consciousness to perceive its environment and it's one internal states.

... And your assertion -- I reckon it to be your starting-point -- is that all ideas that we'd say are truthful are simply and uniquely ideas that have been contrived by our brain. While I (certainly) understand why someone would believe such a thing I find this belief problematic.

I would find it problematic myself. It's not at all what I believe or mean. I have no idea where you get such an absurd idea of epistemology, but it certainly is not mine.

[I've described mine: Epistemology, Concepts, Epistemology, Propositions.]

I certainly don't mind my views being questioned or criticized as long as they are mine.

And yes the reason is because I can only assume that before our creation became manifest that everything that we now are and of course think -- all our discoveries, say, all our sussing out of relationships as for example through math-concepts -- all of this was 'latent' within what had not yet been created.

So at one point everything was latent and nothing was manifest. And here I mean everything, from the world of geological and biological forms, into and including, naturally, all the epiphenomena we describe as thought and idea.

So it seems to me logical and also necessary to say that -- especially what we think in the sense of higher conception and idea -- has an independent existence from us. It existed prior to us and, I assume, had to have that latent existence. I suppose that you would have to say "This is right where mystical thinking begins, in this error".

And unless I am very wrong you certainly recognize 'truth' yet within specific domains -- such I assume as in mathematics or geometry and what is referred to generally as 'science' and material science. Or, am I to assume that you also regard any truth-definitions, or definition of 'fact' as being arbitrary as well?

It is true that "truth is not a thing". And it is also true that truth is relative in the sense that each being that conceives it stands in a relative relationship to any other being. Yet in so many areas (concrete science, measurement, maths) we define truths that are real and constant. And though it is true that it -- truth -- cannot be described as a thing it is related to things. And thus, on a more intangible level, the notion of truth and also Truth does indeed *exist* insofar as it is part-and-parcel of everything.

You lost me as soon as you wrote, "I can only assume that before our creation ... all of this was 'latent' within what had not yet been created." and word that stands our is, "assume."

I know you believe there was, which is fine with me, but I know there was no, "creation." The rest is just a big floating abstraction. How could existence be latent? (What could that possibly mean?) There is no evidence whatsoever that existence is contingent in any way on anything else or that there is any kind of mystic ineffable thing behind it. I regard all such views as superstition.

To say "It is reality that determines whether a statement is true or not" is a true statement!

So far so good.

So here you are certainly engaged with truth declaration.

And there you blew it. It's just a true statement, a proposition that asserts what is actually the case. There is no other kind of truth.

If I have read what you write correctly it is in higher, or perhaps the right word is in 'intangible' zones of thought, idea and concept that you have discovered false-declarations. You seem to say that man believes false-declarations (misperceptions that are willed into existence) because he cannot stand Reality and so must lie to himself to soften the hard edge of reality. I do not think I could or would disagree with this statement if it were made cautiously and with circumspection.

But I obviously extend the notion of what 'reality' is farther than you will allow. I think that that are an infinite number of false ideas that arise out of this intangible zone, but I could not say that all the perception of this sort, and coming out of this zone, is therefore either false or 'invented' in the way that the term 'invented' is used often these days (as in 'completely made up' and therefore essentially unreal).

I am also very concerned for the effort -- I believe I sense it in your essays -- to propose the undermining of all metaphysics. To me, this idea seems absurd given that nearly all that we do, that we humans do, is so bound up in metaphysics.

So the way I think of it metaphysics, if this is possible, needs to be clarified and if you will purified. And this is a terribly problematic arena.

Unfortunately, you have not read me correctly and everything else you have said is both irrelevant and wrong about what I said. You can either try to understand what I do actually say and mean, and address that, (and find as much fault with it as you might like), if you care too, or simply dismiss it as something you cannot agree with.

I'll be glad to participate in whatever you choose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good grief, no! The brain is not the mind. It is not even conscious and does not produce consciousness. The brain, as part of the entire neurological system only provides the whatever is physiologically required for an organism's consciousness to perceive its environment and it's one internal states.

I do not think I can know much about your views beforehand, though I did read the essays that you linked to. It would be helpful, if you wish to of course, to talk about what consciousness is and where it resides.

I would find it problematic myself. It's not at all what I believe or mean. I have no idea where you get such an absurd idea of epistemology, but it certainly is not mine.

Where I get it is in interpreting what you have written -- that is of what I have read so far.

I certainly don't mind my views being questioned or criticized as long as they are mine.

No one, as far as I am able to imagine, would be able to grasp your thinking unless 1) they had the time to read a great deal of what you have written and then quiz you about it, or 2) having extended conversations with you in person, or 3) as in my case to have read a smaller segment of your writing and to have tried to interpret it.

You lost me as soon as you wrote, "I can only assume that before our creation ... all of this was 'latent' within what had not yet been created." and word that stands our is, "assume."

I do not know how all that is came to be, and if I said anything about it it would be a guess, a conjecture, a storified version, but my understanding is that some point at the moment of creation -- they refer to it as big bang -- everything that exists was latent. And that is why I use that term. They propose that before *all this* was manifest, it was in some other state and unmanifest. It is a common concept or picture, no? It is the one that physicists refer to, isn't it? Would you not say that it is these people who describe *reality* or in any case its origin?

Unfortunately, you have not read me correctly and everything else you have said is both irrelevant and wrong about what I said. You can either try to understand what I do actually say and mean, and address that, (and find as much fault with it as you might like), if you care too, or simply dismiss it as something you cannot agree with.

If you feel that making yourself understood is important -- why else would you write? why else would you bother here, on this forum? -- you may have to explain yourself better. If I do not understand all of your basic principles I will apologize in advance. Make an effort and perhaps I will, to whatever degree possible better understand.

I know you believe there was, which is fine with me, but I know there was no "creation." The rest is just a big floating abstraction. How could existence be latent? (What could that possibly mean?) There is no evidence whatsoever that existence is contingent in any way on anything else or that there is any kind of mystic ineffable thing behind it. I regard all such views as superstition.

No, I assume that there was. But I don't really have a way of knowing. My own view -- it is simply an intuited perception -- is that the only thing that really is and can be is consciousness. I would reduce God to that, a sort of essence out of which all possibilities arise. I refer to language that comes from other traditions -- like 'Sat' (being) and 'Chit' (Chit (Sanskrit: चित् or Cit) : a Sanskrit word meaning consciousness.) And yes I am aware that these are intuitions not 'facts'.

But I am aware that in our own traditions -- science, physics -- that other pictures that also are deeply tied to functioning scientific systems that build and mold things, and refer to these elements as true-things -- describes things in its unique ways. I am aware of those, as we all are aware of them I suppose.

[henry quirk]

The brain is not the mind. It is not even conscious and does not produce consciousness. The brain, as part of the entire neurological system only provides the whatever is physiologically required for an organism's consciousness to perceive its environment and it's one internal states.

Dualist.

[promethean75]

Gosh it's so mysterious.

[henry quirk]

Gosh it's so mysterious

humans do not contain consciousness, they are conscious

Precisely the kind of bold statement I'd expect from a noted scholar on Wittgenstein.

[RCSaunders]

The brain is not the mind. It is not even conscious and does not produce consciousness. The brain, as part of the entire neurological system only provides the whatever is physiologically required for an organism's consciousness to perceive its environment and it's one internal states.

Dualist.

Hardly dualism. Consciousness is just one of many attributes of a human being. It is not a thing, or substance, or, "entity," it is something one does. One breaths, processes nutrients, works, talks, reads, sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes--all different things one does. Seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting, are referred to as "consciousness." Only living organism can do any of those things. A very few organisms can also consciously choose their behavior (called volition) learn and gain knowledge (called intellect) and use that knowledge to ask and answer questions and make judgments (called reason) which are collectively called the mind. They are just as much aspects of one living organism as yawning or blinking and the same single organism does them all. There is no dualism.

[henry quirk]

The brain is not the mind. It is not even conscious and does not produce consciousness. The brain, as part of the entire neurological system only provides the whatever is physiologically required for an organism's consciousness to perceive its environment and it's one internal states.

Dualist.

Hardly dualism. Consciousness is just one of many attributes of a human being. It is not a thing, or substance, or, "entity," it is something one does. One breaths, processes nutrients, works, talks, reads, sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes--all different things one does. Seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting, are referred to as "consciousness." Only living organism can do any of those things. A very few organisms can also consciously choose their behavior (called volition) learn and gain knowledge (called intellect) and use that knowledge to ask and answer questions and make judgments (called reason) which are collectively called the mind. They are just as much aspects of one living organism as yawning or blinking and the same single organism does them all. There is no dualism.

You're a property dualist.

[Immanuel Can]

The brain is not the mind.

Dualist.

Hardly dualism.... There is no dualism.

You're a property dualist.

Henry's right.

If you believe what you wrote, then by definition, you're a Dualist. You may not know you are, but you are.

[Dubious]

If you haven't got a brain then you haven't got a mind...or is it the other way around

I guess it depends on who you're talking to