Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:As I've said before, focus on God is akin a contract cleaner working on one floor of a building seeking contact with the CEO of the multinational conglomerate in which that building is just one of thousands of holdings. It would seem more logical to work with your (metaphorical) supervisor in the cleaning company first.

But isn't the situation worse for my case than you suggest?

I mean, why should the (metaphorical) supervisor know more about the situation than I? And let him call himself seer, sage, witch-doctor, priest, philosopher or scientist, how is it that he, a human like me, has come to acquire knowledge of the Supreme Being that I simply do not have?

Does not that question also need an answer?

Belinda wrote: This will remind you, Immanuel Can, that we are addressing epistemological relativism. N.B Greta uses the phrase "can hope to know".

But that's no impediment to the fact of the existence of an answer.

When we say we "hope to know," we surely mean "hope to know X, or Y, or Z," with X,Y and Z being placeholders for a truthful view of some kind or a set of facts that are really the way things actually are. So even in the "hope" we have a belief in the existence of truth...and are not being Relativists at all.

Furthermore, what about the imperfection of our ordinary knowledge tells us we CAN'T strike upon a truth, if by nothing else but chance! But science seeks to do even more than this: it seeks to approximate, or get probabilistically closer to the absolute truth about something. Were it not so, there would be no way to prefer one scientific hypothesis over another. For what is to commend the view that the world is round over the view that it is flat, except that the truth is that it is round?

I have pointed out that science uses the hypothetico deductive method which depends upon the possibility of falsifying evidence.

Indeed. But how can we "falsify" if the truth is simply relative? We can have no falsification tests except with reference to something failing to conform to the truth. So in Falsificationism, we are again assuming the existence of an absolute against which our current results are being evaluated as inadequate.

Immanuel Can wrote:if by nothing else but chance!

I just wondered, Immanuel, if you were aware that all the emojis on this site, that you are using to represent yourself, are atheists.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:if by nothing else but chance!

I just wondered, Immanuel, if you were aware that all the emojis on this site, that you are using to represent yourself, are atheists.

In that case I should have used them more often!

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:As I've said before, focus on God is akin a contract cleaner working on one floor of a building seeking contact with the CEO of the multinational conglomerate in which that building is just one of thousands of holdings. It would seem more logical to work with your (metaphorical) supervisor in the cleaning company first.

But isn't the situation worse for my case than you suggest?

I mean, why should the (metaphorical) supervisor know more about the situation than I? And let him call himself seer, sage, witch-doctor, priest, philosopher or scientist, how is it that he, a human like me, has come to acquire knowledge of the Supreme Being that I simply do not have?

Does not that question also need an answer?

Your "metaphysical supervisor" is not a person, but the Earth. One of my first cartoons was on the topic of human self importance in their conceptions of God: https://goo.gl/photos/iJhFF5MMtKAtqvcD8. Being an early one, it's pretty dire, but clearly makes a point.

God seemingly trumps the Earth because it is "personal". Believers everywhere draw on their inner selves during quiet or extreme times, which they then label "God". This re-attribution of thoughts frees those particular thoughts from our usual hobbling doubts, and the deity is then attributed with personal efficacy that the Earth lacks. Never mind that the Earth is us or, rather, vice versa. Many in eastern cultures, by contrast, skipped the "middle man" (aka the emotional conduit of your anthropomorphised male deity) and simply focused within.

This is not a dig at monotheists so much as noting the different ways that people try to grasp a sense of existential authenticity, a feeling of depth in life. Perhaps the endeavour to perceive that sense of depth in itself is more important in terms of personal growth than the conduit that leads one to the endeavour?

Manny, some trivia. We started this discussion on page 6 of the thread on 20 March and now we are up to page 22 on the 4th of April. This thread has almost become part of my daily routine!

Funny thing is, I am an agnostic who doesn't even believe that Jesus as presented in the Bible was real, more likely a charismatic rabbi later imbued with some of the qualities of the Egyptian gods, Osiris and Horus to help sell his message. So ... how did I get here? This is not my beautiful house, this is not ...

Dubious wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:if by nothing else but chance!

I just wondered, Immanuel, if you were aware that all the emojis on this site, that you are using to represent yourself, are atheists.

In that case I should have used them more often!

That's funny...they seemed...almost spiritual, to me. It was the pious eye-roll, I think.

Greta wrote:Many in eastern cultures, by contrast, skipped the "middle man" (aka the emotional conduit of your anthropomorphised male deity) and simply focused within.

That's not quite what they mean by "atman is brahman." They mean that there IS no "person" or "within." What one discovers by introspection, they suggest, is that all that is delusory anyway. They tend to hold that the flesh is not real. Nor is individuality. These are said to be maya, illusion. Moreover, they're not at all interested in "existential authenticity." They're interested in soul-extinction, and in reabsorption into "The Divine," by which they mean a giant, indifferent cosmic force not a person.

I wonder if you aren't perhaps vastly underestimating the difference between Eastern and Western thought on those questions. The two sets of traditions do not even view the cosmic landscape the same way. You should maybe read the Gita (or the Dhammapada, or the Tao) -- I think you'd be very, very surprised. The Gita's it's not a hard read...it's got a real storyline, and some good translations are available. But I suspect you won't find is says what you think it says.

Greta wrote: So ... how did I get here? This is not my beautiful house, this is not ...

Well you may find yourself...

And you may find yourself...

And you may find yourself...

Same as it ever was.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:... eastern cultures

That's not quite what they mean by "atman is brahman." They mean that there IS no "person" or "within." What one discovers by introspection, they suggest, is that all that is delusory anyway. They tend to hold that the flesh is not real. Nor is individuality. These are said to be maya, illusion. Moreover, they're not at all interested in "existential authenticity." They're interested in soul-extinction, and in reabsorption into "The Divine," by which they mean a giant, indifferent cosmic force not a person.

I wonder if you aren't perhaps vastly underestimating the difference between Eastern and Western thought on those questions.

I find that description somewhat similar to the Christian model. The main aim still appears to be either complete or near-absorption by God. Buddhists believe one must work over a number of lifetimes to achieve this goal while Christians believe that we only get one lifetime to get there.

Into the blue again ... :)

Greta wrote: I find that description somewhat similar to the Christian model. The main aim still appears to be either complete or near-absorption by God.

Au contraire, in Christianity individual identity is sacred, the body is a gift, not a "flesh prison" of the spirit, and nobody is "absorbed" into the Divine, as they are in Buddhism. Buddhism aims at "Nirvana," which is not a "heaven" or even an "afterlife" per se, but rather a state of soul-extinction, for which Buddhists use analogies like a drop of water dissipating into the ocean or a flame being blown out.

Buddhists believe one must work over a number of lifetimes to achieve this goal while Christians believe that we only get one lifetime to get there.

Yes, that's yet another key difference: reincarnation. Moreover, Buddhism institutionalizes suffering as inevitable (samsara), and ultimately incurable as a human condition. Individuals may become enlightened and escape, but the race itself suffers eternally. Evil persists forever in Buddhism, as the necessary opposite of good -- though both conceptions, good and evil, are not the same in Buddhism as in Christianity either.

In Christianity, desire is an intimation of mankind's incompleteness without God, and can actually point to that; in Buddhism, desire (both good and evil) is not a positive at all, but rather anchors the soul to physical reality and prevents enlightenment. The world is not redeemable for Buddhists, and the Buddhist god does not love it...

No, they're very, very different.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: I find that description somewhat similar to the Christian model. The main aim still appears to be either complete or near-absorption by God.

Au contraire, in Christianity individual identity is sacred, the body is a gift, not a "flesh prison" of the spirit, and nobody is "absorbed" into the Divine, as they are in Buddhism. Buddhism aims at "Nirvana," which is not a "heaven" or even an "afterlife" per se, but rather a state of soul-extinction, for which Buddhists use analogies like a drop of water dissipating into the ocean or a flame being blown out.

Buddhists believe one must work over a number of lifetimes to achieve this goal while Christians believe that we only get one lifetime to get there.

Yes, that's yet another key difference: reincarnation. Moreover, Buddhism institutionalizes suffering as inevitable (samsara), and ultimately incurable as a human condition. Individuals may become enlightened and escape, but the race itself suffers eternally. Evil persists forever in Buddhism, as the necessary opposite of good -- though both conceptions, good and evil, are not the same in Buddhism as in Christianity either.

In Christianity, desire is an intimation of mankind's incompleteness without God, and can actually point to that; in Buddhism, desire (both good and evil) is not a positive at all, but rather anchors the soul to physical reality and prevents enlightenment. The world is not redeemable for Buddhists, and the Buddhist god does not love it...

No, they're very, very different.

There is no "buddhist god" and that makes it a philosophy far in advance of Christianity.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:is no "buddhist god"

False.

In Western, philosophical Buddhism, there is no interest in god(s). But go to Thailand and tell me there are no gods in Buddhism...

and that makes it a philosophy far in advance of Christianity.

Absurdly obvious non sequitur. If there IS a God, they are behind. And even if there were not, that would not show that their position was in any way an "advance." It might be a different kind of regressiveness.

Meanwhile, in a purely material universe, "advance" doesn't even mean anything. Nothing is "better" or "worse" than anything else, just "different."

Immanuel Can wrote:If there IS a God, they are behind.

Well, in fairness, according to christians Jesus only bothered to visit one tiny bit of the planet, two thousand years ago. Who ever said news travels fast clearly wasn't talking about the word of god.

Immanuel Can wrote:In Western, philosophical Buddhism, there is no interest in god(s). But go to Thailand and tell me there are no gods in Buddhism... ...

Would IC care to say which 'God's' these are?

Oh! And does this mean that IC thinks there are other 'God's' or can he give a reason why these Thai 'God's' aren't 'God's' in the same way his is?