Philosophy Now Forum

[double post]

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:07 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:56 am No one has spoken of Christianity as the inner need to experience meaning.

...a little short-sighted of you.

Why would one need Christianity to experience meaning? Meanings wear themselves out when they render too little for too long.

I gather from your incessant talk about meaning you haven't found it but you do find meaning in its search according to the old but true trope, it's not the destination but the journey...implying you don't need to know what it is or may be; you only need to be convinced it's there to feel a sense of satisfaction in having a mission impossible to complete.

Since you'll never find it, the meaning resides in its endless search. That being the case, it levels down to a simple conclusion that in looking for something you'll never find, it matters not if there was never any meaning to be found in the first place. According to that dialectic, god remains at the helm of both purpose and meaning being simultaneously absent. If meaning is a myth, it's less difficult to apply purpose to all versions concurrent to the age which created them. In that sense too, each age and culture through time enacts its own temporary dramas. What remains an open question, can contain an endless array of responses.

Is objective meaning for Christians experienced beyond the realm of the senses? This reminds me of Meno's Paradox in philosophy:

The argument known as “Meno's Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

Do you agree that inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible? If true just decide what makes you happy and pursue it since there is no meaning other than your happiness.

Let's start with Christianity and speak of it, historically, as an effort to *define the world* in the most holistic sense.

No. I reject that. Christianity is the framing of one man's relationship with God: the framing or framework, the skeleton, of that relationship bein' the life, the words, the acts of Jesus as portrayed in the 4 Gospels.

There is no place at all for a 'Christian anarchist'.

You don't, I think, know diddly about anarchism (as philosophy) or Christian Anarchism (as, I believe it is, a pure Christianity).

I'm not particularly inclined to educate you, but, if you ask, I will.

you likely choose to exist in a world without definitions

Have you read anything I've posted in-forum (outside of this thread)? If you had you wouldn't assess so poorly.

Mankind -- all cultures and civilizations -- define a metaphysics, explain what God is, and define what people should and must do in relation to that defined world.

No, mankind doesn't do this. Men of a peculiar mind do this. Bastiat called them the finer clay. Me, folksy sum'bitch I am, I call 'em slavers. All stripes, from overt ratbastards or Lewis's benevolent tyrants, are incorrigible directors and spoliers for self-profit and -benefit.

Christianity, as derived from the words and acts of that guy, empowers no rulers and can fill no coffers. No, it must be interpreted and expanded, organized and regimented to turn a profit.

A cosmology, one reinforcin' Earthly hierarchy, is crafted and, as I say, God is quietly moved from bein the Reality a man can and should face alone and freely, to bein' a Commodity to be divied accordin' to men's whims and interpretations.

So let us imagine that you, Henry Quirk, have been given the task of truly and honestly telling me just what this world is, what it was made for, who made it, what is a 'person', what are 'proper ethics', what is morality and why does morality exist -- and then go down the line of stating in each and every domain all that these definitions ramify for mankind as a result of the definitions you (sensibly and intelligently) propose to me.

Oh, I written often about...

A moral realism: I-A man belongs to himself. II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his. III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

A minarchism: To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended... I-a local constabulary II-a local court of last resort III-a border patrol IIII-militia

A direct realism: The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

A deism: The Creator creates. Reality is an on-going Creation. Man is made as a *free will (self-directing) with a moral sense (self-responsible). What a man does with himself may or may not interest the Creator.

...and what extends out of each, and how each is part & parcel of the other. I mebbe haven't ramified to the extent of declarin' how toothpicks ought be laid next to the dinner plate on the Sabbath, but then I don't believe that's necessary.

So what is happening now -- I am that reed of truth and clear statement swaying in the wind and simply try to express this! -- is that one Holistic and Defining Declaration about 'what the world is' (and all else that ramifies from this) has collapsed. The world is not longer seen nor understood through the former metaphysics. That metaphysics has been replaced with another one. Or to state it even more accurately the former metaphysics is in a process of being replaced, and there are battles, the real reasons for which are often unintelligible to those who participate in them, occurring all around us as a result of these essential definitional issues and problems.

Man, it's nuthin' but the same War that's been at play since before Man fell out of the trees, and what's comin' (it's just a little ways down the road), well, none of us are ready for it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:00 pm There is hardly a need to 'present evidence' is the conclusion I have come to.

There is always a need for evidence...at least, among rational men, there is.

It (Christianity) is born out of religious mythology as all thinking people quite easily recognize.

This is false on two counts: not only was Christianity not "born out of religious mythology," but anybody with an ounce of real knowledge knows it wasn't. It's only those who hold it in fuzzy focus who seem to be able to sustain such a preposterous mistake.

No wonder that liberal Christendom embraced that error, and thus underwent the "loss of faith" of which you speak -- they were just as poorly grounded in fact as their critics were. But no wonder more intellectual and conservative Christians continue to be Christian today -- they knew very well what the others failed to know.

More of this can be discussed if Immanuel Can desires to hear my view on this topic

Not just "views." Let's see some evidence to warrant the "views," instead. That's much more relevant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:20 pm There is always a need for evidence...at least, among rational men, there is.

I have, for polemical and other reasons, suggested the label of virulent and irrational religious fanatic for Immanuel Can if only for the fact that he seems incapable of entertaining the possibility that numerous aspects of the religious edifice are based in obvious mythologies.

I have explained that I am not closed to the notion, and the real existence of metaphysics -- ideas let's say that are in no sense part-and-parcel of our world and which only come into the world through human kind but which are enormously powerful and transformative -- and I am not closed to an 'idea of God' nor to the god-experience that saints and mystics describe. I work therefore in a difficult and delicate area vis-a-vis Immanuel Can who, in my view, operates through a virulence of concept which has the mask or cloak of rationalism. What revealed this peculiar structure was his bizarre description of the story of Adam & Eve in a primeval garden as an historical event. I described that as the improper, and even perverse, forced blending of two very different epistemes.

When I meditated on that I realized that the 'construct' of Christianity is a strange edifice! To have what is called 'faith' by Christians generally involves one in a strange project of both truth-telling and overt lying in order to preserve or defend the 'edifice'. Myself, I simply allow the edifice to collapse. I cannot resort to the 'story' or to what I have called the 'hallucination' in order to get out of it what is true and what has meaning & value. But it is meaning & value that is at the heart of the entire question.

I have tried to explain what my 'manoeuvre' is then in relation to 'imagined structures' and elaborated metaphysical pictures'. Perhaps what I say makes sense to some? or perhaps it does not -- but we know that for certain Immanuel Can does not accept my 'strategy'.

So when I assert that the edifice is a 'constructed hallucination' or an elaborate contrivance it makes sense that Immanuel Can would strenuously object. He demands *proof*.

Immanuel Can is constitutionally incapable of understanding the ideas that I work with. I feel that they cannot be entertained even in some minimal degree because, I suppose, they are threatening to the religious and fanatical edifice.

It is simply that I consider an understanding of the nature of such edifices to be necessary even for religiously-oriented people. It is more or less the new stage of things. It simply has to be faced.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:12 pmNo. I reject that. Christianity is the framing of one man's relationship with God: the framing or framework, the skeleton, of that relationship bein' the life, the words, the acts of Jesus as portrayed in the 4 Gospels.

I read this and the rest of what you wrote. I understand largely what you are getting at. But I find that there is such stark difference between your position and the ideas I have and am committed to, that in relation to your position, I cannot see a way forward. We are informed therefore with idea-sets that are substantially incommensurate. It would take a long time to sort out those differences.

I would ask for you to extract from the Gospels you refer to the specific scenes or quotes that support the positions that you define. Is it possible that you write out a brief outline of who Jesus Christ was and what he set out to do? If you did so I would better understand your position and why you have it. Did Jesus Christ have a mission and a plan? If so, what was it?

I am confused by another element: Jesus Christ is defined by the Gospels, and through the Gospels, as being -- literally -- the Godhead incarnated into a man's body. Jesus Christ is, therefore, God incarnate. Do you hold that view? And if you do hold that view why then, or on what basis, do you define yourself as a deist?

Do you see Jesus as representing a Law (a set of demands and proscriptions) or do you imagine that Jesus-God allows any particular thing (in the sense of being lawless or 'open to anything' or perhaps unconcerned). If you clarify some of this I will likely be beter able to understand how you orient yourself.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:20 pm There is always a need for evidence...at least, among rational men, there is.

I have, for polemical and other reasons, suggested the label of virulent and irrational religious fanatic for Immanuel Can if only for the fact that he seems incapable of entertaining the possibility that numerous aspects of the religious edifice are based in obvious mythologies.

Wow. Right back to empty ad hom attacks instead of evidence.

So you've got nothing. I see.

Immanuel Can does not accept my 'strategy'.

Why would anybody "accept" gratuitious, evidenceless claims and ad homs? Is that the best you have? It must be, since you can't seem to draw on anything substantial at all.

It seems you're just striking poses. There's no evidence for what you say, apparently.

AJ hath written: I have, for polemical and other reasons, suggested the label of virulent and irrational religious fanatic for Immanuel Can if only for the fact that he seems incapable of entertaining the possibility that numerous aspects of the religious edifice are based in obvious mythologies.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:01 pm Wow. Right back to empty ad hom attacks instead of evidence.

The position I describe is not really applied to IC but rather describes a peculiar position and mental-perceptual situation that is common today. IC is just a 'carrier'. The reason it is best to speak in the third person (it is a bit ridiculous of course) is to create some distance so that the ideas I have can be contrasted with those IC holds to. It is necessary to side-step a certain ire IC expresses himself through.

I cannot do else but describe it in those terms that best reveal what I think it is. I have concluded therefore that 'virulent and irrational religious fanaticism' is a real thing. As such it can fairly have the label applied. It has to be described as such. Not to describe it (in this sense as how I see it) would be dishonest. I aspire to honesty.

If Immanuel Can desires to label it with his typical label he is free to do so. There is another alternative and that is to deal with it as a substantial and fair criticism. But I do not retract or modify it. So we face an impasse. Or to put it more accurately IC is dealing with an impasse. I have no issue with what I suggest. And if IC desires to he can make the effort to convince me otherwise (the proving is in his court, not mine).

I simply start from the very first core premise as seems necessary.

So, and here I present one example, there was no Garden of Eden established by God, and no divinely-created couple dropped into the garden by God. These are mythologies. If anyone holds such a view he is, by my definition, the only one I can hold to honestly, a virulent and irrational religious fanatic. It requires that sort of mind-set to believe the former.

However, if my view is not the right one then the right & true one should be very easy to demonstrate without breathing hard . . .

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:00 pmThere is hardly a need to 'present evidence' is the conclusion I have come to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:20 pmThere is always a need for evidence...at least, among rational men, there is.

Looking for evidence in the bible as to its verity beyond quotes would turn most rational people into atheists. The opposite of that, viz. those like you who don't require evidence, the source in question granted to be self-evidential, self-reverential, god's word being implicit as guarantee, would regard any notion of evidence to be superfluous.

So accepted, god & scripture are not asked for credentials in assuming the role and no rational theist would ever question its status. Since god preempts all questions of its divinity and origin, etc., it becomes rational not to impose any questions upon it; that would be anathema and thoroughly irrational!

As you have so often pointed out, that kind of irrationality in its presupposition of evidence, is something only an atheist would be capable of and thus doomed to hell! For that single fate to happen all that's required is to reverse the meaning of rational and irrational according to its atheistic/theistic conventions and voila! divine justice once again proclaims itself!

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:59 am Immanuel Can wrote:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:55 pm
Immanuel Can holds to the most traditional and I could say the classic definition of Christianity.
(IC replied)Only in the sense that I hold that Christ Himself is the prototype and decider of what a "Christian" is.

I agree with you sort of. However I'd rather say "what a Christian ought to be". The Gospels are historical sources for the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. All historical sources are useless and potentially misleading unless interpreted in the light of reason.

The Jesus Christ myth is a history-making myth and is the mythological basis of a civilised moral code that has universal application. The Bible is an artefact and is no more a direct act of God than is a Beatles lyric.

Sorry Belinda for my "..sometimes Belinda, I do see you as rather daft. (unfortunately)" re above.

What I should have said was, some of your posts! Not sure if that makes my statement any nicer though, but it was in relation to the highlighted part above.

If you have something more regarding that which you could give a shit about me not considering it daft, then by all means, go for it!

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:00 pmThere is hardly a need to 'present evidence' is the conclusion I have come to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:20 pmThere is always a need for evidence...at least, among rational men, there is.

Looking for evidence in the bible as to its verity beyond quotes would turn most rational people into atheists.

Really?

So you say. It would not, actually. You're only assuming that, as well; and without evidence, yet again.

What you mean is, "I know of no evidence, so I want to assume there's none, and would rather run on my suppositions than find out I'm wrong."

What you'll find is that there is evidence. Some of it is really good, and it's sometimes equivocal -- that is, being capable of being interpreted as one thing or the other. But some is absolutely conclusive...even if the skeptics don't like that it is. One thing, for example, would be the design features of the universe. Another would be the mathematics of the Infinite Regress problem. And then there' s the coherence of the DNA code, which cannot by any means be explained plausibly by reference to chance.

Another would be the very existence and persistence of Israel itself. Still, no Jewish person is unaware of the existence of "deniers," no matter how good the evidence is for something. I'm sure you see the point.

So accepted, god & scripture are not asked for credentials

Yeah, actually; they are. God Himself puts His "credentials" on the line, in several places in Scripture.

You really don't know any actual Christians, do you? They don't think what you think they think. And I can tell you don't know what evidence exists.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:17 pm If Immanuel Can desires to label it with his typical label he is free to do so.

It's not a label; it's a diagnosis. It's an accurate description of what you're doing, as anybody can see.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 am To give it even more credibility as one of the great ethical documents, the kind of nonsense miracles theists believe in to endorse their god for their own salvation, which are among its most unoriginal parts, can be dispensed..

To the contrary. I've been witness to far more than a glass of water changing into wine, and I don't like the term "miracle", it clearly is plausible at the sub-atomic scale that this entity you don't agree exists, operates.

To dispense with the concepts of these miracles, and the resurrection itself is to fail to comprehend THE ultimate message that Christ was continually insisting his disciples were lacking (faith) - something Christians must comprehend to ever understand the true nature of reality, indeed heaven.

I'll go as far to say, the ultimate philosopher, one that truly loves wisdom, IS a Christian (philosopher) ...well, that should rattle a few cages!!

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 am I think many Christians alive now are more prone to believe in the sayings of Jesus than in the miracles he reportedly performed.

Well, then they are misunderstanding the entire point!!! Indeed, not to sound ICish, but I for one would not consider them Christians.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:05 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 am To give it even more credibility as one of the great ethical documents, the kind of nonsense miracles theists believe in to endorse their god for their own salvation, which are among its most unoriginal parts, can be dispensed..

To the contrary. I've been witness to far more than a glass of water changing into wine, and I don't like the term "miracle", it clearly is plausible at the sub-atomic scale that this entity you don't agree exists, operates.

To dispense with the concepts of these miracles, and the resurrection itself is to fail to comprehend THE ultimate message that Christ was continually insisting his disciples were lacking (faith) - something Christians must comprehend to ever understand the true nature of reality, indeed heaven.

I'll go as far to say, the ultimate philosopher, one that truly loves wisdom, IS a Christian (philosopher) ...well, that should rattle a few cages!!

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:06 am I think many Christians alive now are more prone to believe in the sayings of Jesus than in the miracles he reportedly performed.

Well, then they are misunderstanding the entire point!!! Indeed, not to sound ICish, but I for one would not consider them Christians.

Faith in what? What is its goal; why is it important that one must have faith or hope in Jesus or anyone else asserted to be divine? What does reality have to do with faith? Reality or the science thereof, though never measured in absolute terms of proof, are nevertheless determined by their probability; but how does faith lead to understanding reality? Faith, seems to me, to be more of a hope in a future event usually of a religious nature. Faith, as also seems to me, only requires itself as background with no further additions; it can, in effect subsist on its own until the end of one's days having performed its function in the living.

Just asking! I'm curious to know in what way faith can be denoted instead of simply connoted?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:53 pm

So accepted, god & scripture are not asked for credentials

Yeah, actually; they are. God Himself puts His "credentials" on the line, in several places in Scripture.

Like where? Saying I am that I am? I can say the same thing about you, me and everything else alive. So where may his other credentials be?