Philosophy Now Forum

That's pretty funny. For a second, I almost thought "yellow and black" myself, but then realized ours are red and white.

I don't have a problem imagining that a lot of people are religious or atheistic out of mere rote habit or traditional expectation. I'm pretty sure it's true, in fact. Maybe one of the great consolations of philosophy -- or maybe it's only one of the conceits of philosophers -- is that we don't HAVE to do that. We can think. We can change.

One hopeful sign of this is the phenomenon of "conversion" from one belief into another. If the truth was that we could only believe a thing if we were born into it or trained and indoctrinated into it in a subconscious way, there would be no such thing as anyone "converting" from the one view into which they had been programmed. But I think it's pretty apparent we can, and often do, change our views based on new information. In fact, all education depends on the idea that we can do just that.

And I've never felt convinced we live in a Determined universe. And though I've met many people who professed to think that, I've never met anyone who was actually able to live as if conversion from one view to another were impossible. In fact, some of the Determinists I have met -- both secular and religious -- have been the most strident, relentless arguers in an effort to convert me to their view. We can change, we can decide: I believe that, and I think all philosophers probably do, at root. If we didn't, then why would we argue at all?

In short, while I sympathize with your disappointment at the reluctance of your fellow congregants to think, I hold out hope for you that with time and patience you may find they can learn and grow -- not, perhaps, with the speed and dexterity you would like, but nevertheless...that's how it is with people.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's pretty funny. For a second, I almost thought "yellow and black" myself, but then realized ours are red and white.

I don't have a problem imagining that a lot of people are religious or atheistic out of mere rote habit or traditional expectation. I'm pretty sure it's true, in fact. Maybe one of the great consolations of philosophy -- or maybe it's only one of the conceits of philosophers -- is that we don't HAVE to do that. We can think. We can change.

One hopeful sign of this is the phenomenon of "conversion" from one belief into another. If the truth was that we could only believe a thing if we were born into it or trained and indoctrinated into it in a subconscious way, there would be no such thing as anyone "converting" from the one view into which they had been programmed. But I think it's pretty apparent we can, and often do, change our views based on new information. In fact, all education depends on the idea that we can do just that.

And I've never felt convinced we live in a Determined universe. And though I've met many people who professed to think that, I've never met anyone who was actually able to live as if conversion from one view to another were impossible. In fact, some of the Determinists I have met -- both secular and religious -- have been the most strident, relentless arguers in an effort to convert me to their view. We can change, we can decide: I believe that, and I think all philosophers probably do, at root. If we didn't, then why would we argue at all?

In short, while I sympathize with your disappointment at the reluctance of your fellow congregants to think, I hold out hope for you that with time and patience you may find they can learn and grow -- not, perhaps, with the speed and dexterity you would like, but nevertheless...that's how it is with people.

In fact I have considered changing many times but then I've come to realize that at the core, all religions are basically the same, it's only all the window dressing that differs. So I'll stay where I am as far as churches go, and carefully choose where I put my faith. I guess that's why I don't say much to others they all seem to place more emphasis on the window dressing than the core beliefs.

Immanuel Can wrote:

If you follow the teachings of Jesus as most Christians say they do then you would know that Jesus says to look within ourselves for God and that his laws are written in our hearts.

I do. Unfortunately, you're following old wives' tales. Jesus Christ never said this. Nor does any other part of the Bible. You really need to read it before deciding what you think it says.

I. Can... I can quote this from Luke 17:20-21 as Truth.

Luke 17:20-21King James Version (KJV)

20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That which is revealed within, if you are open enough and have the courage do so, you will find all the answers that you seek by going not within yourself, but within books written by ordinary men who opine with the best of them

In fact I have considered changing many times but then I've come to realize that at the core, all religions are basically the same, it's only all the window dressing that differs. So I'll stay where I am as far as churches go, and carefully choose where I put my faith. I guess that's why I don't say much to others they all seem to place more emphasis on the window dressing than the core beliefs.

I have studied them too. In fact, I have an MA in the secular study of Religion and Culture. I really don't know how anyone could possibly convince themselves that "all religions are basically the same" except by knowing absolutely nothing about them. I cannot imagine how someone as intelligent as you could have arrived at that except through the same strategy.

They only differ on such "minor" things as origins, God, mankind, salvation, evil, morality, purpose, destiny, values, priorities, virtues, hope, inclusivity, political duties, human rights, history and truth.

I don't know what "core beliefs" you are counting on being the same, but they ain't.

behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Seriously? This is your best shot?

Your entire theory depends on a precise interpretation of a single word: "within." I had no idea you were such a literalist!

Unfortunately for you, the word you're trying to use literally is "entos," in Greek...it means "among," as in, "in the midst of a group of people," not "inside your heart" or something like that. And guess Who was standing "among" those people when He said it?

Yep, that's right.

The kingdom of God is not "in" mankind: it came "among" mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. If you want to be a literalist, as you now seem to, then believe that instead.

Immanuel Can wrote: I don't know what "core beliefs" you are counting on being the same, but they ain't.

All the religions I am familiar with have the belief in some deity as a central tenant of the religion, perhaps the details of how they describe this deity vary but there is always something there. I would guess that you are looking at the details and seeing the difference, I see the basic idea, and even Buddhism has a variation of a supreme being, they just call it one mind or universal mind or consciousness, but still a supernatural entity.

On reading about Hinduism I found that there is a version of the Triune God. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, different forms of the same all-pervading Brahman. I realize that others may have different interpretations of this, but this is the way I see it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

If you follow the teachings of Jesus as most Christians say they do then you would know that Jesus says to look within ourselves for God and that his laws are written in our hearts.

I do. Unfortunately, you're following old wives' tales. Jesus Christ never said this. Nor does any other part of the Bible. You really need to read it before deciding what you think it says.

If you do, however, you will find in the Epistle to the Romans that it is said that all mankind has a conscience about evil, despite having no knowledge of or love for God.

I assume you weren't referring to that, though

Sure. As long as the person is a potential believer who keeps putting his cash in the collection plate.

This is an easy slander...all too easy. It salves the conscience to think that all Christians are just money-grubbers. It saves the critic from having to think. And it appeals to the moral superiority of the critic who asserts it...

Well, except that it's not even remotely true.

The truth is that Christians are, per capita, far and away the most chartable and giving group of people on the planet. So much so, in fact, that whole societies (like the US, for example) have been largely sustained in their social care networks by the volunteerism and donations of simple Christian folks. (Read deToqueville, and you'll see that its been this way since the early days of the country.) Even today, governments in the West are fighting a losing battle with the recent collapse of social concern sustained for generations by Christian beliefs. Everything from the anti-slavery movement to the public education system, to temperance and the women's movement, to prison reform, welfare and socialized medicine were all sponsored from their inception by conservative, evangelical Christians, and survive largely today due to their influence. That's all statistically and historically really, really easy to verify.

Some facts will really help there.

Yes. Like the fact that I was speaking of the church being a business and greedy, not the so called Christians.

The church makes about 81 billion a year in tax exemptions and if it really wanted to end poverty, just giving that to the poor for a year or two would go a long way to end poverty.

They remain one of the richest entities on the planet.

As to the U.S., a so called Christian nation, check the jail stats as compared to most other countries, even atheist ones and be ashamed for the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5 ... r_embedded

Regards
DL

mtmynd1 wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

If you follow the teachings of Jesus as most Christians say they do then you would know that Jesus says to look within ourselves for God and that his laws are written in our hearts.

I do. Unfortunately, you're following old wives' tales. Jesus Christ never said this. Nor does any other part of the Bible. You really need to read it before deciding what you think it says.

I. Can... I can quote this from Luke 17:20-21 as Truth.

Luke 17:20-21King James Version (KJV)

20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That which is revealed within, if you are open enough and have the courage do so, you will find all the answers that you seek by going not within yourself, but within books written by ordinary men who opine with the best of them

Thanks for this. I did not bother correcting our friend as I do not think he read the bible and certainly did not check before denying what I said.

The Gnostic Christian gospels take that thinking further.

Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will
precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is
outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves]
will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you
will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

Our friend is in poverty.


This bit emphasizes the law in our hearts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /mary.html

For where the mind is, there is the treasure.

The Saviour answered and said, 'He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two - that is [what] sees the vision...'

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Regards
DL

Immanuel Can wrote:

In fact I have considered changing many times but then I've come to realize that at the core, all religions are basically the same, it's only all the window dressing that differs. So I'll stay where I am as far as churches go, and carefully choose where I put my faith. I guess that's why I don't say much to others they all seem to place more emphasis on the window dressing than the core beliefs.

I have studied them too. In fact, I have an MA in the secular study of Religion and Culture. I really don't know how anyone could possibly convince themselves that "all religions are basically the same" except by knowing absolutely nothing about them. I cannot imagine how someone as intelligent as you could have arrived at that except through the same strategy.

They only differ on such "minor" things as origins, God, mankind, salvation, evil, morality, purpose, destiny, values, priorities, virtues, hope, inclusivity, political duties, human rights, history and truth.

I don't know what "core beliefs" you are counting on being the same, but they ain't.

Perhaps he means the apostles creed which I believe all those who fly the cross must sign on to.

Good old human sacrifice and substitutionary punishment. Their best and most immoral tenets.

Regards
DL

On reading about Hinduism I found that there is a version of the Triune God. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, different forms of the same all-pervading Brahman. I realize that others may have different interpretations of this, but this is the way I see it.

thedoc:

I don't want to be contentious -- I actually quite like you, and have no wish to offend. But I also don't agree, and since this is a site for this sort of discussion, I'm going to risk being a bit strong in response, okay?

If you look at a group of people long distance..say, several miles, you won't be able to tell their height, gender, age, features...or even their number, if they are in a group. Get closer, and you'll see some of these features. Get closer still, and you'll recognize faces. Get right up to them, and you'll see they're all very different in many ways.

Similarly, if you keep all "religions" distant and treat them as a mass, you can convince yourself they're simply a blob-like manifestation of the same thing. You can mistake yin-yang for good and evil, for example, or mistake karma for justice, or Allah for Yahweh and both for Zeus or the Gnostic Demiurge. You can mistake Buddhist empty-mind meditation for Jewish full-mind Scripture scholarship. You can mistake the Nirvana concept for Heaven. But in every single one of these pairings, you're totally confused if you do. They're not only not the *same* things; when you look at them clearly, they're often quite *contrary* conceptions, in that one tradition will freely declare that the other tradition is doing precisely the wrong thing, or is failing to look at the world at all in an enlightened way.

Look at you and me right now: we have different viewpoints, don't we? We aren't agreeing about this, are we? If you and I, mere philosophers as we are, can experience a stark disagreement, then what odd logic would lead us to think religious traditions were simply incapable of such strong disagreement?

Now an illustration, if I may. I used to teach World Religions. At the beginning of my class, I would give to my students a little quiz. On one side, it asked rudimentary questions to discern their knowledge and exposure to religions (I didn't want to end up teaching what they may already know, so I had to know what they knew, you see.) So it had questions like, "How many times annually do you go to a religious place?" "A religious service?" "Read from a religious scripture?" etc. On the other side I would have a list of other statements -- all strong opinions people have about religions -- things like "Religions cause wars," "Religions all teach peace and love," "Religions all believe in the Golden Rule," and so on, all beside a ten-point scale to indicate how they agreed or disagreed.

And guess what? The students who scored the most strong, bigotted and ill-informed opinions on the seconds side were invariably all the same ones who scored lowest on the experience side. Many of them freely admitted to having nearly zero exposure to any religious-associated experience; and they were invariably the most strongly opinionated of all...especially about the idea that all religions are the same.

The truth is this: the only way to continue believing all "beliefs" (or "religions," if you like) are essentially the same is to keep them as far from you as possible and in fuzzy focus. If you know anything about them in particular, then immediately elements of that illusion begin to drop away. Know a lot, and the illusion is completely gone.

Me, I've studied a whole bunch, read a whole bunch of their texts, met a whole bunch of folks from different groups, sects and denominations, and been in a whole lot of foreign places. I know darn well they're different and so will you if you go and look. But I don't ask you to believe me.

I say, "Go and look."

Immanuel Can wrote:What I asserted was this:

"...the writer has to be taking for granted the possibility that God exists, or he would be unable to pose the question intelligibly at all."

What you also asserted, and what I cited beforehand, was this:

Immanuel Can wrote:Firstly, if "seeking God" has any point at all, it would only be on the assumption that God exists.

I was taking that literally, which given the title of the thread, seems apposite.

Immanuel Can wrote:You are correct to say he does not have to believe God necessarily HAS to exist -- only, as in your proposed cases of cancer and the Middle East, that a "finding" of the answer is possible. That is a sufficiently modest epistemic claim to make your criticism simply off-point.

I suppose you could be so dim not to realise that this is as rude as me calling you pompous and trivial; if not, then I rest my case.
You misunderstand atheism, it is not the belief that god does not exist, that is a straw man argument that hard of thinking theists waste their time challenging. Atheism is the understanding that none of the arguments for a god is compelling; nor is there any evidence. In other words there is no meaningful ontological, teleological or design argument. This does not rule out the possibility of a god; you seem oblivious to the fact that proving that a god doesn't exist is more difficult than proving it does. I'm fairly confident that you cannot cite an argument by any credible philosopher that claims to prove that god does not exist: no one who says the possibility of a god is zero, is taken seriously, except by oafish theists.

Immanuel Can wrote:To illustrate: if, somehow, it were knowable-of-a -certainty that there IS and CAN BE no cure for cancer and NO POSSIBLE resolution to the Middle East, then no rational person would every have reason to seek either one. It is only because we do *not* not know there is no such thing as a solution that an ongoing search for either becomes rational. Likewise, any "search" for God, if we undertake one, implies we believe in the *possibility* that we can find Him; and if not, people would be perfectly right to accuse us of being irrational.

The author posits a "seeking" of God. I merely pointed out the rational implication of his positing..

As I say, it doesn't need stating unless you believe there is anyone worth arguing with that insists the probability of god is zero.

Immanuel Can wrote:The final part of your rejoinder above, I don't really pretend to understand. It would seem you're saying that if one person has genuine evidence for something and cannot show it to another person, then that thing cannot be real. But then, if I had been to New York and you had not, that would entail that belief in New York was irrational for you. I'm sure I must be misunderstanding your point.

It really isn't difficult to understand; the difference is that if I were to believe there is no New York, you could fly me there and say: "Here it is."

Immanuel Can wrote:

behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Your entire theory depends on a precise interpretation of a single word: "within."

Unfortunately for you, the word you're trying to use literally is "entos," in Greek...it means "among," as in, "in the midst of a group of people," not "inside your heart" or something like that. And guess Who was standing "among" those people when He said it?

Yep, that's right.

The kingdom of God is not "in" mankind: it came "among" mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. If you want to be a literalist, as you now seem to, then believe that instead.

It's sad to read your gloating words, "I.Can" (which is rather literalist in itself). "Within" is not meant to be taken literally as what is "within" is far greater that you evidently are unable to believe much less conceive.

The foolishness you write, "it came "among" mankind in the person of Jesus Christ", is typical of those "within" the Christian faith who have been so conditioned by various opinions about this Jesus persona, that even you have bitten into the "Jesus Christ" apple, putting those two words together as if you believe that is who the man is (rather than 'was').

Luke's passage is not meant to overthrow your strict (literalism?) belief in what you have been educated (conditioned) to accept as truth... and have the audacity to continue to disseminate the same tired, twisted words that you yourself are taking at their word.

The passage, "the Kingdom of God is within you" is one of the most powerful statements pertaining to the existence of any 'god' within the bible. How many purveyors of Christianity even hint at Luke's passage, much less encourage others to believe in it? You, "I.Can" are another of the Christian flock who choose to ignore the Truth 'within' (amongst???) those (7) clear words that do not pretend to be anything other that what they are. When Jesus spoke those words to a crowd, do you really think he was trying to twist things to make that crowd believe otherwise? He meant what he said.

Why? Because he was an enlightened hu'man being like Siddhartha, Krishna and quite 'literally' thousands of other people who had their own awakening WITHIN, thus illuminating the Truth which is far, far greater than any teachings you may have paid good money to accept as being "truth" so you could go out into the world and add to the confusion about the words of the enlightened.

Do yourself a great favor and those who might actually choose to believe your opinions - "listen" to the words of wisdom (if you can recognize them), and chew them, digest them and allow those words to become a part of you. But you and your ilk prefer to simply pass on the words of teachers who were taught the same drivel that you feel is truth when it comes to Jesus or religion or any other mistakenly accepted belief which are unfortunately engrained so deeply into the psyche of not only the Christian world but anyone who fears their own mortality.

As Albert Einstein once wrote: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” And any seriously thinking hu'man knows, imagination lies within all as an invitation to partake of it's wisdom when the limited knowledge of their own reality is no longer fulfilling.

You're upset. I get that. I apologize if I am the cause of that upset. However, we are here to discuss philosophy, are we not? So we need not become personal and nasty in the process. We can discuss the ideas without assassinating each other's personalities, or so I believe. So I'm going to take the liberty of paying no heed to the ad hominem insults, which are invariably a way of losing one's way in an argument anyway, and see if I can extract the essence of your rejoinder and deal with that in a philosophical way.

Essentially, you reassert your determination to read the word "within" for the word "among." You do so, as you say, because it allows you to make a connection between the Bible and "Buddha" and "Krishna" et al. At least, you cite those two in specific. You do not do it because you are not aware that the Greek will not support your interpretation, or that the rest of Scripture flatly denies it. You do it because it works for supporting your existing preferences -- or so you seem to say.

You can, of course, do that. You will be misinterpreting, of course, since the words you cite don't bear the reading you wish to take from them. But you have freedom to do so. Everyone has the right to be wrong -- even if he knows, as you now know, that you are indeed wrong. For you have a right to make a religion out of your own imagination, just as you say you do, in your conclusion. And you have a right to stand or fall before your Creator based on your choice.

So I think that while we cannot agree on your reading, we can agree on your right to insist you live and die by your conscience. And that I freely concede to you.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Seems that Jesus was definitely saying that all the spiritual stuff happens inside of us.

Regards
DL