- "Thus our thought must always move on to a fuller and more complete understanding and even to a transformation of the meaning of the most commonplace and apparently obvious facts of life. Otherwise we become dogmatists, life stagnates, self-content renders further growth impossible".
---Edgar Brightman 'The Problem of God'
I would note a few things about this conversation, and about the psychological relationship this sub-section of the forum - I mean the 'atheist camp vs the theist camp' - has in relation to the entire conversation about 'God', about ways that divinity are visualised and understood, and also very importantly to a backdrop present here which is that of individual experience. That means: a man's experience of his own self within his life and how *meaning* comes to him, is seen and understood, and interpreted. Interpretation here is vital. There is little simplistic about interpretation.
Note One: The group of persons who make up the faction of the 'atheistic camp' as it might be called, do not desire to converse the idea of god, or how the sense of divinity reveals itself in a given person's life, rather they seek to blow the whole conversation out of the water. They seek to engineer a conversational circumstance where Atheism conquers gloriously and where Theism goes down in defeat like a Homeric warrior. This 'battle', which is a pre-established rehearsal and a ritual enactment in a public sphere, is a performance designed to illuminate its heroic purpose. If it happens that the Atheistic Warrior is
seen not to achieve his purpose, the ritual enactment with the atheist has established, his 'favourite game' as it might be called, all on the sudden turns against him. When this happens, the Atheistic Player, as I have noted, gets quite bitter. As we have noted there is no limit to what he might do to assuage his bitterness: eliminating a thread in collusion with the board's management has proved an option.
Note Two: On a personal level I am here to learn how to express my ideas. But I am finding, too, that the opposition I receive from, for example, from Sthitapragya, is good and constructive opposition. I tend to argue as I read and I have expanded my reading to take into consideration new and different ideas. I think Brightman's paragraphs illustrate that there very much and indeed is a 'Problem of God' and we are very certainly in the midst of it. Our whole idea about God seems to be in a process of renovation. Frankly, I am not opposed and have never been opposed to a form of atheistic denial of any characterisation of God, nor to opposing a specific church, or a false-pietistic or sanctimonious religious attitude, nor to the examination of the Stories which are part of antique religious descriptions. I am not even opposed to an atheistic stance and indeed some pages back, or perhaps in the thread that Lacewing eliminated, I expressed that in some ways I think the atheistic stance is the best one to have. A qualified atheism would be best in my own view. It is more like back-burnering one's own specific religious or spiritual views when one is in the public sphere. So, I refer myself to avoid and to obstruct the non-productive process of establishing and maintaining polarities (though I admit it is fun to 'play' within polarity up to a point).
Note Three: I am generally always interested in a man's experience of his life and I was drawn to Attofishpi's statement: "Sure, but when His God puts you through more than Christs suffering to gain knowledge\heaven because of past indiscretions you may call Him a few nasty expletives along the way." I have no doubt at all that on a list such as this, with cultural and intellectual conflict, disturbed emotions, a certain nastiness and the like (no complaints just a statement of fact), that the subtle domains of a person's experience, spiritual or otherwise, could not be revealed or discussed. And yet for we who have a spiritual life, and who organise our understanding of it in religious or spiritual terms (inner experience/intuition), a great deal hinges on 'gnosis' of it. But there is too another dimension and Appofishpi also brought it out: "As i said above, i dont believe this entity gives two flying fig-trees whether you believe in its existence, just so long as you make the right choices in life and for the right reasons. If people decide they should kill in the name of God, well they are fools."
I am reminded of the following from Ortega y Gasset's ''Estudios sobre el amor', 1957):
- "Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"
With Ortega y Gasset's statement, I suggest, we are fully within the realm of reason and ratiocination, or perhaps I should say 'back int he realm of reason' since, I feel, there is an irrational opposition to the notion of God that infuses itself with atheistic belief (a contradiction of their chosen terms, I know). Thus I am suggesting that the notion of God, and the idea of law (as in our own jurisprudence which is hyper-rational and one of our finer Occidental achievements), and thus the idea of the possibility of a sound theological organisation of understanding, is not an irrational pursuit but is rather a rational one, or can be. I realise too that there are many obstacles to articulate this perspective clearly and convincingly and I am not saying here that I have done it or can do it. But it is one of my objects.
Notes Four through One Hundred and Seventy-nine (in addition to the 'Ninety-Five Bjornstrandian Theses' to be posted in Metaphorical Wittenberg) will be explored in following posts. A special thanks to Sthitapragya for keeping this thread undestroyed and for allowing the twists and turns that inevitably occur in such conversations. I suggest, at least now, no electroshock for Leo though he could make constructive use of a vibrating butt-plug. First though someone will have to provide a manual describing procedure to get his head out of his ass. (Sorry, I still am a wee bit 'unregenerated').
