nihilism

[Alexis Jacobi]

So I can only assume you're meaning some kind of Dualism: one in which there's the natural world, then there's something supernatural that is manifest with that natural world. Is that what you are saying?

I clearly made plain that I am a dualist -- in exactly the sense that I have been describing.

I do. But you just 'Kamala'd the question. I only asked why you would dismiss the very obvious alternative.

The "alternative" is not in any sense a viable one.

Let's not even go that far. For your comfort, let's treat Genesis as metaphorical. Still, the metaphorical allegation is that mankind is the source of the ruination of Creation.

Why do you not even accept that basic form of the possibility? Why do you automatically assume that God had to have originally created the world *exactly as you presently find it*? How did you decide it couldn't possibly have started out good, then gone bad, in some way?

It is not a question of my comfort: the Genesis story is a mythic tale and in that sense similar to the Platonic myths. The meaning that the myth reveals, however, I regard as real (or perhaps potent, valuable -- meaningful).

Because you are a biblical realist you take, and I suppose you must take, the biblical tale we refer to as a realistic description of real, historical events. I understand this. But I cannot go along with you in this area. But that does not mean that I cannot, or that I do not, apprehend meaning in the story.

How did you decide it couldn't possibly have started out good, then gone bad, in some way?

Ah, OK, I see where you are going. My answer is simple: there is absolutely no concrete evidence that, at some point in a distant past, the world was different from what it is now (I refer here to the world of nature, absent man, and also to man's world as separate from the natural world). If I were to believe the Biblical tale, I might also have to *believe in* (or I could examine as "possible") the view that we in a deteriorated "bronze" age and have descended from a golden age (Hesiod). Or the ancient Rishi belief that we are in a "Kali Yuga" -- a fallen age of quarrel and deceit. (In fact the Rishi's view has more narrative coherency, in my view).

Still, the metaphorical allegation is that mankind is the source of the ruination of Creation.

Indeed, that is true. What is the value of such a view? That there is something to recover, to strive for, to regain, to reestablish. (And that is how I understand the Christian path, largely).

So why blame God?

I do not "blame God". What I say is that if we accept that God created this world, we then stare into the face of a strange entity. I am certain that I divine power (for want of a better descriptor) initiated the entire cosmic manifestation (it did not self-appear), but I have other ways of understanding the world we are in if I resort to a dualistic perceptual manoeuvre. And that is exactly what I do. Which is what I have been saying not only here recently, but for months and even years!

Gary 'blames God'. I try to explain the manifestation and the place where I find myself.

And I'm just asking what your warrant for that assumption is.

I do not require another explanatory model. The *world of nature*, described by science (forgive the vulgar term!), is sufficient.

So I can only assume you're meaning some kind of Dualism: one in which there's the natural world, then there's something supernatural that is manifest with that natural world. Is that what you are saying?

For Heaven's sake man, that is exactly what I have been saying and do say! Revelation, revealed religion, the descent of an avataric figure into the world that carries an alternative message, a radical message that opposes naturalism.

AJ: They do not come from within the (natural) world, but always seem to come from outside, from far away. That is what revealed religion is.

IC: "Seem"? Or "do come"? It makes a big difference as to what you are trying to convey.

No, the word *seems* is exactly what I meant. It is the right word. We deal in pictures. We interpret things (meaning) through pictures and images -- stories. The story *seems* but is not. The story is the shell, or the vehicle. But it is what is apprehended (by any of us) that is what matters. It is not the story but rather the message.

So can you clear that up?

I can indeed! But it is likely that you will remain deaf for all that you have ears!

[Immanuel Can]

When I speak about "nature" and "the world" and the way the world is, I refer to the world as the natural, biological system about which we have knowledge and, through science-analysis, understand.

I do. But you just 'Kamala'd the question. I only asked why you would dismiss the very obvious alternative.

Because it's NOT TRUE.

Okay, Gary: then how do you know it's "not true" that this world started off better than it is? What's your evidence it was never that way?

[Immanuel Can]

I do. But you just 'Kamala'd the question. I only asked why you would dismiss the very obvious alternative.

The "alternative" is not in any sense a viable one.

What's your evidence that the world has never been better -- or even different -- than the one you observe today?

...the Genesis story is a mythic tale and in that sense similar to the Platonic myths. The meaning that the myth reveals, however, I regard as real (or perhaps potent, valuable -- meaningful).

And what is that meaning?

How did you decide it couldn't possibly have started out good, then gone bad, in some way?

Ah, OK, I see where you are going. My answer is simple: there is absolutely no concrete evidence that, at some point in a distant past, the world was different from what it is now (I refer here to the world of nature, absent man, and also to man's world as separate from the natural world).

Let's say that. But then, neither is there any more evidence that it was not. So that's a wash. We'll still left with two views: Uniformitarianism and that the universe is in some important sense, "fallen."

Why do you accept one view for which you have no evidence, and reject the other one?

Still, the metaphorical allegation is that mankind is the source of the ruination of Creation.

Indeed, that is true. What is the value of such a view? That there is something to recover, to strive for, to regain, to reestablish. (And that is how I understand the Christian path, largely).

Well, if we were to assume that, we might want to ask, "How is mankind doing, in that 'struggle'?"

And I'm just asking what your warrant for that assumption is.

I do not require another explanatory model. The *world of nature*, described by science (forgive the vulgar term!), is sufficient.

Science has no opinion about the past. It only tells us about things we can measure, test, repeat, and so on. Whether or not the world has ever been different than it is now, about that, science is silent.

So again: why reject one "model," as you call it, and embrace another, when neither has your "science" going for it?

Revelation, revealed religion, the descent of an avataric figure into the world that carries an alternative message, a radical message that opposes naturalism.

Wait...wait...

The same guy who claims he believes only in the world he claims is "described by science" now wishes to claim he's not a "naturalist"?

AJ: They do not come from within the (natural) world, but always seem to come from outside, from far away. That is what revealed religion is.

IC: "Seem"? Or "do come"? It makes a big difference as to what you are trying to convey.

No, the word *seems* is exactly what I meant.

Then we are deluded, you mean? For "seems" is a word you only use when you are not sure something is actually so.

It is not the story but rather the message.

From where is this "message" sent? For "messages" always have two ends -- sender and receiver. And, we might also observe, there is many a slip between the two.

...it is likely that you will remain deaf for all that you have ears!

Abusing those who ask honest questions is probably a bad way to anybody hoping to be a philosopher to proceed, don't you think?

[Gary Childress]

I do. But you just 'Kamala'd the question. I only asked why you would dismiss the very obvious alternative.

Because it's NOT TRUE.

Okay, Gary: then how do you know it's "not true" that this world started off better than it is? What's your evidence it was never that way?

I don't need to show that the world started off better than it is or not. I only need to show that there is suffering and it is not always the fault of those who suffer. Do human beings intentionally cause earthquakes, disease, droughts, floods, storms, climate change, pollution, overpopulation --any of that?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you accept one view for which you have no evidence, and reject the other one?

The “evidence” is the phenomenal record. The jungle (tooth, claw, blood) existed a million or a billion years ago and operated according to the same rules or dynamics as it does now.

The evidence is there. However, I accept that you believe it is an open question, but also that you accept a myth as a literalism.

If that works for you stay with it!

Wait...wait...

The same guy who claims he believes only in the world he claims is "described by science" now wishes to claim he's not a "naturalist"?

You keep misunderstanding. I don't ‘believe in’ that world I describe as natural and biological, that world is.

I also ‘believe in’ (and live in accord with) what I refer to as the metaphysical, the supernatural and that which opposes, or confronts, or works against sheer naturalism (of the sort Nietzsche expressed in that dense paragraph).

That “world” is accessible through intellectus: just in the sense I also quoted.

You really must read better, IC.

But your zealotry (a religious fixation?) renders you deaf.

[Immanuel Can]

Because it's NOT TRUE.

Okay, Gary: then how do you know it's "not true" that this world started off better than it is? What's your evidence it was never that way?

I don't need to show that the world started off better than it is or not.

Sure you do. If it didn't, you lose your claim that God, as Creator, is responsible for evil.

I only need to show that there is suffering and it is not the fault of those who suffer.

That wouldn't be good enough. It would only show that WHOEVER caused the suffering, they are causing suffering to those who don't deserve it: but it wouldn't prove that God was the party under indictment.

On the other hand, you would not have any difficulty showing that mankind causes suffering.

Do human beings intentionally cause earthquakes, disease, droughts, floods, storms, climate change, pollution, any of that?

"Pollution"? "Climate change?" is it your thesis that man has no hand in these? It's pretty obvious that man's the primary cause, in these cases, is it not? And what about disease, droughts and floods? Do these never have to do with things like bad hygiene, bad agriculture and bad construction? Your real cases narrow pretty quickly -- earthquakes, storms, some diseases. But let us accept those, at least.

Still, all of these beg the question again: are we living in the world as God created it, or as mankind has made it? For if the Creation is fallen, just as man is, through his own rejection of God, then to whom do we accord the responsibility?

That is the question.

[Gary Childress]

Okay, Gary: then how do you know it's "not true" that this world started off better than it is? What's your evidence it was never that way?

I don't need to show that the world started off better than it is or not.

Sure you do. If it didn't, you lose your claim that God, as Creator, is responsible for evil.

I only need to show that there is suffering and it is not the fault of those who suffer.

That wouldn't be good enough. It would only show that WHOEVER caused the suffering, they are causing suffering to those who don't deserve it: but it wouldn't prove that God was the party under indictment.

On the other hand, you would not have any difficulty showing that mankind causes suffering.

Do human beings intentionally cause earthquakes, disease, droughts, floods, storms, climate change, pollution, any of that?

"Pollution"? "Climate change?" is it your thesis that man has no hand in these? It's pretty obvious that man's the primary cause, in these cases, is it not? And what about disease, droughts and floods? Do these never have to do with things like bad hygiene, bad agriculture and bad construction? Your real cases narrow pretty quickly -- earthquakes, storms, some diseases. But let us accept those, at least.

Still, all of these beg the question again: are we living in the world as God created it, or as mankind has made it? For if the Creation is fallen, just as man is, through his own rejection of God, then to whom do we accord the responsibility?

That is the question.

Then God created mankind thus that some live in misery by no fault of their own and some do not by no fault of their own.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you accept one view for which you have no evidence, and reject the other one?

The “evidence” is the phenomenal record.

Where is this "phenomenal record" of yours? I should like a chance to examine it.

Wait...wait...

The same guy who claims he believes only in the world he claims is "described by science" now wishes to claim he's not a "naturalist"?

You keep misunderstanding. I don't ‘believe in’ that world I describe as natural and biological, that world is.

You just Kamala'd the question again.

Substitute "thinks he's in" for "believes in." Then please explain the self-contradiction.

But your zealotry (a religious fixation?) renders you deaf.

Socrates had many a question that we might say was below his level, and he was always respectful to his questioners. And he is thought wise for that. Those that cannot manage civility must be content to be recognized as what they are -- too nervous of their own position to remain civil, and too desperate to escape questions by deflecting into the personal.

What do you wish to be thought?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't need to show that the world started off better than it is or not.

Sure you do. If it didn't, you lose your claim that God, as Creator, is responsible for evil.

I only need to show that there is suffering and it is not the fault of those who suffer.

That wouldn't be good enough. It would only show that WHOEVER caused the suffering, they are causing suffering to those who don't deserve it: but it wouldn't prove that God was the party under indictment.

On the other hand, you would not have any difficulty showing that mankind causes suffering.

Do human beings intentionally cause earthquakes, disease, droughts, floods, storms, climate change, pollution, any of that?

"Pollution"? "Climate change?" is it your thesis that man has no hand in these? It's pretty obvious that man's the primary cause, in these cases, is it not? And what about disease, droughts and floods? Do these never have to do with things like bad hygiene, bad agriculture and bad construction? Your real cases narrow pretty quickly -- earthquakes, storms, some diseases. But let us accept those, at least.

Still, all of these beg the question again: are we living in the world as God created it, or as mankind has made it? For if the Creation is fallen, just as man is, through his own rejection of God, then to whom do we accord the responsibility?

That is the question.

Then God created mankind thus that some live in misery by no fault of their own and some do not by no fault of their own.

That doesn't follow at all. If mankind was given a world that was good, and then rejected it along with his rejection of God, on whom does this "fault" of yours fall? Not on the Creator, of course, but on those who have chosen to go a different way.

[Gary Childress]

Sure you do. If it didn't, you lose your claim that God, as Creator, is responsible for evil.

That wouldn't be good enough. It would only show that WHOEVER caused the suffering, they are causing suffering to those who don't deserve it: but it wouldn't prove that God was the party under indictment.

On the other hand, you would not have any difficulty showing that mankind causes suffering.


"Pollution"? "Climate change?" is it your thesis that man has no hand in these? It's pretty obvious that man's the primary cause, in these cases, is it not? And what about disease, droughts and floods? Do these never have to do with things like bad hygiene, bad agriculture and bad construction? Your real cases narrow pretty quickly -- earthquakes, storms, some diseases. But let us accept those, at least.

Still, all of these beg the question again: are we living in the world as God created it, or as mankind has made it? For if the Creation is fallen, just as man is, through his own rejection of God, then to whom do we accord the responsibility?

That is the question.

Then God created mankind thus that some live in misery by no fault of their own and some do not by no fault of their own.

That doesn't follow at all. If mankind was given a world that was good, and then rejected it along with his rejection of God, on whom does this "fault" of yours fall? Not on the Creator, of course, but on those who have chosen to go a different way.

I give up. You're deluded. And no one can reason with a deluded person. So pardon my frustration.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: ...the Genesis story is a mythic tale and in that sense similar to the Platonic myths. The meaning that the myth reveals, however, I regard as real (or perhaps potent, valuable -- meaningful).

IC: And what is that meaning?

Excellent question. I’d say there are numerous levels. Personally, I take the myth of a Perfect Garden to be a sort of memory of something, a state perhaps, in which we lived before. I see our incarnation here (moving from spiritual being into a physical being) as being interpreted as a fall. The memory is of something lost. And yes, perhaps or likely through a mistake, or something analogous to disobedience.

The “revelation” (revealed religion) represents a sort of roadmap for recovery, and for (I assume) spiritual transcendence. But to achieve that we are asked to become supernaturalists. To oppose naturalism, that tooth & claw means of getting on in this world. In this, we respond to a higher calling and yearning.

Everything of value in our social and cultural world derives from high-level metaphysics and supernaturalism.

It is the meaning that means something, that has transformative power, and it comes to us from a transcendental source “outside of the world”. In this sense it beckons to us if we have ears to hear.

(Am I going to be graded on my answers?!? ).

[Alexis Jacobi]

And no one can reason with a deluded person.

I’ve got this one, Gary. I’m nailing it! (And much comes from Book Four, Subsection 7-8 of The 12-Week email Course). Pity, I’ll see no remuneration for these pearlish nuggets ).

[Gary Childress]

I see no reason that a person cannot embrace spirituality and believe that the world is not "fallen". If there is a God and God is all knowing and all powerful, then the world is as God intended, warts and all.

[promethean75]

That is a dangerously Spinozean way to look at it, Gary.

This is the scene where we're standing in the breezeway of the old stone monastery cathedral. It's year five of the Thirteen Year War, winter, and the gray skies are filled with smoke and clouds of ash that pass ominously over the charred remains of the abandoned city. The last burning fires flicker in the dark and can be seen from the court yard. Father Gary and Prom stop and turn their gaze toward the fires. "For is not the world perfect by His grace? And yet we wage war and ravish this land!" Father Gary shouts, slamming his Bible on the stone bench in the breezeway. He bends and with his hand on his knee, sits down slowly and leans his cane against a planter. "Perhaps I have not faith enough, brother Prom". A loud crash sounds out... burning house timbers collapse into a fiery heap throwing a giant plume of bright red cinders into the air. Prom props a boot on the bench and removes a corn cob pipe from his cloak, stoking the bowl. He glances at the eastern valley horizon and watches the sky light up. Thirty miles away the fourth regiment pummels the enemy with mortar fire. "He who loves God cannot endeavor that God should love him in return", Prom whispers and draws from his pipe. The burning timbers glimmering in his eye. Father Gary turns his head. "Spinoza said that", he sighs.

[Gary Childress]

That is a dangerously Spinozean way to look at it, Gary.

This is the scene where we're standing in the breezeway of the old stone monastery cathedral. It's year five of the Thirteen Year War, winter, and the gray skies are filled with smoke and clouds of ash that pass ominously over the charred remains of the abandoned city. The last burning fires flicker in the dark and can be seen from the court yard. Father Gary and Prom stop and turn their gaze toward the fires. "For is not the world perfect by His grace? And yet we wage war and ravish this land!" Father Gary shouts, slamming his Bible on the stone bench in the breezeway. He bends and with his hand on his knee, sits down slowly and leans his cane against a planter. "Perhaps I have not faith enough, brother Prom". A loud crash sounds out... burning house timbers collapse into a fiery heap throwing a giant plume of bright red cinders into the air. Prom props a boot on the bench and removes a corn cob pipe from his cloak, stoking the bowl. He glances at the eastern valley horizon and watches the sky light up. Thirty miles away the fourth regiment pummels the enemy with mortar fire. "He who loves God cannot endeavor that God should love him in return", Prom whispers and draws from his pipe. The burning timbers glimmering in his eye. Father Gary turns his head. "Spinoza said that", he sighs.

That's not how it happened at all. Father Gary and Prom were traveling on the Titanic. All the men were left behind to drown, except for Prom's unbelievably hot wife who was a top-billing porn star. The boilers began to explode. The water started to rush into the cabin where the three of us were last holding out. As the water began to rush in Prom's wife asked Prom for one last kiss before they parted forever. At that moment, Father Gary shouted, "NOT THIS TIME GOD!" and jumped with all his might to the port hole grabbing the window latch. As Father Gary held the porthole with all his weight, Prom and his wife slipped out into the ocean where one of the life boats that happened to be full of only Playboy Playmates fished him and his wife out of the water. As Gary slowly went down with the ship they all held their ears as Father Gary cursed and fussed at God. Prom stared into the boat full of young maidens, "He who loves God cannot endeavor that God should love him in return" he whispered and drew from his pipe. The burning timbers glimmering in his eye, Prom gives one last salute to Father Gary. And as he brought his hand down he heard faint words piece the ghostly distance, "Get one for the Gipper, Prom!"