Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Theists and Atheists!

As we have seen in Part I of Atheism Is Not Logical, the infamous quote from Einstein (the “fanatical Atheist” who holds a “grudge” against religion) was indeed that gift which kept on giving. As such, we saw that emotions were often driving many of the A-theists belief systems rather than say, pure reason. Now, as Kant might argue, that’s not necessarily a bad thing in-itself because as we know, the human species, a thinking thing (an animate creature or object), has certain intrinsic qualities associated with their beliefs/behavior. Certain things that are natural to wonder about and/or believe in (i.e., that all events must have a cause). In this case, normal synthetic a priori judgements we humans posit, which aside from imaginative leaps (which are then worked backwards like writing music) are the bedrock of scientific discovery. It all starts with an idea or a sense of wonder. But what are ideas in-themselves? Objects of thought? What are subjects and objects anyway? What kinds of intrinsic qualities do they have?

Of course, these kinds of questions or qualities coming from a mind-dependent reality is that which processes both thoughts and feelings about stuff. Basic cognition (cognitive science/psychology) 101 says we are self-aware sentient creatures with volition. And these qualities hold causal properties that effect decisions, in this instance, about the feelings that we have. Philosophically, this is all part of the subject-object dynamic.

And so these anthropic qualities as being all part of a conscious self-aware creature who experiences a variety of complex belief systems, generally correspond to both the intellect and the Will (see William James for more detail) in order to believe or disbelieve, in a some-thing. Unfortunately, like gravity and particles, this involves an insoluble mix of both logic and feeling. In other words, these kinds of qualities of things involve thoughts and feelings that are inexplicitly linked together. How do we parse their so-called properties to discern their truth values? Do these thoughts and feelings relate to one’s objects of thought? How would objects in-themselves correspond to beliefs?

Closely related to physical objects themselves are the philosophical ideas of Objectively. In principle, feelings are removed from such a thought process. In pure reason or math, it doesn’t matter how a person feels about the truth of 1+1=2. However, in contrast, one who holds certain beliefs can believe a some-thing for reasons from experience, only that to objectively prove something they would prefer removing any feelings, arbitrariness or subjectivity from the equation. How is that possible?

A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?

Subjectively, one who holds certain beliefs can believe a some-thing for various reasons, including a so-called experience that they’ve had, causing them to in-turn believe what they believe. In this context, if a person say’s ‘I saw God yesterday’ and another person say’s ‘I did not see God today’, who is right? What kind of truth did they both experience? A subjective truth? Which truth is right?

Turning to cosmology for a moment (and the various analogical implications), we know from science there is unseen energy that exists. Like gravity itself (Higgs/Boson, quantum phenomenon, etc.) as it needs particles to manifest its truth values. And we also know that particles can actually behave without any direct physical communication between them (spooky action at a distance). Is this a kind of quantum phenomenon or observer experience? Is it like the phenomenology associated with other a posteriori kind of stuff? You know, like what a subject-person might believe based on empirical evidence? A religious experience? In any case, perhaps we are back to the beginning, what is an object of thought, and is reality mind dependent. And indeed, perhaps a discussion for another time.

Returning to objectivity or reason, let's take a quick look at logic itself. In science (physics) we know that pure reason or deduction (mathematics), is the most secure form of reasoning. If Atheism relies on such Objectivity, yet analytical propositions don't seem to help them either, are they still in a bit of a conundrum? The answer still seems to be yes. For example:

a Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b The universe began to exist.
c Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

True, false or something else?

If I was an Atheist, I think I could perhaps somehow argue that there was no beginning. An ‘eternity’ of sorts. Or based my belief on a kind of steady-state theory or Multiverse, I could revise the logic to:

A whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B the universe exists
C therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

But is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion?


With respect to human nature, my questions to the Atheist:


1. Do those conclusions respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

2. Is this foregoing conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.

3. Does that logic in-itself infer the concept of a God, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter and information (narratives)? And/or does the concept of a God relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own Will that causes people to do stuff? You know, that thingy in consciousness that is qualitative in nture; not exclusively quantitative?

Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is there a way for the A-theist to reconcile their belief system somehow?

[3017Metaphysician]

Objectivity (short list of examples):

1. Analytical propositions/Math is objective
2. Analytical propositions/Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.
8. Laws governing the universe directly correspond to existence without observation (an independent existence-the tree in the forest still falls if no one observes it).

[3017Metaphysician]

Subjectivity (short list of examples)

1. The religious experience
2. Maslowian Peak-experience/Self-actualization
3. Empiricism/a posteriori
4. Inductive reasoning
5. The Will
6. Sentience (love/hate, etc.)
7. Intentionality
8. Qualities of a thing (Qualia, music, etc.)
9. NDE

[JackDaydream]

Subjectivity (short list of examples)

1. The religious experience
2. Maslowian Peak-experience/Self-actualization
3. Empiricism/a posteriori
4. Inductive reasoning
5. The Will
6. Sentience (love/hate, etc.)
7. Intentionality
8. Qualities of a thing (Qualia, music, etc.)
9. NDE

It is interesting that you equate the religious experience with subjectivity, as well as peak experiences. Coming from reading of Jung on religious experience, I wonder where the collective unconscious fits into this. Jung argued that the collective psyche was real objectively. There are some ambiguous aspects of his thinking though because he blended ideas of instinct and Kantian metaphysics, as well as Gnosticism and divergent influences. Many dismiss the idea of the collective unconscious because it is difficult to establish or verify according to scientific methodology, especially in connection with the dominance of physicalism.

However, Jung does argue that the subjective religious or symbolic experiences, including dreams, may be appreciated in their own terms. He agrees with Kant that epistemology has its limits, with intuition being important. In his famous televised conversation with John Freeman, he said, 'I don't believe in God, I know', which was about paying attention to numinous experiences. Jung himself was no stranger to intense inner experiences, which are described in full within the autobiography he wrote towards the end of his life, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections'.

If anything, it may be that the current scientific pursuit of empirical proof is what has led to people trying to see religious experience too concretely and literally, This objective rigour is dominant as opposed to being a source of speculation, wonder and contemplation. The ancients took a more contemplative angle and, of course, science is important but may be one-sided, with a more mystical approach les being retained by some physicists, as well as the symbolic aspects being important in the arts.

[3017Metaphysician]

Subjectivity (short list of examples)

1. The religious experience
2. Maslowian Peak-experience/Self-actualization
3. Empiricism/a posteriori
4. Inductive reasoning
5. The Will
6. Sentience (love/hate, etc.)
7. Intentionality
8. Qualities of a thing (Qualia, music, etc.)
9. NDE

It is interesting that you equate the religious experience with subjectivity, as well as peak experiences. Coming from reading of Jung on religious experience, I wonder where the collective unconscious fits into this. Jung argued that the collective psyche was real objectively. There are some ambiguous aspects of his thinking though because he blended ideas of instinct and Kantian metaphysics, as well as Gnosticism and divergent influences. Many dismiss the idea of the collective unconscious because it is difficult to establish or verify according to scientific methodology, especially in connection with the dominance of physicalism.

However, Jung does argue that the subjective religious or symbolic experiences, including dreams, may be appreciated in their own terms. He agrees with Kant that epistemology has its limits, with intuition being important. In his famous televised conversation with John Freeman, he said, 'I don't believe in God, I know', which was about paying attention to numinous experiences. Jung himself was no stranger to intense inner experiences, which are described in full within the autobiography he wrote towards the end of his life, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections'.

If anything, it may be that the current scientific pursuit of empirical proof is what has led to people trying to see religious experience too concretely and literally, This objective rigour is dominant as opposed to being a source of speculation, wonder and contemplation. The ancients took a more contemplative angle and, of course, science is important but may be one-sided, with a more mystical approach les being retained by some physicists, as well as the symbolic aspects being important in the arts.

Jack!

Indeed. William James, Maslow and others you mentioned studied the mental phenomena relative to their cognitive science world view. And certainly, Kant contemplated things like the synthetic a priori (all events must have a cause) as an intrinsic, innate sense of cosmological apperception. In simple terms, it is normal for humans to think that way. Yet another reason why Atheism is not logical...

Notice how much if this phenomenon has no Darwinian biological survival advantages.

[JackDaydream]

Subjectivity (short list of examples)

1. The religious experience
2. Maslowian Peak-experience/Self-actualization
3. Empiricism/a posteriori
4. Inductive reasoning
5. The Will
6. Sentience (love/hate, etc.)
7. Intentionality
8. Qualities of a thing (Qualia, music, etc.)
9. NDE

It is interesting that you equate the religious experience with subjectivity, as well as peak experiences. Coming from reading of Jung on religious experience, I wonder where the collective unconscious fits into this. Jung argued that the collective psyche was real objectively. There are some ambiguous aspects of his thinking though because he blended ideas of instinct and Kantian metaphysics, as well as Gnosticism and divergent influences. Many dismiss the idea of the collective unconscious because it is difficult to establish or verify according to scientific methodology, especially in connection with the dominance of physicalism.

However, Jung does argue that the subjective religious or symbolic experiences, including dreams, may be appreciated in their own terms. He agrees with Kant that epistemology has its limits, with intuition being important. In his famous televised conversation with John Freeman, he said, 'I don't believe in God, I know', which was about paying attention to numinous experiences. Jung himself was no stranger to intense inner experiences, which are described in full within the autobiography he wrote towards the end of his life, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections'.

If anything, it may be that the current scientific pursuit of empirical proof is what has led to people trying to see religious experience too concretely and literally, This objective rigour is dominant as opposed to being a source of speculation, wonder and contemplation. The ancients took a more contemplative angle and, of course, science is important but may be one-sided, with a more mystical approach les being retained by some physicists, as well as the symbolic aspects being important in the arts.

Jack!

Indeed. William James, Maslow and others you mentioned studied the mental phenomena relative to their cognitive science world view. And certainly, Kant contemplated things like the synthetic a priori (all events must have a cause) as an intrinsic, innate sense of cosmological apperception. In simple terms, it is normal for humans to think that way. Yet another reason why Atheism is not logical...

Notice how much if this phenomenon has no Darwinian biological survival advantages, especially in relation to the mythical and religious evolution of culture.

It may be that the role of religion has a deeper Darwinian survival level than the superficial one which which is adopted by many. Darwin's theory was own first philosophy puzzle because when I was told about it by an atheist teacher Iwas horrified. I requested to be transferred to the Catholic school. However, several years later, I discovered my own teachers there were battling to make sense of the conflict between science and religion, especially in relation to Darwin's ideas. It was my English teacher who enabled to see beyond literalism and the start of my own thinking about what Darwin's ideas signify and many forget that he was not an atheist.

The way in which this connects with the ideas about God relate to the way in which culture evolved, especially in connection with consciousness. I did a year of religious studies as part of my undergraduate course in Lancaster. This involved looking at the nature of religious experience in an evolutionary way, as explored by anthropologists, theologists and the philosophy of religion. One particular writer of significance is Rudolf Otto, who wrote, 'The Idea of the Holy', looking at numinous experiences in detail. More recently, I read Julian Jaynes, 'The Origins of Consciousness' which looks at the way art, writing and anthropomorphic images of gods and God emerged.

Some of the issues to do with the idea of God are the evolution of consciousness may be a bit more complex than the confines of logic itself. I am not wishing to become a complete mysterian or mystic, because philosophy is about trying to find the words and concepts to explain with clarity. But, there may be a lot, especially about the origins and emergence of life, humanity and human knowledge which is not understood beyond the merest sketches of myth, religion and science.

James Frazer, in, 'The Golden Bough' said that human thinking went through the stages of magic, religion and science, with a possible one beyond this. I have often wondered what the possible fourth one would be and I am curious whether it would be a synthetic outlook, making creative links between them and a deeper understanding of the scope and depths of consciousness itself. I hope that I have not gone off into a tangent...

[3017Metaphysician]

Subjectivity (short list of examples)

1. The religious experience
2. Maslowian Peak-experience/Self-actualization
3. Empiricism/a posteriori
4. Inductive reasoning
5. The Will
6. Sentience (love/hate, etc.)
7. Intentionality
8. Qualities of a thing (Qualia, music, etc.)
9. NDE

It is interesting that you equate the religious experience with subjectivity, as well as peak experiences. Coming from reading of Jung on religious experience, I wonder where the collective unconscious fits into this. Jung argued that the collective psyche was real objectively. There are some ambiguous aspects of his thinking though because he blended ideas of instinct and Kantian metaphysics, as well as Gnosticism and divergent influences. Many dismiss the idea of the collective unconscious because it is difficult to establish or verify according to scientific methodology, especially in connection with the dominance of physicalism.

However, Jung does argue that the subjective religious or symbolic experiences, including dreams, may be appreciated in their own terms. He agrees with Kant that epistemology has its limits, with intuition being important. In his famous televised conversation with John Freeman, he said, 'I don't believe in God, I know', which was about paying attention to numinous experiences. Jung himself was no stranger to intense inner experiences, which are described in full within the autobiography he wrote towards the end of his life, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections'.

If anything, it may be that the current scientific pursuit of empirical proof is what has led to people trying to see religious experience too concretely and literally, This objective rigour is dominant as opposed to being a source of speculation, wonder and contemplation. The ancients took a more contemplative angle and, of course, science is important but may be one-sided, with a more mystical approach les being retained by some physicists, as well as the symbolic aspects being important in the arts.

Jack!

Indeed. William James, Maslow and others you mentioned studied the mental phenomena relative to their cognitive science world view. And certainly, Kant contemplated things like the synthetic a priori (all events must have a cause) as an intrinsic, innate sense of cosmological apperception. In simple terms, it is normal for humans to think that way. Yet another reason why Atheism is not logical...

Notice how much if this phenomenon has no Darwinian biological survival advantages, especially in relation to the mythical and religious evolution of culture.

It may be that the role of religion has a deeper Darwinian survival level than the superficial one which which is adopted by many. Darwin's theory was own first philosophy puzzle because when I was told about it by an atheist teacher Iwas horrified. I requested to be transferred to the Catholic school. However, several years later, I discovered my own teachers there were battling to make sense of the conflict between science and religion, especially in relation to Darwin's ideas. It was my English teacher who enabled to see beyond literalism and the start of my own thinking about what Darwin's ideas signify and many forget that he was not an atheist.

The way in which this connects with the ideas about God relate to the way in which culture evolved, especially in connection with consciousness. I did a year of religious studies as part of my undergraduate course in Lancaster. This involved looking at the nature of religious experience in an evolutionary way, as explored by anthropologists, theologists and the philosophy of religion. One particular writer of significance is Rudolf Otto, who wrote, 'The Idea of the Holy', looking at numinous experiences in detail. More recently, I read Julian Jaynes, 'The Origins of Consciousness' which looks at the way art, writing and anthropomorphic images of gods and God emerged.

Some of the issues to do with the idea of God are the evolution of consciousness may be a bit more complex than the confines of logic itself. I am not wishing to become a complete mysterian or mystic, because philosophy is about trying to find the words and concepts to explain with clarity. But, there may be a lot, especially about the origins and emergence of life, humanity and human knowledge which is not understood beyond the merest sketches of myth, religion and science.

James Frazer, in, 'The Golden Bough' said that human thinking went through the stages of magic, religion and science, with a possible one beyond this. I have often wondered what the possible fourth one would be and I am curious whether it would be a synthetic outlook, making creative links between them and a deeper understanding of the scope and depths of consciousness itself. I hope that I have not gone off into a tangent...

I'm guessing he was another Einsteinian fanatical atheist with a "grudge". Perhaps projecting some sort of anger from childhood. Existentially, at some point that usually works itself out in an emotionally painful kind of way. Alternatively, one should be appreciative of all that humanity has to offer including those feelings associated with the religious experience. Or, as Einstein said: I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist .... I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Albert Einstein

Religious experiences, Peak-experiences and so on are real to those who experience them. Whether it is in music or science, or everydayness (or even the NDE), such phenomenon is indeed a humbling experience. For instance, like writing music, many scientific theories either start with synthetic propositions or imaginative leaps that are them worked backwards into a pre-established axiom to see if they work. Darwinian biological evolution is not relevant to such phenomena. And of course, knowing the laws of gravity confers no biological survival advantages, much less music theory, and/or many other kinds of Subjective phenomena that one experiences in life.

The Atheist is in a pickle, they seem to have fallen and can't get up! I wonder if they celebrate Christmas?

[3017Metaphysician]

Subjective truths:

Published 100 years ago, William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, remains the most revealing investigation into the psychology of religion. James, a nonpracticing MD, turned his thoughts to psychology and philosophy. The book was considered “one of the great books of our time” and in it, James bravely tackled a subject that many then, and perhaps now, considered taboo.

James' aim was to study religious experiences as he would any other psychological phenomena, accepting their reality and vulnerability to scientific enquiry. His definition of religion was “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” He was concerned with immediate personal experiences, which he considered to be universal to humanity.

The book is not concerned with institutional religion. Its subtitle is “A Study in Human Nature,” and James defines his subject as the feelings, acts, and experiences of individuals in relation to what they consider to be divine. His broad topics include the religion of healthy-mindedness; the sick soul; the divided self and its unification; conversion; saintliness; and mysticism.

[JackDaydream]

Subjective truths:

Published 100 years ago, William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, remains the most revealing investigation into the psychology of religion. James, a nonpracticing MD, turned his thoughts to psychology and philosophy. The book was considered “one of the great books of our time” and in it, James bravely tackled a subject that many then, and perhaps now, considered taboo.

James' aim was to study religious experiences as he would any other psychological phenomena, accepting their reality and vulnerability to scientific enquiry. His definition of religion was “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” He was concerned with immediate personal experiences, which he considered to be universal to humanity.

The book is not concerned with institutional religion. Its subtitle is “A Study in Human Nature,” and James defines his subject as the feelings, acts, and experiences of individuals in relation to what they consider to be divine. His broad topics include the religion of healthy-mindedness; the sick soul; the divided self and its unification; conversion; saintliness; and mysticism.

I have read James' book, about 3 or 4 years ago, and found it inspiring. One writer on the nature of religious experience who I also found important is Ninian Smart. I don't have any books by him but it may be worth you googling his name, as you are probably more of an online researcher than I am. You may find some You Tube discussions and I don't know how to upload these onto the site, especially as I use a phone.

One other aspect of importance is the issue of comparative religion, which goes beyond the dichotomy of theism and atheism, but also raises important philosophical issues. Rather than the mere questions of theism vs atheism there is the realm of the various notions of God and the gods. I live in a multicultural area of London with a strong influence of Islam and Hinduism.

The nature of religious pluralism raises issues about the understanding of absolute reality. The backgrounds into which we are born influences understanding so much. It may be that the various worldviews are images of God, or ultimate reality. I have always been so influenced by the idea in theosophy of the truth underlying all religions. The Theosophical Society also emphasises the importance of science, which may be relevant for philosophers. I am raising the topic of comparative religion and the various images of God with a view to the idea of this being important in thinking about the nature of objectivity and subjectivity in the realm of religious experiences.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

RE: Subjective truths:


A companion manual would be Maslow's Religion, Values and Peak Experiences:


Maslow: If I were to summarize both the book and my remarks in this Preface in a few words, I would say it this way: Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of his essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which has evolved. This means to me something which I had better spell out clearly, namely, that this is a flat rejection of the Sartre type of Existentialism, i.e., its denial of species-hood and of a biological human nature, and its refusal to face the existence of the biological sciences. It is true that the word Existentialism is by now used in so many different ways by different people, even in contradictory ways, that this indictment does not apply to all who use the label. The trouble is that I have no good alternative label to offer. If only there were some way to say simultaneously: “Yes, man is in a way his own project and he does make himself. But also there are limits upon what he can make himself into. The ‘project’ is predetermined biologically for all men; it is to become a man. He cannot adopt as his project for himself to become a chimpanzee. or a baby....it would have to be experiential (phenomenological), at least in its basing. It would have to be holistic rather than dissecting [not dichotomized]. And it would have to be empirical rather than a priori [Objectivity], etc., etc.

Hence, empirically, the existential component to experiencing a Subjective truth is that one naturally has a 'transcendental' nature. The feelings associated with living a life of purpose (Teleology). A quality of a thing-in-itself that happens to be part of an animate 'project'. Not the quantity of a thing or the exclusivity of un-thinking inanimate material object. In other words, the phenomenon or distinction between static-being (objectivity) and dynamic-becoming (subjectivity). Remember, the existential 'project' involves juggling or navigating the both/and, not the either/or.

Being and becoming.

[JackDaydream]

Jack!

RE: Subjective truths:


A companion manual would be Maslow's Religion, Values and Peak Experiences:


Maslow: If I were to summarize both the book and my remarks in this Preface in a few words, I would say it this way: Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of his essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which has evolved. This means to me something which I had better spell out clearly, namely, that this is a flat rejection of the Sartre type of Existentialism, i.e., its denial of species-hood and of a biological human nature, and its refusal to face the existence of the biological sciences. It is true that the word Existentialism is by now used in so many different ways by different people, even in contradictory ways, that this indictment does not apply to all who use the label. The trouble is that I have no good alternative label to offer. If only there were some way to say simultaneously: “Yes, man is in a way his own project and he does make himself. But also there are limits upon what he can make himself into. The ‘project’ is predetermined biologically for all men; it is to become a man. He cannot adopt as his project for himself to become a chimpanzee. or a baby....it would have to be experiential (phenomenological), at least in its basing. It would have to be holistic rather than dissecting [not dichotomized]. And it would have to be empirical rather than a priori [Objectivity], etc., etc.

Hence, empirically, the existential component to experiencing a Subjective truth is that one naturally has a 'transcendental' nature. The feelings associated with living a life of purpose (Teleology). A quality of a thing-in-itself that happens to be part of an animate 'project'. Not the quantity of a thing or the exclusivity of un-thinking inanimate material object. In other words, the phenomenon or distinction between static-being (objectivity) and dynamic-becoming (subjectivity). Remember, the existential 'project' involves juggling or navigating the both/and, not the either/or.

Being and becoming.

I have read some of Maslow's writings and do find his ideas on peak experiences to be important. What I have found is that aspect gets overlooked in both psychology and nursing classes. Part of the reason for this is the focus on the lower rungs of the hierarchy. I remember once being in a group discussion about Maslow's ideas and I began talking about peak experiences and the tutor didn't seem to know what I was talking about. I suspect that she had not read Maslow's writings directly and was basing her lecture on textbook theory.

One writer who does look at Maslow's ideas on peak experiences is Colin Wilson, an English author who died a few years. He is not part of the academic traditions because he didn't come from a university background. His first and, most famous, book was 'The Outsider' which looks at the creative states of consciousness, including many artists and writers, including existentialists and visionary thinkers. It was important in the beat generation movement of literature such as the poetry of Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac's, 'On the Road' and the term beat itself was based on the idea of beatific vision. Colin Wilson followed through his interest in peak experiences and talks a lot about Maslow's influence and the nature of peak experiences in his final book, 'Superconscious'. It is about the extraordinary and sublime states of awareness, often spoken about by the mystics.

Relating this to the idea of atheism and theism, this aspect of religion may not be given enough attention, especially in the debate between religion and science. This may not be about fundamentalism alone but the materialistic stance of Western philosophy and thinking. It is easy to overlook it and a genuine reading of religious scripture, including the Bible, probably needs to take into account.

I find reading the Bible difficult due to the fear of hell and damnation which in my case goes back to stumbling across the passage in the NT about the unforgivable sin at age 13. It is so difficult and I worried about it so much and almost convinced myself that I may have committed it. I didn't tell anyone for months and I eventually told school friends and the religious studies teacher heard about this. He called me in and did help me a little but he was rather authoritarian. A number of years later, I discovered that Kierkergaard had worried about this passage and I think that 'The Sickness Unto Death' is based on this area.

One of the most direct aspects of religious experience is probably in the Gnostic books of St John's Gospel and The Book of Revelation. Of course, The Book of Revelation is one of the most puzzling books and has been interpreted in various ways, but probably what is most important is that it goes back to primal religious experience. I would imagine that Moses' experience of receiving the commandments in the burning bush was of this kind of state of altered consciousness.

One aspect in the Gospels which I have always thought to be so important is the idea of the Transfiguration because it does appear to be about an altered state of visionary experience. David Hume's ideas on religion and miracles may be important for rational logic but it may have led philosophers away from the nature of realisation of the miraculous as a state of higher awareness.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

RE: Subjective truths:


A companion manual would be Maslow's Religion, Values and Peak Experiences:


Maslow: If I were to summarize both the book and my remarks in this Preface in a few words, I would say it this way: Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of his essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which has evolved. This means to me something which I had better spell out clearly, namely, that this is a flat rejection of the Sartre type of Existentialism, i.e., its denial of species-hood and of a biological human nature, and its refusal to face the existence of the biological sciences. It is true that the word Existentialism is by now used in so many different ways by different people, even in contradictory ways, that this indictment does not apply to all who use the label. The trouble is that I have no good alternative label to offer. If only there were some way to say simultaneously: “Yes, man is in a way his own project and he does make himself. But also there are limits upon what he can make himself into. The ‘project’ is predetermined biologically for all men; it is to become a man. He cannot adopt as his project for himself to become a chimpanzee. or a baby....it would have to be experiential (phenomenological), at least in its basing. It would have to be holistic rather than dissecting [not dichotomized]. And it would have to be empirical rather than a priori [Objectivity], etc., etc.

Hence, empirically, the existential component to experiencing a Subjective truth is that one naturally has a 'transcendental' nature. The feelings associated with living a life of purpose (Teleology). A quality of a thing-in-itself that happens to be part of an animate 'project'. Not the quantity of a thing or the exclusivity of un-thinking inanimate material object. In other words, the phenomenon or distinction between static-being (objectivity) and dynamic-becoming (subjectivity). Remember, the existential 'project' involves juggling or navigating the both/and, not the either/or.

Being and becoming.

I have read some of Maslow's writings and do find his ideas on peak experiences to be important. What I have found is that aspect gets overlooked in both psychology and nursing classes. Part of the reason for this is the focus on the lower rungs of the hierarchy. I remember once being in a group discussion about Maslow's ideas and I began talking about peak experiences and the tutor didn't seem to know what I was talking about. I suspect that she had not read Maslow's writings directly and was basing her lecture on textbook theory.

One writer who does look at Maslow's ideas on peak experiences is Colin Wilson, an English author who died a few years. He is not part of the academic traditions because he didn't come from a university background. His first and, most famous, book was 'The Outsider' which looks at the creative states of consciousness, including many artists and writers, including existentialists and visionary thinkers. It was important in the beat generation movement of literature such as the poetry of Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac's, 'On the Road' and the term beat itself was based on the idea of beatific vision. Colin Wilson followed through his interest in peak experiences and talks a lot about Maslow's influence and the nature of peak experiences in his final book, 'Superconscious'. It is about the extraordinary and sublime states of awareness, often spoken about by the mystics.

Relating this to the idea of atheism and theism, this aspect of religion may not be given enough attention, especially in the debate between religion and science. This may not be about fundamentalism alone but the materialistic stance of Western philosophy and thinking. It is easy to overlook it and a genuine reading of religious scripture, including the Bible, probably needs to take into account.

I find reading the Bible difficult due to the fear of hell and damnation which in my case goes back to stumbling across the passage in the NT about the unforgivable sin at age 13. It is so difficult and I worried about it so much and almost convinced myself that I may have committed it. I didn't tell anyone for months and I eventually told school friends and the religious studies teacher heard about this. He called me in and did help me a little but he was rather authoritarian. A number of years later, I discovered that Kierkergaard had worried about this passage and I think that 'The Sickness Unto Death' is based on this area.

One of the most direct aspects of religious experience is probably in the Gnostic books of St John's Gospel and The Book of Revelation. Of course, The Book of Revelation is one of the most puzzling books and has been interpreted in various ways, but probably what is most important is that it goes back to primal religious experience. I would imagine that Moses' experience of receiving the commandments in the burning bush was of this kind of state of altered consciousness.

One aspect in the Gospels which I have always thought to be so important is the idea of the Transfiguration because it does appear to be about an altered state of visionary experience. David Hume's ideas on religion and miracles may be important for rational logic but it may have led philosophers away from the nature of realisation of the miraculous as a state of higher awareness.

Thanks for the anecdotes Jack! BTW, I hope you have a merry Christmas or otherwise Happy Holidays!

I appreciate your insight. Back to logic, any thoughts on:

A. whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B. the universe exists
C. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion?


With respect to human nature, my questions to the Atheist:


1. Do those conclusions respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

2. Is this foregoing conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.

3. Does that logic in-itself infer the concept of a God, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter and information (narratives)? And/or does the concept of a God relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own Will that causes people to do stuff? You know, that thingy in consciousness that is qualitative in nature; not exclusively quantitative?

Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is there a way for the A-theist to reconcile their belief system, somehow?

[JackDaydream]

Jack!

RE: Subjective truths:


A companion manual would be Maslow's Religion, Values and Peak Experiences:


Maslow: If I were to summarize both the book and my remarks in this Preface in a few words, I would say it this way: Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of his essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which has evolved. This means to me something which I had better spell out clearly, namely, that this is a flat rejection of the Sartre type of Existentialism, i.e., its denial of species-hood and of a biological human nature, and its refusal to face the existence of the biological sciences. It is true that the word Existentialism is by now used in so many different ways by different people, even in contradictory ways, that this indictment does not apply to all who use the label. The trouble is that I have no good alternative label to offer. If only there were some way to say simultaneously: “Yes, man is in a way his own project and he does make himself. But also there are limits upon what he can make himself into. The ‘project’ is predetermined biologically for all men; it is to become a man. He cannot adopt as his project for himself to become a chimpanzee. or a baby....it would have to be experiential (phenomenological), at least in its basing. It would have to be holistic rather than dissecting [not dichotomized]. And it would have to be empirical rather than a priori [Objectivity], etc., etc.

Hence, empirically, the existential component to experiencing a Subjective truth is that one naturally has a 'transcendental' nature. The feelings associated with living a life of purpose (Teleology). A quality of a thing-in-itself that happens to be part of an animate 'project'. Not the quantity of a thing or the exclusivity of un-thinking inanimate material object. In other words, the phenomenon or distinction between static-being (objectivity) and dynamic-becoming (subjectivity). Remember, the existential 'project' involves juggling or navigating the both/and, not the either/or.

Being and becoming.

I have read some of Maslow's writings and do find his ideas on peak experiences to be important. What I have found is that aspect gets overlooked in both psychology and nursing classes. Part of the reason for this is the focus on the lower rungs of the hierarchy. I remember once being in a group discussion about Maslow's ideas and I began talking about peak experiences and the tutor didn't seem to know what I was talking about. I suspect that she had not read Maslow's writings directly and was basing her lecture on textbook theory.

One writer who does look at Maslow's ideas on peak experiences is Colin Wilson, an English author who died a few years. He is not part of the academic traditions because he didn't come from a university background. His first and, most famous, book was 'The Outsider' which looks at the creative states of consciousness, including many artists and writers, including existentialists and visionary thinkers. It was important in the beat generation movement of literature such as the poetry of Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac's, 'On the Road' and the term beat itself was based on the idea of beatific vision. Colin Wilson followed through his interest in peak experiences and talks a lot about Maslow's influence and the nature of peak experiences in his final book, 'Superconscious'. It is about the extraordinary and sublime states of awareness, often spoken about by the mystics.

Relating this to the idea of atheism and theism, this aspect of religion may not be given enough attention, especially in the debate between religion and science. This may not be about fundamentalism alone but the materialistic stance of Western philosophy and thinking. It is easy to overlook it and a genuine reading of religious scripture, including the Bible, probably needs to take into account.

I find reading the Bible difficult due to the fear of hell and damnation which in my case goes back to stumbling across the passage in the NT about the unforgivable sin at age 13. It is so difficult and I worried about it so much and almost convinced myself that I may have committed it. I didn't tell anyone for months and I eventually told school friends and the religious studies teacher heard about this. He called me in and did help me a little but he was rather authoritarian. A number of years later, I discovered that Kierkergaard had worried about this passage and I think that 'The Sickness Unto Death' is based on this area.

One of the most direct aspects of religious experience is probably in the Gnostic books of St John's Gospel and The Book of Revelation. Of course, The Book of Revelation is one of the most puzzling books and has been interpreted in various ways, but probably what is most important is that it goes back to primal religious experience. I would imagine that Moses' experience of receiving the commandments in the burning bush was of this kind of state of altered consciousness.

One aspect in the Gospels which I have always thought to be so important is the idea of the Transfiguration because it does appear to be about an altered state of visionary experience. David Hume's ideas on religion and miracles may be important for rational logic but it may have led philosophers away from the nature of realisation of the miraculous as a state of higher awareness.

Thanks for the anecdotes Jack! BTW, I hope you have a merry Christmas or otherwise Happy Holidays!

I appreciate your insight. Back to logic, any thoughts on:

A. whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B. the universe exists
C. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion?


With respect to human nature, my questions to the Atheist:


1. Do those conclusions respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

2. Is this foregoing conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.

3. Does that logic in-itself infer the concept of a God, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter and information (narratives)? And/or does the concept of a God relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own Will that causes people to do stuff? You know, that thingy in consciousness that is qualitative in nature; not exclusively quantitative?

Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is there a way for the A-theist to reconcile their belief system, somehow?

Yes, I hope that you have a great Christmas and New Year! Last year you were witing on Christmas day and you went missing from months...You had a long Christmas and strangely a lot of people, including Poetic Universe, vanished around the holiday and have never returned since.

Regarding this thread, it seems that so far it is just the two of us so far, because everyone else is writing on your first one. But, as the discussion has gone in a different direction so farit will be interesting to see what happens next, and whether anyone joins in too, especially from the angle of objectivity vs subjectivity.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

RE: Subjective truths:


A companion manual would be Maslow's Religion, Values and Peak Experiences:


Maslow: If I were to summarize both the book and my remarks in this Preface in a few words, I would say it this way: Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of his essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which has evolved. This means to me something which I had better spell out clearly, namely, that this is a flat rejection of the Sartre type of Existentialism, i.e., its denial of species-hood and of a biological human nature, and its refusal to face the existence of the biological sciences. It is true that the word Existentialism is by now used in so many different ways by different people, even in contradictory ways, that this indictment does not apply to all who use the label. The trouble is that I have no good alternative label to offer. If only there were some way to say simultaneously: “Yes, man is in a way his own project and he does make himself. But also there are limits upon what he can make himself into. The ‘project’ is predetermined biologically for all men; it is to become a man. He cannot adopt as his project for himself to become a chimpanzee. or a baby....it would have to be experiential (phenomenological), at least in its basing. It would have to be holistic rather than dissecting [not dichotomized]. And it would have to be empirical rather than a priori [Objectivity], etc., etc.

Hence, empirically, the existential component to experiencing a Subjective truth is that one naturally has a 'transcendental' nature. The feelings associated with living a life of purpose (Teleology). A quality of a thing-in-itself that happens to be part of an animate 'project'. Not the quantity of a thing or the exclusivity of un-thinking inanimate material object. In other words, the phenomenon or distinction between static-being (objectivity) and dynamic-becoming (subjectivity). Remember, the existential 'project' involves juggling or navigating the both/and, not the either/or.

Being and becoming.

I have read some of Maslow's writings and do find his ideas on peak experiences to be important. What I have found is that aspect gets overlooked in both psychology and nursing classes. Part of the reason for this is the focus on the lower rungs of the hierarchy. I remember once being in a group discussion about Maslow's ideas and I began talking about peak experiences and the tutor didn't seem to know what I was talking about. I suspect that she had not read Maslow's writings directly and was basing her lecture on textbook theory.

One writer who does look at Maslow's ideas on peak experiences is Colin Wilson, an English author who died a few years. He is not part of the academic traditions because he didn't come from a university background. His first and, most famous, book was 'The Outsider' which looks at the creative states of consciousness, including many artists and writers, including existentialists and visionary thinkers. It was important in the beat generation movement of literature such as the poetry of Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac's, 'On the Road' and the term beat itself was based on the idea of beatific vision. Colin Wilson followed through his interest in peak experiences and talks a lot about Maslow's influence and the nature of peak experiences in his final book, 'Superconscious'. It is about the extraordinary and sublime states of awareness, often spoken about by the mystics.

Relating this to the idea of atheism and theism, this aspect of religion may not be given enough attention, especially in the debate between religion and science. This may not be about fundamentalism alone but the materialistic stance of Western philosophy and thinking. It is easy to overlook it and a genuine reading of religious scripture, including the Bible, probably needs to take into account.

I find reading the Bible difficult due to the fear of hell and damnation which in my case goes back to stumbling across the passage in the NT about the unforgivable sin at age 13. It is so difficult and I worried about it so much and almost convinced myself that I may have committed it. I didn't tell anyone for months and I eventually told school friends and the religious studies teacher heard about this. He called me in and did help me a little but he was rather authoritarian. A number of years later, I discovered that Kierkergaard had worried about this passage and I think that 'The Sickness Unto Death' is based on this area.

One of the most direct aspects of religious experience is probably in the Gnostic books of St John's Gospel and The Book of Revelation. Of course, The Book of Revelation is one of the most puzzling books and has been interpreted in various ways, but probably what is most important is that it goes back to primal religious experience. I would imagine that Moses' experience of receiving the commandments in the burning bush was of this kind of state of altered consciousness.

One aspect in the Gospels which I have always thought to be so important is the idea of the Transfiguration because it does appear to be about an altered state of visionary experience. David Hume's ideas on religion and miracles may be important for rational logic but it may have led philosophers away from the nature of realisation of the miraculous as a state of higher awareness.

Thanks for the anecdotes Jack! BTW, I hope you have a merry Christmas or otherwise Happy Holidays!

I appreciate your insight. Back to logic, any thoughts on:

A. whatever exists has a cause of its existence
B. the universe exists
C. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Is the Atheist still in a pickle? How would they deny such a conclusion?


With respect to human nature, my questions to the Atheist:


1. Do those conclusions respond to the synthetic a priori judgment that all events must have a cause? If not, why not?

2. Is this foregoing conclusion true, false, logically necessary, or something else? If false, please feel free to explain your answers using a similar form of logico-deductive reasoning if you can.

3. Does that logic in-itself infer the concept of a God, a final cause, a prime mover, a thing-in-itself that controls both the matter and information (narratives)? And/or does the concept of a God relate to a' thingy' that has causal properties or power, kind of like your own Will that causes people to do stuff? You know, that thingy in consciousness that is qualitative in nature; not exclusively quantitative?

Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is there a way for the A-theist to reconcile their belief system, somehow?

Yes, I hope that you have a great Christmas and New Year! Last year you were witing on Christmas day and you went missing from months...You had a long Christmas and strangely a lot of people, including Poetic Universe, vanished around the holiday and have never returned since.

Regarding this thread, it seems that so far it is just the two of us so far, because everyone else is writing on your first one. But, as the discussion has gone in a different direction so farit will be interesting to see what happens next, and whether anyone joins in too, especially from the angle of objectivity vs subjectivity.

Yea, thank you Jack! I usually take a winter break, and consequently am less active.

It's going to be a bit cold over the Christmas weekend here in the states. A fireplace, blankie, some football, and whatever else comes up indoors... !!!!

[MAYA EL]

"A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?"

What? The tree falling has nothing to do with mankind seeing it happen or not so I'm not sure exactly we're your logic is from but it is an odd one
And the accounts of Jesus in the bible are not first hand accounts like you say they are infact I can't think of any first hand accounts of Jesus