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

[Belindi]

There is no right path but there is the desire to seek your own personal path. This is a dangerous world, and your best desire is for uncertainty and scepticism about your own and others' beliefs. There is goodness, truth, and beauty but these can't defined by any religious creed or by anything you see or hear.

So, you are speaking bout Scepticism and Uncertainty, but on the other hand you are very much certain that "there is Goodness and Beauty"? (Let's leave Truth). Why are you very certain that "there is Goodness and Beauty"? Why you are not questioning it like you question all religious creed? Isn't "there is Goodness and Beauty" is also a Belief? Are you not ready to question and put the "senses" under scepticism/uncertainty? Why you show such Partiality by questioning "Man's longing created Religious creed" but not questioning "senses"? What makes you feel such partiality?

I have faith there is good, truth, and beauty because that is how I was trained from infancy, to have faith that these exist . We can say of Earthly experiences "This is good, true, or beautiful". However the experience only partakes fleetingly of goodness, truth, or beauty and is not the thing itself.
All religious creeds are political ideologies and are not themselves good, true, or beautiful. These virtues far transcend creeds.

Man's longing for the good, the true, and the beautiful is like what he does when he is discontented with anything and seeks something better. Some men seek wealth or entertainment and some men seek security and some men seek truth.

[Belindi]

There is no right path but there is the desire to seek your own personal path. This is a dangerous world, and your best desire is for uncertainty and scepticism about your own and others' beliefs. There is goodness, truth, and beauty but these can't defined by any religious creed or by anything you see or hear.

So, you are speaking bout Scepticism and Uncertainty, but on the other hand you are very much certain that "there is Goodness and Beauty"? (Let's leave Truth). Why are you very certain that "there is Goodness and Beauty"? Why you are not questioning it like you question all religious creed? Isn't "there is Goodness and Beauty" is also a Belief? Are you not ready to question and put the "senses" under scepticism/uncertainty? Why you show such Partiality by questioning "Man's longing created Religious creed" but not questioning "senses"? What makes you feel such partiality?

I have faith there is good, truth, and beauty because that is how I was trained from infancy, to have faith that these exist . We can say of Earthly experiences "This is good, true, or beautiful". However the experience only partakes fleetingly of goodness, truth, or beauty and is not the thing itself.
All religious creeds are political ideologies and are not themselves good, true, or beautiful. These virtues far transcend creeds.

Man's longing for the good, the true, and the beautiful is like what he does when he is discontented with anything and seeks something better. Some men seek wealth or entertainment and some men seek security and some men seek truth.

[Viswa_01210]

To Belindi and Sy Borg,
I feel you are here to accuse every Religions as just mere beliefs but not practically fit. I welcome the accuse, but I feel there is a partiality shown that, you accuse only Religious one's but not your own. I was in your position too, like Jiddu Krishnamurti until my attachment to Senses and Pleasures and Worlds reduced much.

You have a belief that "How the world should be" (like Garden of Eden) and fail to see what the 'world is'. I feel until you have the pursuit of "Goodness and Beauty", you won't understand Religions and Scriptures and go on accuse them. I see much aversion in yourself upon Religions, due to this Need of Goodness and "Freedom to desire and act anything by anyone".

You don't have to belief Religions, but I see you are very much underestimating and Undervaluing the works of Sages/Buddha/Jesus. I don't have aversion upon you/Krishnamurti/those who want to get rid of Religions, but only feel worried of why you seek limitations instead of Truth. You are raised with a Belief that "Truth is Goodness/Beauty" (a Fragmented Truth) and not ready to understand Holistic.
I see, only when you start to see the limitations of "Goodness and Beauty" (i.e. Badness and Beast is present in Goodness and Beauty always as Dark side), your aversion to Religion can calm down and truly understand what Religions point out.

To see the limitations, you have to drop "what the world should be, what is the right living" and meet Death. I see if you attend Funerals every day, you may understand the reality. If you near a Rich/Goodness Dying Person in Hospitals, you can understand that People die only in vain and never their fire of desire subside.

Until you gear up yourself and face the fear of Darkness and be with it, you can't understand the limitations of "Goodness and Beauty". Only understanding that then Truth be revealed.

Truth won't be revealed until your wish for everything/anything subside. Go and be averted upon Religions/Sages/Jesus/etc. and seek Goodness/Beauty acting against them, as you wish. Live in the dream of making this world as Garden of Eden, as you wish. May you attain whatever you wish for, and whatever you want to get rid off even if you don't want to understand the reality.

I will be waiting for theat day when you really understand the limitations of Goodness and Beauty. I will be waiting for that day when your "what should be's" totally end, and understand what really the world is.

Note - Please don't reply to this message, as I see there is nothing to speak with you anymore until your seeking of "Goodness and Beauty" reduces, and only when you really want to understand the working of the world without a "should-be".

Take Care.

[Pattern-chaser]

Too much accord is given to this particular Iron Age deity...

I think one of the difficulties in discussing God is that She is not generally understood as a "particular" "deity". Well, She is by certain individuals, but not by everyone. Which is the point. "God" refers to a rather large collection of vaguely similar concepts, all gathered together, and 'averaged out'. There is no "particular" deity that I am aware of, from any Age.

[Belindi]

To Belindi and Sy Borg,
I feel you are here to accuse every Religions as just mere beliefs but not practically fit. I welcome the accuse, but I feel there is a partiality shown that, you accuse only Religious one's but not your own. I was in your position too, like Jiddu Krishnamurti until my attachment to Senses and Pleasures and Worlds reduced much.

You have a belief that "How the world should be" (like Garden of Eden) and fail to see what the 'world is'. I feel until you have the pursuit of "Goodness and Beauty", you won't understand Religions and Scriptures and go on accuse them. I see much aversion in yourself upon Religions, due to this Need of Goodness and "Freedom to desire and act anything by anyone".

You don't have to belief Religions, but I see you are very much underestimating and Undervaluing the works of Sages/Buddha/Jesus. I don't have aversion upon you/Krishnamurti/those who want to get rid of Religions, but only feel worried of why you seek limitations instead of Truth. You are raised with a Belief that "Truth is Goodness/Beauty" (a Fragmented Truth) and not ready to understand Holistic.
I see, only when you start to see the limitations of "Goodness and Beauty" (i.e. Badness and Beast is present in Goodness and Beauty always as Dark side), your aversion to Religion can calm down and truly understand what Religions point out.

To see the limitations, you have to drop "what the world should be, what is the right living" and meet Death. I see if you attend Funerals every day, you may understand the reality. If you near a Rich/Goodness Dying Person in Hospitals, you can understand that People die only in vain and never their fire of desire subside.

Until you gear up yourself and face the fear of Darkness and be with it, you can't understand the limitations of "Goodness and Beauty". Only understanding that then Truth be revealed.

Truth won't be revealed until your wish for everything/anything subside. Go and be averted upon Religions/Sages/Jesus/etc. and seek Goodness/Beauty acting against them, as you wish. Live in the dream of making this world as Garden of Eden, as you wish. May you attain whatever you wish for, and whatever you want to get rid off even if you don't want to understand the reality.

I will be waiting for theat day when you really understand the limitations of Goodness and Beauty. I will be waiting for that day when your "what should be's" totally end, and understand what really the world is.

Note - Please don't reply to this message, as I see there is nothing to speak with you anymore until your seeking of "Goodness and Beauty" reduces, and only when you really want to understand the working of the world without a "should-be".

Take Care.

Truth, good, and beauty are aspects of the same whole. If you were to experience beauty you would also experience good and truth.If you were to experience truth you would also experience beauty and good.If you were to experience good you would also experience truth and beauty.

I can't be 100% sure that your particular creed is untrue. It does however lack reason, because the law you espouse depends on the authority of others such as priests, kings, and male relations, and this is unrealistic.

[Sy Borg]

Note - Please don't reply to this message, as I see there is nothing to speak with you anymore until your seeking of "Goodness and Beauty" reduces, and only when you really want to understand the working of the world without a "should-be".
Take Care.

This "may way or the highway" attitude is fairly standard for partisan theists.

Theist beliefs are maintained by refusing to consider information that may undermine those beliefs. By contrast, when science is done well, it does not lock itself into dogma but considers all new information, and is prepared to change if new data turns up. This open-minded approach is incompatible with the commitment demanded by religions.

An analogy would be marriage. A partner commits to another, and they deliberately don't try to find out who they missed on by making a commitment. On a personal level that is positive. It allows one to settle and get on with life, instead of restlessly seeking an upgrade. By contrast, science done well has no commitment; science is simply a machine designed to increase human knowledge of how physical reality works.

There are some potential social, professional and personal advantages to be gained from believing in obvious superstition, but that does not change the fact that it is obvious superstition.

[Sy Borg]

Too much accord is given to this particular Iron Age deity...

I think one of the difficulties in discussing God is that She is not generally understood as a "particular" "deity". Well, She is by certain individuals, but not by everyone. Which is the point. "God" refers to a rather large collection of vaguely similar concepts, all gathered together, and 'averaged out'. There is no "particular" deity that I am aware of, from any Age.

The OT Yahweh became the NT Jesus/God. These are particular deities that do not accord with others such as Ba'al, Allah and Zoroaster. It certainly does not accord to the more abstract and less personified concepts of Buddhism and Taoism in the east.

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

However, the differences are profound in terms of how one lives or thinks about life.

I don't think one needs superstition to accept that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all. I see our lives as a skin to bubbles festering on the Earth's surface due to the Sun's action on the planet's surface water. In terms of the Earth's lifespan, each of us is a bubble that briefly grows before popping, and is immediately replaced by others that will be slightly different but, from a distance, are pretty much identical.

Pop!

[Stoppelmann]

The OT Yahweh became the NT Jesus/God. These are particular deities that do not accord with others such as Ba'al, Allah and Zoroaster. It certainly does not accord to the more abstract and less personified concepts of Buddhism and Taoism in the east.

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

When religions cross their linguistic boundaries, they take on a variety of forms. Each form is influenced by the new geography, culture, language, and practices of a particular people or community. Judaism has changed throughout millennia, Christianity looks different on different continents, Islam is different in western countries, and the development of Buddhism in India, China, and Japan, shows this clearly. We also saw it when D.T. Suzuki took Buddhism to America. The cultural influences in the Bible show that it is an anthology of religious belief take from various sources, as are many ancient scriptures. Catholicism was an attempt (as the word implies) to prevent diversity, but it occurred anyway, however the suspicion hangs in the air that the original teaching of Jesus was non-dual.

Cynthia Bourgeault, Episcopal priest, writer, modern day mystic, and internationally acclaimed retreat leader, wrote in her book, The Wisdom Jesus, “The angle of approach I will be using throughout this book is to see Jesus first and foremost as a wisdom teacher, a person who … clearly emerges out of and works within an ancient tradition called “wisdom,” sometimes known as sophia perennis, which is in fact at the headwaters of all the great religious traditions of the world today. It’s concerned with the transformation of the whole human being. Transformation from what to what? Well, for a starter, from our animal instincts and egocentricity into love and compassion; from a judgmental and dualistic worldview into a nondual acceptingness. This was the message that Jesus, apparently out of nowhere, came preaching and teaching, a message that was radical in its own time and remains equally radical today.” I don’t believe that Jesus came out of nowhere, and she has said he emerged “out of and works within an ancient tradition called “wisdom,” sometimes known as sophia perennis.”

Aldous Huxley, popularized the idea of a perennial philosophy with a larger audience, and said, “the Perennial Philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit formula, tat tvam asi ('That thou art'); the Atman, or immanent eternal Self, is one with Brahman, the Absolute Principle of all existence; and the last end of every human being, is to discover the fact for himself, to find out who he really is.” Allan Watts said in a talk, “they say in the Upanishads, those ancient texts of Hinduism, they say: Tat Tvam Asi. You’re it! Ha! You are everything that’s going on. In other words, you are a particular place in which the whole universe is focused.” Even Carl Sagan said, “I am the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the universe. I am the universe bringing itself into consciousness.”

According to Wikipedia: Sophia perennis, or perennialism has its roots in the Renaissance interest in Neo-Platonism and its idea of the One, from which all existence emerges. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) sought to integrate Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought, discerning a prisca theologia which could be found in all ages. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) suggested that truth could be found in many, rather than just two, traditions. He proposed a harmony between the thought of Plato and Aristotle and saw aspects of the prisca theologia in Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Quran, the Kabbalah and other sources. Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis.

So, the fact that Gandhi also believed that there is an indefinable, mysterious force that pervades everything and that defies the demand for proof because it transcends human sensibility is quite normal. For him, truth and love were synonyms for God, and anything that contradicts truth and love should be rejected as godless.

[Pattern-chaser]

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of other theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

Yes, the Total Perspective Vortex is a powerful thing, or should be. The problem is that now, so long after the late, great, and atheistic Douglas Adams invented it, egos as large as Zephod's are commonplace. Just think of ex-President Trump... Nevertheless, I agree with what you said (above), and I rather approve of the way you said it too. But I couldn't resist a minor fix to your text.

[Sy Borg]

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of other theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

Yes, the Total Perspective Vortex is a powerful thing, or should be. The problem is that now, so long after the late, great, and atheistic Douglas Adams invented it, egos as large as Zephod's are commonplace. Just think of ex-President Trump... Nevertheless, I agree with what you said (above), and I rather approve of the way you said it too. But I couldn't resist a minor fix to your text. 😋

Re the TPV: Loved the first two books. The third was okay, and the last two were a bit boring. To me, he hit his peak in the restaurant scene and didn't reached those comedic heights again.

Re: humans seeing themselves as the as ultimate, it seems that leaders then tend to be deified, or at least exaggeratedly lionised. It seems that leaders can be gods themselves or agents of God. Each will tend to be more cruel, self-entitled, hubristic and irrational than is the norm.

Oh okay, you want to be a theist. Despite their edicts and hypocrisy, theists tend to worship graven images, just that the images are etched into minds as abstractions rather than in physical media. By contrast, the Earth is as real and tangible as it gets. How do you guess that your attitude towards the Earth would differ from the numerous ISS astronauts who reported being changed forever by the sight of the Earth from a distance?

[Pattern-chaser]

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of other theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

...

Oh okay, you want to be a theist. Despite their edicts and hypocrisy, theists tend to worship graven images, just that the images are etched into minds as abstractions rather than in physical media. By contrast, the Earth is as real and tangible as it gets. How do you guess that your attitude towards the Earth would differ from the numerous ISS astronauts who reported being changed forever by the sight of the Earth from a distance?

My guess is that our attitudes might be very similar. You can reach the same destination via many different paths. I'm not proud (in that way), and I don't assert that my path is the only one that can lead to any particular destination, or that my own destination is the only right one.

Theists tend to do their best to worship God, as they conceive of God. Of course, they sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail, as we all do. I'm sure some of them get accidentally displaced, and worship images of God instead of God. I suspect that's easier than we might at first think. I suppose that what we should do is to follow the aims and purposes exemplified by our conception of God, rather than trying to worship God directly?

[Sy Borg]

Generalists like Gandhi attempted to see commonality of religions. After all, what is the difference between your Gaian beliefs and those of other theists? All religions and spiritual models assume that there is something greater than humanity. That, I would argue is the main commonality of religious ideas. The notion that humans are not supreme, and that some humility is in order in the face of greater powers.

...

Oh okay, you want to be a theist. Despite their edicts and hypocrisy, theists tend to worship graven images, just that the images are etched into minds as abstractions rather than in physical media. By contrast, the Earth is as real and tangible as it gets. How do you guess that your attitude towards the Earth would differ from the numerous ISS astronauts who reported being changed forever by the sight of the Earth from a distance?

My guess is that our attitudes might be very similar. You can reach the same destination via many different paths. I'm not proud (in that way), and I don't assert that my path is the only one that can lead to any particular destination, or that my own destination is the only right one.

Theists tend to do their best to worship God, as they conceive of God. Of course, they sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail, as we all do. I'm sure some of them get accidentally displaced, and worship images of God instead of God. I suspect that's easier than we might at first think. I suppose that what we should do is to follow the aims and purposes exemplified by our conception of God, rather than trying to worship God directly?

Agreed. I also have no pride in my path; I just followed the routes that I could navigate, while the others were blocked off.

I largely accept the logical positivist stance, but there's always a nagging doubt that there could be some funny business with dimensions going on.

[Pattern-chaser]

I largely accept the logical positivist stance, but there's always a nagging doubt that there could be some funny business with dimensions going on.

I'm afraid I shy away from schools of philosophy, like "logical positivism", and from allegiances to them. There are too many of them to remember, and their only practical purpose seems to be in distinguishing 'us' from 'them', in a context of conflict or war.

So I'm focussing on your "nagging doubt" and "funny business", because I think either or both of them give a more reliable view of reality than any school of philosophy.

...but I would be interested to know more about the "dimensions", and how they contribute to the funny business?

[Sy Borg]

I largely accept the logical positivist stance, but there's always a nagging doubt that there could be some funny business with dimensions going on.

I'm afraid I shy away from schools of philosophy, like "logical positivism", and from allegiances to them. There are too many of them to remember, and their only practical purpose seems to be in distinguishing 'us' from 'them', in a context of conflict or war.

So I'm focussing on your "nagging doubt" and "funny business", because I think either or both of them give a more reliable view of reality than any school of philosophy.

...but I would be interested to know more about the "dimensions", and how they contribute to the funny business?

I would never subscribe to any school of thought, basically for the same reason that Groucho Marx doesn't join clubs. I don't personally care for logical positivism. To me it's stating the bleeding obvious. Yes, we know what is apparently real. Duh!

But it is that "duh" that I agree with. Most of LP's claims are basic and obvious. Their positive claims stem from science and are thus quite reliable, but the LP assumption that that physicality is everything is speculative, especially when the subjective mind is thought of as a meaningless by-product of reflexive brain operations.

You asked about my nagging doubts. As you know, some years ago I had two peak experiences, the second one being especially powerful. Part of that experience was feeling enveloped in unconditional love. From where, what or whom? Was it just a rush of dopamine? Could be. Still, the experience was an outlier for me, and I had plenty of experience with drugs when I was young (a response to trauma) so I am familiar with a range of states.

Yet these two peak experiences were different to any mindset I'd experienced before. (Actually, far better). I had no idea that such states were possible. You hear the stories, of course, but when you find yourself enveloped in the sensation of being unconditionally loved by an unknown source, that is deeply weird. If I was so inclined, that second peak experience would have turned me into a theist, for sure.

Then there are reports of peak experiences and NDEs from many, many people. While there may be materialist explanations for these, to some extent that is a moot point. There are times (such as near death) where life's usual priorities are reversed, when the subjective realm becomes more important than the objective. If deities or other dimensions exist, I suspect that the answers lie in subjectivity, not the objective reality that is accessible to other observers and measurable by physicists.

I suspect that the instinctive materialism of early theists combined with Biblical use of metaphor to throw almost everyone off the trail, even some scientists, checking to see if any phantasms exist in nature, when they appear must likely to be mental. In that sense, Buddhism is more grounded than more materialist and literalist Abrahamic religions.

[Sculptor1]

I think this question demands clarification.
Such as;
1) Which idea of god.
2) What do you mean god?
3) One of many or singular?
4) Are you really asking Why god?
5) How does anyone understand any idea?