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

[Pattern-chaser]

And our intuition is correct. It's logic that is failing us here, in the simplest of ways. It's our perspective that makes the difference. Literal perspective — point of view, or in this case, observation point. Outside in my garden, what you describe as "intuition" can be observed without the need for intuition. If we then indulge in a scientific fantasy, and imagine ourselves a few millions of miles above the Sun, and observe our planet from there, we would see a different arrangement of what revolves around what. This is not a superior view to the one from my garden, it's a view taken from a different observation point, and what we see at those two points is as different as 'common sense' would lead us to expect.

No in terms of what your intuition is telling you in your garden, that the sun and the universe are revolving around the flat Earth upon which you stand, it's failing you insofar as it's not accurately tracking with objective reality (I'll get back to the importance of objective reality in a bit). There's no debate about this unless you're going to posit skepticism or agnosticism about whether the Earth is a globe and whether it revolves onto itself as well as around the sun and we'd be in woo woo territory.

BUT, yes, I agree that our intuition that the sun rises and sets serves us as humans better in every day life than knowing what side of the sun the earth is facing at any given time.

Let's look at this carefully, and in a more or less scientific fashion. We are considering two points of observation. One in my garden, and one an imagined view from very far away. Both offer utility and convenience, and therein lies their value. But let's not get distracted too soon.

You seem to be saying, above, that one point of observation is better than another. Specifically, that one tracks "objective reality" while the other doesn't. But position is relative, and the two points of observation are nothing more than different origins for a Cartesian co-ordinate system. As any mathematician will tell you, there is a simple mapping between any two such origins. They are equivalent.

Then we might consider that the Universe has no defined and absolute centre or orientation. So position and direction are relative, not absolute.

And yet you seem to say that one perspective is wrong, while the other isn't. Your final paragraph (above) says it all — the value of either perspective depends entirely on its use and convenience to us, for there are no more rigorous criteria that we can meaningfully and correctly apply.

[Pattern-chaser]

Why exactly do you think that Aristotle and Plato devised the laws of logic? Why did Aristotle find it imperative to create names to identify logical fallacies and faulty reasoning in arguments? What was the goal? Wasn't it to discover more about the objective truth in order to live better lives? Do you think that Aristotle was like "yeah, well we can't know anything with certainty, so let's just not try. Let's sit on a wall for hours every day and talk just to sound wise." What do you mean analytic philosophers? Which philosopher exactly was/is not an "analytic" philosopher? That's an oxymoron. Philosophy IS analyzing. One of the main branches of philosophy is LOGIC.

The thing about logic is that, if it is to work at all, we must accept what it says, even when that's inconvenient. And straw man arguments don't help either:

Do you think that Aristotle was like "yeah, well we can't know anything with certainty, so let's just not try. Let's sit on a wall for hours every day and talk just to sound wise."

No-one has suggested not trying. Or spending our time thinking, paralysed, unable to act. But logic and reason indicate that many things in the Universe are uncertain to us, even if greater beings than ourselves might see things more accurately and more easily. So logic and reason say to me that we should nurture ways of thinking, and doing, that acknowledge this practical and empirical uncertainty, and live with it, as we have since before we came down from the trees onto the savanna.



Btw, "Analytic philosophy" is, as far as I know, an accepted term for one or more 'schools' of philosophy.

What is the scope of analytic philosophy? Analytic philosophy is not restricted to the use of conceptual analysis (Ezcurdia 2015). Following Rabossi (1975) and Sierra (1987), one could draw the boundaries of analytic philosophy by focusing on some family traits: a positive attitude toward scientific knowledge, a cautious attitude toward metaphysics, a conception of philosophy as a conceptual task, a close relationship between language and philosophy, a concern with offering arguments to answer philosophical questions, and a search for conceptual clarity.

I offer this quote only to confirm that "analytic philosophy" is a term known, used, and understood by philosophers all over the world.



Philosophy is not (just) "analyzing". And I think logic is not a branch of philosophy so much as it is a tool of philosophy, that applies to most philosophical schools or disciplines. Although, in fairness, when one delves really deeply into logic, of all kinds, perhaps we could see it as a school in its own right?

[Stoppelmann]

I was once a very dedicated believer and I know what Spiritual experiences are. This is not me being loose with my terms. There are "transcendental" moments that I experience in my current church.

When I talk about experiencing Samadhi (which is indeed an intense Spiritual experiences), it's not a bragging thing at all and I don't think it's good to brag about such things or that it's anything to brag about. It was to explain that you can definitely have Spiritual experiences even as a non-believer. Some equate Samadhi with Moksha but that is not the Samadhi that I experienced. In my school of meditation, there are 9 levels of Samadhi and the 9th and final one is Moksha/Nirvana. I experienced levels 1, 3 and 4.

That sounds like an interesting “church” you go to, you’ll have to explain. According to Yoga Sutras, Paramahansa Yogananda, Samadhi is a soundless state of breathlessness. Hindus and Buddhists have their own versions of attaining Samadhi, while yoga has its own path. Patanjali lists Samadhi as the eighth and final step on the path of yoga, whereas some schools define Yoga as Samadhi and said to exist on all levels of the mind as well as beyond the mind, meaning that there are lower non-yogic Samadhis, as well as higher yogic Samadhis. In Buddhism, it is the last of the eight elements of the Noble Eightfold Path. So I’m not sure where the 9 levels come from.

Another point I wanted to touch was you mentioning that musicians do speak in terms of music theory. We absolutely do: it's the fastest way to exchange ideas, sometimes live and on the fly. You do an improv with the band to fill a spot, you need to communicate what key you're playing in, and your chord changes which are often more easily represented by mode degrees rather than actual chord names. When you take a solo you think about a colour or a feel that you want to give to the music: a major mode like Lydian tends to be happy or upbeat, a minor mode like Phrygian tends to be sad or serene, Diminished is more jazzy and groovy, and Augmented is more intriguing and tense. These are infinitely more efficient conceptualizations as opposed to playing on a note-by-note basis and thinking about each note.

That's also absolutely the best and fastest way to learn songs and it's often how you write songs.

Okay, then we each have a different idea of music theory.

At this point, you and I are having an axiomatic issue about how we conceptualize the source of Spiritual experiences, the emergence of consciousness and the process by which art and music connects so deeply with people and give a feeling of surrealism. I don't think either of us will budge right now but hopefully we'll discuss more in the future. That's a lot of good stuff to talk about there!

But just trust me when I say that the more advanced the music, the more you actually need to communicate it to other musicians using music theory language

Okay, look after yourself.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

Let's look at this carefully, and in a more or less scientific fashion. We are considering two points of observation. One in my garden, and one an imagined view from very far away. Both offer utility and convenience, and therein lies their value. But let's not get distracted too soon.

Sure I didn't contest this. I said these intuitions, as objectively wrong as they are, help us better in day-to-day life. That's undeniable.

My point is that, as helpful as it is to us personally, it offers a false perspective about what's really happening. And as such, in cases that are completely alien to us, such as the possible existence of a perfect God and what that God might be like, these intuitions undoubtedly would completely break down fail to give us any true insight; again, these intuitions completely fail, they become zero, with things like black holes and quantum fluctuations, they would be useless with giving us an understanding of something that is even more alien aka God.

You seem to be saying, above, that one point of observation is better than another. Specifically, that one tracks "objective reality" while the other doesn't.

Speaking of strawmen, one more time, I didn't say one is better than the other. I said it depends on the goal: if the goal is your activity in human society on earth. your intuition that the earth is flat and geocentric will be more useful. But if your goal is trying to understand what is the objective truth with regards to earth being spherical and orbiting the sun (or any kind of objective truth), logic serves you infinitely better because your intuition will completely break and fail.

As far as whether your view from the sun serves your understanding of objective reality better than your view from your garden: they both fail the goal of understanding.

But position is relative, and the two points of observation are nothing more than different origins for a Cartesian co-ordinate system. As any mathematician will tell you, there is a simple mapping between any two such origins. They are equivalent.

Except with the examples you yourself raised, one origin from earth and one from the sun, these not a matter of 2D Cartesian coordinates. These would be represented on a 4D space-time grid where your location changes everything and the origins would be anything but equivalent.

But that's beside the point because my initial argument was much simpler: in day-to-day life, we intuit that the earth is flat and geocentric and when trying to understand things completely alien to our day-to-day direct environments, such as heliocentrism or general/special relativity or quantum mechanics, these intuitions become useless (regardless of whether or not the intuitions are more helpful to our life).

These intuitions are even wrong about mundane things on earth like the concept of healthy nutrition, daily exercise, romanticism and sexuality. Again it's not that intuitions don't serve an important purpose, they do, but intuitions are highly flawed with regards to modern life and they need conscious, logical tuning before running them into real life.

It's intuitions that lead otherwise normal and decent folks to throw gay people off house roofs in the middle east, it's not logic that's doing that! But that doesn't render the faculty of moral intuitions perse useless, it simply means they need to be consciously and logically observed and corrected to track with reality before running them into the world.

Then we might consider that the Universe has no defined and absolute centre or orientation. So position and direction are relative, not absolute.

We don't know this about the universe and we can't consider that (after all the Big Bang was a central point from which emerged the universe as we currently know it).

Nevertheless, in space-time, position and direction are definitely relative but that does not mean origins are similar or equivalent: they're definitely not!

And yet you seem to say that one perspective is wrong, while the other isn't. Your final paragraph (above) says it all — the value of either perspective depends entirely on its use and convenience to us, for there are no more rigorous criteria that we can meaningfully and correctly apply.
[/quote]

I hope I set the record straight about this "wrong perspective from the garden" thing.

No I reject this convenience, utilitarian approach in this context: regardless of our apparent convenience or needs, an objective reality exists. Acting in accordance with reality seems to produce better outcomes than clashing against reality. For example, it is better to eat healthy, bitter food than tasty, cancerous food. With short-sighted utilitarian perspective, we will always choose the tasty food until reality is so starkly clashing against our diet (the physical pain of cancer and the psychological anguish from getting the diagnosis from the doctor) that we have to change by "utility."

And I believe that in the long run, happiness and meaningfulness is all about mindset, true beliefs and sound epistemology.

If your main concern is how to solve your immediate problems in this modern world, nihilism and existential crisis sets in.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

The thing about logic is that, if it is to work at all, we must accept what it says, even when that's inconvenient. And straw man arguments don't help either

Yes indeed we need to accept what logic says even when inconvenient, it may be momentarily inconvenient but it's beneficial in the long run. If we have any standard by which we can compare whether our thoughts, words and actions are meritorious and virtuous, it would be the standard of logic and reason. Logic and reason are a priori faculties. In fact, they are so a priori that we cannot go back to anything more fundamental.

This is not a strawman. When you say that we shouldn't bother seeking to know objective truth because it's an "impossible dream" and that Einstein's theories of relativity are "imaginative fantasies," if I assume you're intelligent which I do, then there is no other way to interpret these statements other than anti-knowledge, anti-philosophy, anti-progress and anti-science.

Hence the momentary frustration:

Do you think that Aristotle was like "yeah, well we can't know anything with certainty, so let's just not try. Let's sit on a wall for hours every day and talk just to sound wise."

No-one has suggested not trying. Or spending our time thinking, paralysed, unable to act. But logic and reason indicate that many things in the Universe are uncertain to us, even if greater beings than ourselves might see things more accurately and more easily. So logic and reason say to me that we should nurture ways of thinking, and doing, that acknowledge this practical and empirical uncertainty, and live with it, as we have since before we came down from the trees onto the savanna.

I don't have any problem with that. This is exactly my position.

I would just add that we should be on the lookout for important knowledge which becomes available so as to update one's epistemology and grow as a human being... Hence this whole thread and conversation: you don't want to leave any stones unturned when it comes to where you may potentially spend eternity,

Btw, "Analytic philosophy" is, as far as I know, an accepted term for one or more 'schools' of philosophy.

What is the scope of analytic philosophy? Analytic philosophy is not restricted to the use of conceptual analysis (Ezcurdia 2015). Following Rabossi (1975) and Sierra (1987), one could draw the boundaries of analytic philosophy by focusing on some family traits: a positive attitude toward scientific knowledge, a cautious attitude toward metaphysics, a conception of philosophy as a conceptual task, a close relationship between language and philosophy, a concern with offering arguments to answer philosophical questions, and a search for conceptual clarity.

I offer this quote only to confirm that "analytic philosophy" is a term known, used, and understood by philosophers all over the world.

Ok. But then I ask you: what is then the purpose of "unanalytic" philosophy? What philosophy does not seek to analyze and answer questions about humaniny and the universe?

Can you give me a fairly precise definition of "continental" philosophy?

Because if you can't precisely define continental philosophy, then we once again face the unsavoury prospect of our conversation devolving into the circular and nonsensical, where continental and analytic mean everything and nothing all at once.

Philosophy is not (just) "analyzing". And I think logic is not a branch of philosophy so much as it is a tool of philosophy, that applies to most philosophical schools or disciplines. Although, in fairness, when one delves really deeply into logic, of all kinds, perhaps we could see it as a school in its own right?

Logic is not a tool or school of philosophy, it's a major branch of philosophy along with epistemology, ethics and metaphysics.

Cheers.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

That sounds like an interesting “church” you go to, you’ll have to explain. According to Yoga Sutras, Paramahansa Yogananda, Samadhi is a soundless state of breathlessness. Hindus and Buddhists have their own versions of attaining Samadhi, while yoga has its own path. Patanjali lists Samadhi as the eighth and final step on the path of yoga, whereas some schools define Yoga as Samadhi and said to exist on all levels of the mind as well as beyond the mind, meaning that there are lower non-yogic Samadhis, as well as higher yogic Samadhis. In Buddhism, it is the last of the eight elements of the Noble Eightfold Path. So I’m not sure where the 9 levels come from.

This is how I have been taught to meditate by my teacher since I was 14 years old. I've been practising meditation since then but to be fair, I didn't really look deeply and analytically into all the theoretical technicalities, differences and definitions since then either. That's because the purpose of my meditation practice is not about looking to escape Samsara or anything like that (unless of course someone can demonstrate that there is such a thing as Samsara to start with).

Meditation is a practice whose benefits and insights you can only come to know if you practice; there's no other way. You can only understand it insofar as it's your experience regardless of the pedantic terms used to generally describe it. Sure there are things you can intellectualize and discuss about it but mostly it has to be experienced subjectively by practice. I'm of the opinion that Samadhi, including Moksha, is not an objective experience: even when you "see clearly" and you "feel" you are one with the wind, that's all happening subjectively. When you reach Moksha, even though it is described as a state where you are one with the universe and all-knowing, you wouldn't truly know what your next-door neighbour was doing and later be able to corroborate what you "saw" with what they were actually doing, it's all a subjective experience. It's a valuable, perhaps invaluable experience, but all subjective nonetheless.

In that same sense, when you say "God is within and without, nowhere and everywhere, all and nothing, intangible and immaterial.." etc. these are all nice words but they're completely illogical and nonsensical. Can God be illogical? Sure. But you need to prove how you arrived at your conclusions with empirical evidence and/or reasonable argumentation for me to rationally accept these propositions. But like you said, that's impossible to prove.

Nevertheless, impossibility and divine hiddenness doesn't imply truth; in fact it implies the opposite. "It's impossible to know about it but it's there" is a terrible argument. I could give the exact same properties to fairies, leprechauns or Santa Claus. But just coming up with impossible properties and arbitrarily assigning them doesn't make Santa Claus any more real than he actually is. On top of all that, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable which means it's invalid.

However, when considered through your subjective lens, it's a viable system of belief and whichever subjective experiences it provides you, I'll take your word for it based on how I perceive your character rather than your provision of any reasonable proof.

About my church, I would have to go into how services are conducted, what words are said, what topics are chosen and why, what ceremony we may or may not be conducting that Sunday, what atmosphere is set, what music is played, what songs the congregation sings and the words of the song and much more... I could think about it but I'll leave this job to my Reverend. Part of what makes the experience Spiritual is the architecture of our church and that we do consider it a sacred place.

How do I prove this? That would be its own interesting conversation for another day because the current topic is not "How can you have Spiritual experiences if you're secular?"

But it's definitely more discussable and reconcilable than truly believing in both Biblical and Hindu metaphysics simultaneously.

Okay, then we each have a different idea of music theory.

What is your idea of music theory and what is it used for?

Do you know about the mathematical Harmonic Series and what it implies in terms of music theory? Do you know what it implies as to how music interacts with our brains?

Okay, look after yourself.

You too. Cheers

[Stoppelmann]

This is how I have been taught to meditate by my teacher since I was 14 years old. I've been practising meditation since then but to be fair, I didn't really look deeply and analytically into all the theoretical technicalities, differences and definitions since then either. That's because the purpose of my meditation practice is not about looking to escape Samsara or anything like that (unless of course someone can demonstrate that there is such a thing as Samsara to start with).

Meditation is a practice whose benefits and insights you can only come to know if you practice; there's no other way. You can only understand it insofar as it's your experience regardless of the pedantic terms used to generally describe it. Sure there are things you can intellectualize and discuss about it but mostly it has to be experienced subjectively by practice. I'm of the opinion that Samadhi, including Moksha, is not an objective experience: even when you "see clearly" and you "feel" you are one with the wind, that's all happening subjectively. When you reach Moksha, even though it is described as a state where you are one with the universe and all-knowing, you wouldn't truly know what your next-door neighbour was doing and later be able to corroborate what you "saw" with what they were actually doing, it's all a subjective experience. It's a valuable, perhaps invaluable experience, but all subjective nonetheless.

I started to meditate in 2002, beginning with MBSR, but then expanding my practise to incorporate various elements that I learned from Buddhism (Jack Kornfield) and Christianity (Thomas Keating). Although I am apparently particularly attentive and relaxed, able to cope with complex situations with equanimity, I have no special experience that I can talk of, other than what went on between dying patients and me, which onlookers found uncanny. But these are things that went on when I was working, and since retirement, I have applied the benefits of meditation to study.

I agree that meditation is far different than you think before you practise, and many authors have addressed this. I find the humourful takes of Zen masters being humiliated by their wives enlightening, or the mind-bending experience of a koan, or realisation of the meaning behind a statement that sounded irrational to begin with. The “inbetween moments” of life, the sudden awareness of life struggling against you, the sensing of a non-verbal communication in a wood, are all experiences that have no logical explanations, and yet if you are attentive, you learn something from them.

In that same sense, when you say "God is within and without, nowhere and everywhere, all and nothing, intangible and immaterial.." etc. these are all nice words but they're completely illogical and nonsensical. Can God be illogical? Sure. But you need to prove how you arrived at your conclusions with empirical evidence and/or reasonable argumentation for me to rationally accept these propositions. But like you said, that's impossible to prove.

The problem is language, which is obviously restricted if you try to describe sensations that are very real, but also if you are trying to describe something implicit. If God is that samadhi, that observer, which occurs or emerges in silence, when the thoughts are passing, the real you, but you are a localised part of him, how will you describe him other than with the unfitting words I used? What metaphor can we use for the ineffable?

Nevertheless, impossibility and divine hiddenness doesn't imply truth; in fact it implies the opposite. "It's impossible to know about it but it's there" is a terrible argument. I could give the exact same properties to fairies, leprechauns or Santa Claus. But just coming up with impossible properties and arbitrarily assigning them doesn't make Santa Claus any more real than he actually is. On top of all that, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable which means it's invalid.

However, when considered through your subjective lens, it's a viable system of belief and whichever subjective experiences it provides you, I'll take your word for it based on how I perceive your character rather than your provision of any reasonable proof.

In German, we say “das was wirkt ist wirklich,” meaning that which works is real, but in German the similarity of the words is indicative of the meaning. The many millennia of religious experience tell us that, under the circumstances that are necessary, faith works – just as meditation works under certain circumstances. There are many experiments that show that faith has a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of people, not predictively so, but under observation. You can’t go out and say, as some presumptuous Christians have sometimes tried, and say my faith will protect me from a viral illness, or from snakebites. Such presumptuous behaviour is not beneficial.

The primary discovery of religion is that maternal love is something that is inherent and not rational, and that love is something powerful above and beyond that maternal bond. It is, as far as I can tell, a sign that we are all joined in the supreme consciousness, which becomes apparent in meditation or prayer. It is alignment with that supreme consciousness that is the “kenosis,” the emptying of external differences, that Paul encouraged in his epistle. Of course, like meditation, you have to apply it to understand it, and even then, our understanding is limited. Your can see its effects, as Paul listed, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” but it is like beauty in the eye of the beholder.

About my church, I would have to go into how services are conducted, what words are said, what topics are chosen and why, what ceremony we may or may not be conducting that Sunday, what atmosphere is set, what music is played, what songs the congregation sings and the words of the song and much more... I could think about it but I'll leave this job to my Reverend. Part of what makes the experience Spiritual is the architecture of our church and that we do consider it a sacred place.

How do I prove this? That would be its own interesting conversation for another day because the current topic is not "How can you have Spiritual experiences if you're secular?"

But it's definitely more discussable and reconcilable than truly believing in both Biblical and Hindu metaphysics simultaneously.

Aha, so there is the point of contention. The fact I say that Advaita Vedanta and Christianity could have originally had a similar non-dual perspective, despite being culturally diverse, is a problem. I’ll go even further, I believe that just as I believe that all of life is part of a sacred Unity, all religion initially had a common starting ground, but became culturally diverse.

Even your “secular spirituality” I suspect, is part of that Unity and coming from that place without you realising it.

Okay, then we each have a different idea of music theory.

What is your idea of music theory and what is it used for?

I have always understood music theory to be a systematic study of the principles and elements that govern the creation, structure, and understanding of music, which provides a framework for analysing, composing, and interpreting music, and therefore encompasses a wide range of concepts and topics. It is this broad scope that I didn’t see incorporated in making music, especially considering that many modern musicians don’t even read music.

Regards

[Pattern-chaser]

Ok. But then I ask you: what is then the purpose of "unanalytic" philosophy? What philosophy does not seek to analyze and answer questions about humanity and the universe?

Philosophy that is not 'analytic' includes morals and ethics; religion, spirituality and belief; and those topics generally thrown into the 'sin-bin' we label "metaphysics". That's a start...

Can you give me a fairly precise definition of "continental" philosophy?

Because if you can't precisely define continental philosophy, then we once again face the unsavoury prospect of our conversation devolving into the circular and nonsensical, where continental and analytic mean everything and nothing all at once.

Do you believe that "analytic" and "continental" philosophy are opposites, that contradict one another?

I wonder what *you* mean by "continental" philosophy? For myself, I can do no better than to say it refers to a group of European philosophers from a particular period of modern history.

[Thomyum2]

Hey there! Thank you for welcoming me and thank you for your post I have to say that I disagree with some of your premises but I really like your post nonetheless! I like your open-mindedness towards other religions as well as respecting that people are not to be held by the morals of Christianity unless they're Christian. Nevertheless, you still express that you uphold (and live by?) the core tenets of the Bible such as the monotheistic God and the Ten Commandments. That's interesting!

You’re very welcome; I’m glad you found my post to be of interest and am happy to be able to continue the conversation. I learn a lot from discussing these things as it helps me greatly to better understand and articulate my own ideas. No problem that you disagree with some things I say, that’s to be expected, and even invited – one of my favorite sayings is ‘if two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary’!

Your new post has given me a lot think and talk about, but I’ll do my best to stick to the important points stay as concise as I can.

Something which irks me with many believers is that they don't have a balanced idea of their faiths and they do things that go against the tenets of the religions, sometimes starkly so! I don't understand the idea of truly believing that the Biblical God exists and simultaneously regularly breaching the Ten Commandments. That's so irrational. You appear like you understand the importance of following the core tenets of the religion you believe in. That's great.

I do think you’re correct in observing that faith is something that needs to be lived, not just believed. When I was considering becoming Catholic, a friend recommended to me that if I really wanted to know what the faith is all about, I should not just look to dogma or theology for answers, but rather should learn about the lives of the Saints, that I would gain a better understanding of the faith by learning how people have lived it rather than what particular tenets people espouse. Over time, this has proved to be valuable advice. The lives and writing of people such as St. Francis, Mother Theresa and Thomas Merton have been a big influence on me and have helped me understand more about faith than just studying the catechism or dogma would have. And that’s not to mention just meeting and talking with ordinary people about their own faith, which is also important.

However, like you said, according to the Bible, worshipping or even looking at other gods is a grave sin. So then that becomes a big logical inconsistency.
...
But because Yahweh would think otherwise according to the Bible, it becomes an irreconcilable logical rift to believe in both Christian and Hindu metaphysics.

That’s not what I said, but I think I see where you’re coming from. Let me say it a little differently and see if it makes more sense: for me, there is only one God - there are no ‘other gods’ to worship. The meaning of the first commandment is not that it’s a sin to worship God in a different manner or by a different name or as part of a different religion – it means that it’s a sin to worship false gods. In other words, we must not treat things are not God as if they were God. It’s an important distinction.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, there are different ‘conceptions’ of God, and persons of different faiths will describe God differently, use different names for God, even conceive God as being multiple entities rather than one. This does not mean that they are worshiping an ‘other god’, nor does it necessarily imply that they are worshipping a false god. (And conversely, just because someone is of the same faith as me does not mean they are not worshipping a false God – there are people who call themselves Christians who are clearly not following the same God that I am.)

What is or is not a ‘false god’ could be yet another whole discussion. In Biblical times, those false gods were referred to as ‘graven images’, the worship of which consisted in false beliefs that sacrifices to these could bring favors. But in modern times, I think of such things as power, wealth, pleasure, fame, pride, etc. – things we align ourselves or pursue that we imagine have the power to bring us fulfillment in life, but which ultimately can lead us away from what is good and right.

The one God I believe in is a God of Life, Truth, Love – that is not a different God from the God of other religions. Insofar as a person of another faith is living a life oriented to love and honesty and justice, then they are following that same God, regardless of how they speak of it. It can appear on the surface to be an ‘irreconcilable rift’ if you are looking at religion or scripture as a body of factual information about God. Rather, I see religion (all religion, not just Christianity) as the human response to God’s self-revelation to us, and scripture as the record of that revelation and its evolution over history. This is why I brought up the parable of the three blind men and the elephant, which I think is an excellent metaphor for understanding different faith traditions that may appear to contradict each other.

I think that it’s worth starting by examining the question itself as there are some interesting ideas here. My first thought is that nothing ‘makes’ me believe. Rather, I choose to believe, or perhaps more accurately I choose to have faith, which is I think is really more akin to an act of trusting that God exists rather than a decision to believe or think that God exists.

My problem with the choosing to believe is that many other people are choosing to believe in other religions and gods that are mutually-exclusive with Christianity, which is every religion other than perhaps Judaism. Every believer is convinced that their particular god is the true God just as you are convinced that Jesus Christ is the true God. As someone who is agnostic as to who's the real God, this does not convince me that the Biblical God is the true God.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment of my beliefs. I would rephrase it, in light of what I said above, to say: I do believe there is only one true God, and I have chosen to be part of that faith tradition and community in which Jesus Christ is central to how that one true God has revealed Himself. My belief does not imply that another person cannot encounter that same true God through a different faith or a different spiritual practice. Any one faith can be unique in what it offers and in what is revealed through it, without being exclusive. I do not see the world’s major faiths as being ‘mutually exclusive’. In my opinion, the divisions between peoples of different faiths are man-made thing and are not a necessary outcome of faith.

I have qualms with the concept of dogmatic faith. Faith is acceptance that a set of propositions is true based on bad evidence. I believe that one's epistemology is paramount to how their life will turn out. To the degree that we have any freewill, it is through a solid epistemology all the way from first principles in your mind down to action in the world and being logically-consistent through that whole chain of processes between belief and action. Because of this, I believe that accepting any kind of proposition based on bad evidence in one's subconscious can truly hurt someone.

First of all, I don’t think faith is about ‘propositions’ – faith is about that relationship with someone (or something, if you prefer) beyond ourselves. Propositions (or creeds or dogma) are statements by which people of a religion communicate in language a shared understandings of their experiences of that relationship. A discussion of the role of dogma would be best saved for another thread (or taken up with someone who has a better background in theology than I do), but I would just suggest for now that creed and dogma are meant to be statements of the core beliefs of a community and are of limited use if taken outside of the context of that community.

To your second point, I suppose there may be people who choose to believe something ‘based on bad evidence’. I certainly don't feel that I have done that. Perhaps ‘incomplete evidence’? I think of faith as being more akin to trust than to knowledge. There’s a game people sometimes play where one person will close their eyes and let themselves fall backwards and let another person catch them before they hit the floor - it’s an act of trust. Faith is kind of like that for me – everyone does need to reach a certain level of comfort with what you’re choosing, but at the same time, after a certain point you also need to let go and turn yourself over to another power greater than yourself and put yourself in their hands. Faith is, in a sense, an offering of oneself and one's life. In a way, it’s like a marriage (a metaphor that’s often used in scripture) where you agree to persevere ‘in good times and in bad times’, out of a commitment you make and not due to receiving proof that things will be a certain way with the person you are marrying. At the same time, I don’t think it has to mean that a person should give up their faculty of reason or their conscience or their commitment to the truth when they take that step.

The second thing I observe here is the phrase ‘the God of your religion’. This is a problematic way of looking at things for a person of monotheistic faith because, of course, there is only one God, there aren’t different gods for different religions. Rather, there are different human conceptions of what God is, or different ways that humans will express their experience of God, any of which will naturally have its limitations or shortcomings since humans are finite and limited beings. (The parable of the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.) But there is and can be only one God, and the purpose of faith is to come to know the one God, not to find the best or most correct conception about what God is. It hasn’t always been so, but I think that in this day and age, all the major faiths (or at least the ones that I take seriously) recognize that it is the one and same and only God that is revealed to all and is not an exclusive right belonging to any single faith tradition. Different religions may differ greatly in the way they relate to God and how they understand and describe that relationship, but they aren’t actually worshipping different gods.

Yes believing only in the Biblical God is rational if you are Christian, I agree with this.

I disagree that Gods of different faiths are the same true God. You could make the argument that Allah is the Biblical God, however, while Islam considers Jesus to be a holy prophet, they deny that he's God. And that's a stark problem. Either the Quran is right or the Bible is right about Jesus. Hinduism is a fascinating philosophy, theology and corpus of stories, however, the Hindu Gods are not the same as the Biblical God. Both the characterization of the Gods and the metaphysical propositions are at odds.

Nevertheless, this is something I heard a lot of people from different religions say: whichever form of God you worship, at the end of the day it's the one and only God that everyone is praying to. Perhaps there is something there and some merit to this argument. It'd be interesting to explore this idea and expand on it.

On the surface it may appear that different religions are at odds, but I think that if you look deeper into the faiths you would begin to find that this isn’t the case. I believe that the religions of the world are gradually beginning to understand this as well, though it sometimes seems to be a slow process. Really though, it’s only been in the last two hundred years or so that the world’s vastly different cultures and traditions have really started to come to know each other at more than a very superficial level.

For example, it might surprise you that what you’ve said here is the official position of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council in 1965 published its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, in which it stated that:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

However, I do acknowledge that there unfortunately are many people of various faiths who still focus on the differences between faiths rather than the similarities and are perhaps doing so because they gain some sense of pride or superiority in being able to think that they are right, and others are wrong. Or it may have something to do with the overly literal interpretation of scripture that many people cling to. Or perhaps nothing more than an insufficiently developed understanding of their own faith. Such people may be louder and more militant and thereby get more attention for their beliefs, but I don’t think they represent the majority of people of faith. Faith is a very individual matter and a chosen path that’s about establishing a relationship and aligning oneself with God, by whatever name you call Him, and should not be about elevating ourselves above other people. Personally, I try to adhere to the saying that ‘God’s job is to judge; my job is to love’. After all, I’ve known plenty of people of many faiths, or even of no faith at all, who have led far more exemplary lives than I have, so who am I to say what is right or wrong for them to believe.

The third point I’d make is that I agree with Pattern-chaser when he says that it’s not possible to prove, through logic or reason, that God exists. This is because God, as understood by all of the major faiths, is not a ‘contingent being’. God’s existence cannot be dependent upon any other things existing or occurring first, or otherwise God would not really be God but rather would just be another human idea. In more philosophical terminology, one could say that God’s existence is a premise, a foundational axiom, and not a conclusion that can be derived from other truths. There’s a quote, attributed to various people including Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola, that often comes to mind when I see this topic brought up: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.” And of course, how could it be otherwise if the most basic premise is not shared?

Taking the existence of God as a fundamental axiom makes sense if you're a believer.

I don't agree with this quote because I think that believers get "proof" of God's existence through their own subjective experiences. And on the other hand, I'm not anti-theist or atheist and I in fact want the existence of a good God and an eternal life in heaven to exist; so if good evidence is produced, I'll be the first to jump on it. There is definitely a level of good evidence that would persuade me and I would welcome it even though I'm currently not convinced.

I still maintain that there can be no proof of God’s existence - you can’t prove an axiom. Remember that all proofs take the form of ‘given a and b, then c’. Proofs can only derive truths from other truths – they can’t generate truths out of nothing. (Have you ever read Lewis Carroll’s essay “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles”?)

As for what level of evidence is necessary, well, that is a tricky matter for me because it introduces a lot of other questions such as what kinds of evidence you will accept, who gets to judge and interpret the evidence, how much is sufficient, what happens if new evidence comes up later, etc. As I said above, everyone needs to reach a certain level of comfort to make a choice to believe something – that I can relate to – so asking for some basic evidence is reasonable. If we were to wait for perfect evidence or proof, we’d be waiting a very long time. But if you are just looking for evidence that will give you that level of comfort to 'jump on it', then I'd just suggest doing as I did: don't look for extensive rational arguments about theological questions that may prove things to your mind, but rather, seek out and read or talk to people about the role that faith has played in their lives and let your heart guide you as to whether or not that is a good thing for you. Faith is more about the heart than the mind - the mind will always go on doubting and looking for proof.

At the risk of failing to remain concise, I’ll share a quote with you that meant a lot to me when I was first beginning the process of becoming a Catholic, that I think captures this idea so well. This is from Graham Greene’s novel Monsignor Quixote, describing a dream that the title character has just awakened from:

He had dreamt that Christ had been saved from the Cross by the legion of angels to which on an earlier occasion the Devil had told Him that he could appeal. So there was no final agony, no heavy stone which had to be rolled away, no discovery of an empty tomb. Father Quixote stood there watching on Golgotha as Christ stepped down from the Cross triumphant and acclaimed. The Roman soldiers, even the centurion, knelt in His honor, and the people of Jerusalem poured up the hill to worship Him. The disciples clustered happily around. His mother smiled through her tears of joy. There was no ambiguity, no room for doubt and no room for faith at all. The whole world knew with certainty that Christ was the Son of God. It was only a dream . . . but nonetheless Father Quixote had felt on waking the chill of despair felt by a man who realizes suddenly that he has taken up a profession which is of use to no one, who must continue to live in a kind of Saharan desert without doubt or faith, where everyone is certain that the same belief is true.

Here's the problem: if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, that means he wants everyone to go to heaven and he has the ultimate power to do so. He could so easily show up once just to guarantee that a maximal amount of people will follow the Bible and go to heaven. Just once for 5 minutes would be enough but he doesn't. It's illogical that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God never shows up to everyone even just once for a gentle push in the right direction.

Never shows up? That I’d disagree with. In addition to omnipotent and omnibenevolent, God is also omnipresent. God doesn’t ‘show up’ because God is always there, all around us – it is not God’s failure if we are the ones who fail to recognize that. The spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola speaks to this, that our spiritual path should be one that leads us to find and recognize God in all things. I think we’re all of us receiving lots of gentle pushes (and some not so gentle) in the right direction all time.

And in terms of faith, again I personally have a big issue with the concept for the reasons I explained above. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe faith is good. Care to expand on why you believe faith is good?

When you talk about someone led by their heart (courage and kindness) and core principles and that this is the door to cultivating a relationship with God, this may be surprising but I believe in this very deeply. My version of this argument is just semantically different because it's secular (I would swap the words "God" with "the greatest good" and "religion" with "ontology" but it's essentially to the exact same effect. I think this principle is fundamentally true about the human condition. I call that Eudaimonia. It's interesting to reach the same conclusion and destination coming from fairly different starting assumptions

Yes, for me faith is good for many reasons, too many to list here. Maybe to say it in a nutshell, faith has been good for me because it has helped me to better see the beauty and the good in creation and in other people, and thereby has helped me to be more patient and understanding and forgiving. In short, I'd say that I hope it has helped me to be a better person and live a better life.

I have no objection to your substitution of “the greatest good” for “God”, and I don’t think that’s such a different starting point at all.

As for the other questions and issues you’ve brought up here, they are all thoughtful points well worthy of further exploration. I do find it a little difficult to keep up in a public forum where it seems like discussions get taken in a lot of different directions at once, and I am also sometimes reluctant to share things that are of a more personal nature that accompany these topics. But I’d certainly enjoy continuing a conversation on the thread or you’re welcome to send me a private message if it’s of interest. Thanks for your posts.

I understand. Sure we can do PM. I am interested in getting your takes re: the problem of evil, freewill and arguments in favour of faith etc. I also would like to hear about your Spiritual experiences.

Talk to you later then.

Seems like I’ve been typing far too much here, so hopefully I haven’t been rambling or sounding like I’m preaching and I’ve at least addressed of few of your questions. Do feel free to PM me or start a new thread if you’d like and I’ll continue the discussion as best as I’m able to!

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

Philosophy that is not 'analytic' includes morals and ethics; religion, spirituality and belief; and those topics generally thrown into the 'sin-bin' we label "metaphysics". That's a start...

Metaphysics is not a "sin-bin." Whoever says that knows nothing about philosophy (which unfortunately includes some great scientists but also terrible philosophers who sound like they got their PhDs from a newspaper ad). Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy which deals with questions often unanswerable in the time they are formulated, or difficult to answer.

But once again "difficult" doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Often, with further discovery and advancement in science, questions previously considered metaphysical become answered and often proved to in fact be physical in nature. Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy and it is integral to science.

It's only woo woo when some unsavoury people try to to equate their unproven, nonsense magic like clairvoyance, ability to talk with the dead and telekinesis to "metaphysics" in order to make their woo woo appear legitimate. These people often also use "Quantum physics" as "proof" of their woo woo because real Quantum Mechanics is difficult to understand for most, and so they get away with disinformation. That's the only time when metaphysics is delegitimized and a "sin-bin" as you called it, but that's because these charlatans are not talking about real metaphysics.

Morals and ethics are ALL about analysis! There's all kinds of analyses and debates about what makes the best ethical paradigm and the nature of morals and all kinds of other questions. You and I had some exchanges about ethical analysis in our conversation.

Belief would be epistemology which deals with different systems of knowledge and a dedication to finding the best ones. All analytic stuff.

Same with everything else you mentioned. Spirituality and religion, that's mainly theology (a sub-branch of metaphysics). Why do you think there are hundreds of different Christian denominations? That's because different people all analyze and interpret the same text differently... Then there are other religions altogether who analyze and interpret epistemology, ontology, ethics, physics and metaphysics altogether differently.

Can you give me a fairly precise definition of "continental" philosophy?

Because if you can't precisely define continental philosophy, then we once again face the unsavoury prospect of our conversation devolving into the circular and nonsensical, where continental and analytic mean everything and nothing all at once.

Do you believe that "analytic" and "continental" philosophy are opposites, that contradict one another?

No they don't contradict each other and that's exactly my problem: "analytic" philosophy is a misnomer. "Continental" and "analytic" philosophies by far and large overlap and pose the same fundamental questions every philosopher has asked since the dawn of time.

I wonder what *you* mean by "continental" philosophy? For myself, I can do no better than to say it refers to a group of European philosophers from a particular period of modern history.

By dictionary definition, the opposite of "analytic" philosophy is "continental" philosophy. But that is a problem because as mentioned above they largely overlap to be the point of meaninglessness. In fact I couldn't give you a better distinction than what you gave. I'd just add that analytic philosophy seeks to address the same issues as any other philosophy, humanity and the universe, by taking into account the scientific discoveries and answers to metaphysical questions that were previously unresolved in Aristotle's or Spinoza's time.... But that's a minor detail: it's still the same philosophical methods being used because these methods are as true as truth can get regardless of new discoveries. You might as well call it "modern" philosophy or something but even that would be a misnomer.

Hence why I made the point that "analytic" philosophy is not even worth mentioning. The point of philosophy is to pose questions and find answers using logic and reason. As the Stoics say: the nature of plants is orientation towards the sun, the nature of animals is instinct, and the nature of humans is logic and reason. All philosophy is analytic to its very core.

Blessed Be.

[Pattern-chaser]

Philosophy that is not 'analytic' includes morals and ethics; religion, spirituality and belief; and those topics generally thrown into the 'sin-bin' we label "metaphysics". That's a start...

Metaphysics is not a "sin-bin." Whoever says that knows nothing about philosophy (which unfortunately includes some great scientists but also terrible philosophers who sound like they got their PhDs from a newspaper ad). Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy which deals with questions often unanswerable in the time they are formulated, or difficult to answer.

But once again "difficult" doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Often, with further discovery and advancement in science, questions previously considered metaphysical become answered and often proved to in fact be physical in nature. Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy and it is integral to science.

It's only woo woo when some unsavoury people try to to equate their unproven, nonsense magic like clairvoyance, ability to talk with the dead and telekinesis to "metaphysics" in order to make their woo woo appear legitimate. These people often also use "Quantum physics" as "proof" of their woo woo because real Quantum Mechanics is difficult to understand for most, and so they get away with disinformation. That's the only time when metaphysics is delegitimized and a "sin-bin" as you called it, but that's because these charlatans are not talking about real metaphysics.

I tend to agree. I would add that some metaphysical matters are not resolvable, and never will be. Lacking evidence, there can be no formal analysis, and therefore no conclusions can be reached. But even so, consideration of such issues leads to interesting insights, sometimes.

There are some who say that if a topic cannot be investigated using science, it is unworthy of any sort of serious consideration, and need not be considered by serious thinkers. It is from this viewpoint that the image of metaphysics as a 'sin-bin' emerges. I am diametrically opposed to this way of thinking, but that hasn't made it go away yet...

As for topics like clairvoyance, et al, I think they warrant some sort of consideration. I would never fault someone for trying to investigate them. I would fault them if they used inappropriate, invalid or incorrect reasoning to imbue their theories with authority that is not justified. Given the status metaphysics has in philosophy as a whole — not much, sadly — I don't think it would do anyone's pet theory much good to call it metaphysics.

But I'm not very keen on a sort of general dismissal of loads of different ideas as "woo woo". Too easy then, IMO, to throw out babies with bath-water. I don't think any idea can be adequately considered at the same time as loads of others, all gathered together, to be dismissed together.

Finally, QM is difficult to understand, and it can be misused to justify things that aren't justifiable. But it can also be used to dismiss ideas we don't like, by pretending that they aren't underpinned by a theory too complex for most to understand, when perhaps they are. QM is a two-edged sword, in that regard.

By dictionary definition, the opposite of "analytic" philosophy is "continental" philosophy.

I wasn't aware of that. It seems "Continental" has been redefined to mean "non-Analytic", which is bad for all concerned. I think "analytic" is a useful catch-all term to describe philosophers who tend toward science, objectivity (or Objectivity), logic, and maybe determinism. Given that it is useful, I suppose I can also see use for a term that described philosophers who are not 'analytic'. But "Continental"? Really? Silliness, IMO.

Here is the informal definition of analytic philosophy I posted previously:

...one could draw the boundaries of analytic philosophy by focusing on some family traits: a positive attitude toward scientific knowledge, a cautious attitude toward metaphysics, a conception of philosophy as a conceptual task, a close relationship between language and philosophy, a concern with offering arguments to answer philosophical questions, and a search for conceptual clarity.

But then, I wonder why you have focussed on this pair of complements? To what extent do they contribute to this topic about God and Her possible existence?

Blessed Be.

Namaste.

[Stoppelmann]

By dictionary definition, the opposite of "analytic" philosophy is "continental" philosophy.

I wasn't aware of that. It seems "Continental" has been redefined to mean "non-Analytic", which is bad for all concerned. I think "analytic" is a useful catch-all term to describe philosophers who tend toward science, objectivity (or Objectivity), logic, and maybe determinism. Given that it is useful, I suppose I can also see use for a term that described philosophers who are not 'analytic'. But "Continental"? Really? Silliness, IMO.

The division between continental and analytic philosophy is not always clear-cut, and many contemporary philosophers draw from both traditions. However, there are general differences in style and focus, with analytic philosophy often emphasizing clarity, precision, and the analysis of language, while continental philosophy tends to explore broader existential, social, and cultural themes.

A proper scepticism, it should be remembered, applies not just to discerning the limits of intuitions, as it almost always seems to do nowadays, but to discerning the limits of analysis, analysis, as it rarely, if ever, does any more. ‘Over the last century’, writes Hart,

Anglo-American philosophy has for the most part adopted and refined the methods of ‘analytic’ reasoning, often guided by the assumption that this is a form of thinking more easily purged of unexamined inherited presuppositions than is the ‘continental’ tradition. This is an illusion. Analytic method is dependent upon a number of tacit assumptions that cannot be verified in their turn by analysis: regarding the relation between language and reality, or the relation between language and thought, or the relation between thought and reality’s disclosure of itself, or the nature of probability and possibility, or the sorts of claims that can be certified as ‘meaningful’, and so on.
In the end, analytic philosophy is no purer and no more rigorous than any other style of philosophizing. At times, in fact, it functions as an excellent vehicle for avoiding thinking intelligently at all; and certainly no philosophical method is more apt to hide its own most arbitrary metaphysical dogmas, most egregious crudities, and most obvious flaws from itself, and no other is so likely to mistake a descent into oversimplification for an advance in clarity. As always, the rules determine the game and the game determines the rules. (Hart 2013)

Trying to understand religion purely analytically is hardly more likely to be effective than trying to understand Schubert by doing a statistical breakdown of the frequency of particular notes, their lengths, and so on.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1979-1980). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

But continental philosophy is a broad and diverse tradition, and there is no single set of doctrines or ideas that all continental philosophers adhere to. Instead, it encompasses a variety of perspectives and approaches to philosophical inquiry. For example, Existentialism is a prominent movement within continental philosophy, focusing on questions related to human existence, freedom, choice, and meaning. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche are often associated with existentialist thought.

We also cannot forget Phenomenology. Edmund Husserl is considered the founder of phenomenology, and later thinkers like Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty further developed this approach, which involves a rigorous examination of conscious experience and the structures of consciousness. Perhaps related to this is Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation, particularly in relation to texts and human understanding. Thinkers like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur made significant contributions to hermeneutical philosophy.

These are areas that are relatively new to me, but my recent investigation shows that it is very necessary, and the metaphorically "left-hemispheric" analytical thinking needs the broader scope of the equally metaphorical "right hemisphere" to form a holistic view of existence.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

In German, we say “das was wirkt ist wirklich,” meaning that which works is real, but in German the similarity of the words is indicative of the meaning. The many millennia of religious experience tell us that, under the circumstances that are necessary, faith works – just as meditation works under certain circumstances. There are many experiments that show that faith has a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of people, not predictively so, but under observation. You can’t go out and say, as some presumptuous Christians have sometimes tried, and say my faith will protect me from a viral illness, or from snakebites. Such presumptuous behaviour is not beneficial.

I'm not going to be very comprehensive here.

The reason I've been absent is that I've got my answer.... Not THE answer, no one has THE answer. But I got the answer for which I posted the question. And my life has changed from it.

I wish I had more friends like you. I like your logically-consistent beliefs which are also very researched. Some of my friends have these beliefs of Satan and the such that are just literally ruining their lives... Especially women... I'm trying to be gentle and get the message across that you should believe in logically-consistent things, (Satan isn't one of them lol), or you will burn with your beliefs (such is a huge possible pitfall of "faith" in religion). Beliefs are a BIG deal.

Still trying to figure out who you are. Here's what I got: German/Swiss doctor or nurse

But yeah, you're pretty solid, so that's good stuff.

Faith is for some people... Well most people in the world... For me I'm obsessed with truth and knowing. I'll never know but I'll never stop trying to know. When I have stopped, got complacent and developed faith based on bad evidence, bad **** has happened.

But it's definitely more discussable and reconcilable than truly believing in both Biblical and Hindu metaphysics simultaneously.
Aha, so there is the point of contention. The fact I say that Advaita Vedanta and Christianity could have originally had a similar non-dual perspective, despite being culturally diverse, is a problem. I’ll go even further, I believe that just as I believe that all of life is part of a sacred Unity, all religion initially had a common starting ground, but became culturally diverse.

Good theory!

Even your “secular spirituality” I suspect, is part of that Unity and coming from that place without you realising it.

You don't have to suspect, that's exactly what's happening! The mechanism is the same... No God required.

Okay, then we each have a different idea of music theory.

Ah! Doubt me despite my internet handle, how could you?

I have always understood music theory to be a systematic study of the principles and elements that govern the creation, structure, and understanding of music, which provides a framework for analysing, composing, and interpreting music, and therefore encompasses a wide range of concepts and topics. It is this broad scope that I didn’t see incorporated in making music, especially considering that many modern musicians don’t even read music.

Well here's the thing... Reading music is like 5% if not less of music theory... So of course most of the greatest modern musicians don't "read" music... Even then, I don't "read" music, at least not fluently. I haven't practised in decades, I can't do what you call "sight-reading"; that is I can't look at sheet music these days and play a piece for you as I play... But in 2023 (2024 AHEM), that's a fairly useless skill unless you need to play a lot of Classical or Church music... Consider that The Beatles is the most successful musical act in history, did they know how to read music? Probably not... Did they know how to string chords together according to a mode? Absolutely (Beatles even knew Eastern exotic modes)! 99% of good modern musician knows relevant theory, even those who just play by "feeling" (they still know pentatonic scale in and out). This includes Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, Demi Lovato, Spice Girls, Ariana Grande, Rick Rubin, Bob Rock, of course Dream Theater, Metallica, Slayer, Rush etc. etc.

People who are very versed in music theory AND ear training can "see" music.

There's a reason why C D E F G A B are "natural" notes. They reflect common sounds of nature and the sound frequencies that vibrate with our brains the easiest. C D E F G A B are the notes for C Natural Major. This is why 99% of pop songs are from this key (with F# added here and there).

If you're mathematically inclined, the Harmonic Series may give you some insights about how music works on our brains (and thus our minds). It's not magic, it's math, physics and biology that makes music sound good (and neuroscience and psychology and sociology, yes... But at the base, it's just math, physics and biology).

Merry Christmas!

Cheers.

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

I tend to agree. I would add that some metaphysical matters are not resolvable, and never will be. Lacking evidence, there can be no formal analysis, and therefore no conclusions can be reached. But even so, consideration of such issues leads to interesting insights, sometimes.

There are some who say that if a topic cannot be investigated using science, it is unworthy of any sort of serious consideration, and need not be considered by serious thinkers. It is from this viewpoint that the image of metaphysics as a 'sin-bin' emerges. I am diametrically opposed to this way of thinking, but that hasn't made it go away yet...

Yeah agreed... Guys like Stephen Hawking were wrong when he said "Philosophy is dead," more like he was dead wrong.

I don't know if there are things that will never be known. Could our ancestors 2500 BC understand that you and I could talk to each other, potentially 1000s of miles away without ever having seen each other in person? (Well that's what they called telepathy lol). I do understand it's not a 1:1 about unknowable truths... Like God... The existence of God is unknowable... But I do really hope that eventually we advance far enough that we know.

As for topics like clairvoyance, et al, I think they warrant some sort of consideration. I would never fault someone for trying to investigate them. I would fault them if they used inappropriate, invalid or incorrect reasoning to imbue their theories with authority that is not justified. Given the status metaphysics has in philosophy as a whole — not much, sadly — I don't think it would do anyone's pet theory much good to call it metaphysics

Agreed. However, there are incredibly simple tests for all these esoteric phenomena and none has ever passed in 200 years of enlightenment... For example clairvoyance: I'll hide a 6-figure digit locked in my drawer, use your clairvoyance to identify the number. No one ever guessed that. "Clairvoyance" that works at random for certain things and fails for most things is not clairvoyance.

But I'm not very keen on a sort of general dismissal of loads of different ideas as "woo woo". Too easy then, IMO, to throw out babies with bath-water. I don't think any idea can be adequately considered at the same time as loads of others, all gathered together, to be dismissed together.

Yes I absolutely agree with this! For example religious metaphorical truths are easily thrown with the bathwater and we gotta be super careful when doing this!! I don't what the answer is between looking square at the hard facts of physics and retaining the wisdom of the ancient ancestors... Maybe to let logic, courage and morality guide you... But even that is ambiguous..

Finally, QM is difficult to understand, and it can be misused to justify things that aren't justifiable. But it can also be used to dismiss ideas we don't like, by pretending that they aren't underpinned by a theory too complex for most to understand, when perhaps they are. QM is a two-edged sword, in that regard.

IMO that's a wrong framing... Quantum Mechanics can't be use to justify anything unjustifiable, it's just that crooks pretend to use its principles when they only use the name. They don't anything about it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how you can use Quantum Mechanics to discard ideas that are true. It's real science. It can't contradict oxygen or that the human body is mostly made of water.

I wasn't aware of that. It seems "Continental" has been redefined to mean "non-Analytic", which is bad for all concerned. I think "analytic" is a useful catch-all term to describe philosophers who tend toward science, objectivity (or Objectivity), logic, and maybe determinism. Given that it is useful, I suppose I can also see use for a term that described philosophers who are not 'analytic'. But "Continental"? Really? Silliness, IMO.

There's no philosophy that's non-analytic. You mentioned ethics/morality as a "non-analytic" philosophy a post or two ago. Ethics/Morality is SUPER analytic... I'm deeply invested into Ethics/Morality... To me Morality is the meaning of human life (I'll post a good thread about that sometime soon)

But then, I wonder why you have focussed on this pair of complements? To what extent do they contribute to this topic about God and Her possible existence?

I haven't focused on that. This was a definition from an encyclopedia just to clarify. Definitions are always primordial in complex discussions, especially philosophical ones.

Blessed Be.

Namaste.

We made it yet another wonderful year
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[Lagayascienza]

Interesting discussion on belief in God, Philosophy_of_Guitar and Stoppelmann. And I was especially interested to read that so many pop songs are in C major with an accidental here and there. And that the notes of the C major scale are what we commonly hear in nature. I feel it is a "happier", "easier" key than some others.