Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dark Matter wrote:The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.

The same "knowingness" that has been touted by countless mystics throughout history. It was huge in the 60s and 70s, with some gurus gaining a high profile as a result.

Obviously there is something to be gained from stillness/surrender but one would generally expect its proponents to display greater wisdom than usual - more indifference to status, less ego, more patience, more kindness, sweetness and gentleness ...

Let's take a look at Post #56, anyway.

Did you know that Descartes was something of a mystic? Let's take a look at that post with this in mind and rewrite accordingly:

In the Meditations Descartes ascribes both perfection and goodness to God. These ideas, according to Descartes, are to be found in our minds, but human affections are not to be ascribed to Deity. As to what God can and ought to do he claims that he cannot be deceived about everything, but he also admits to his own finitude. He goes on to construct his Deity from the fact of his own existence, that is, with the vigor and wisdom of his own mind -- which fits nicely with the idea of a human being being the relating of a relation relating to itself. He goes on to prove the existence of God based on the ascription of perfection, the idea of which he claims can only come from a being that is a perfect-referential system.

I repeat: to affirm God is as atheistic as to deny God because either assertion makes one extraneous to God.

Fooloso4 wrote:

In the Meditations Descartes ascribes both perfection and goodness to God. These ideas, according to Descartes, are to be found in our minds. In other words, they are human affections that he ascribes to Deity. As to what God can and ought to do he claims that he cannot be deceived about everything because that would contrary to his goodness. He goes on to construct his Deity from the fact of his own existence, that is, with the vigor and wisdom of his own mind. He goes on to prove the existence of God based on the ascription of perfection, the idea of which he claims can only come from a being that is perfect. A philosopher of his stature surely knows how weak and unfounded this claim is. If we reject the claim that the idea of perfection must come from something that is perfect and see through his necessary defensive rhetoric we are left with Descartes’ veiled declaration of his own atheism.

Is a person an atheist if she believes in the integrity of man's quest to establish the immanent god?

Descartes was a philosopher and mathematician, and there are various quests to establish the immanent god. Most quests unlike Descartes' have been obscure ones.

Greta wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being i?tself without the mediation of ideas.

The same "knowingness" that has been touted by countless mystics throughout history. It was huge in the 60s and 70s, with some gurus gaining a high profile as a result.

Obviously there is something to be gained from stillness/surrender but one would generally expect its proponents to display greater wisdom than usual - more indifference to status, less ego, more patience, more kindness, sweetness and gentleness ...

Why? Why do you expect any god worthy of the title to behave like your personal butler? You said you were religious at one time. What do you think was meant by, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"?

Let go of your expectations and you won't be disappointed.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 6:08 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote:
Is a person an atheist if she believes in the integrity of man's quest to establish the immanent god?

Descartes was a philosopher and mathematician, and there are various quests to establish the immanent god. Most quests unlike Descartes' have been obscure ones.

Unlike other mystics, Descartes' made the mistake of thinking he could find cognitive certainty.

Dark Matter wrote:

Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

The same "knowingness" that has been touted by countless mystics throughout history. It was huge in the 60s and 70s, with some gurus gaining a high profile as a result.

Obviously there is something to be gained from stillness/surrender but one would generally expect its proponents to display greater wisdom than usual - more indifference to status, less ego, more patience, more kindness, sweetness and gentleness ...

Why? Why do you expect any god worthy of the title to behave like your personal butler? You said you were religious at one time. What do you think was meant by, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"?

Let go of your expectations and you won't be disappointed.

My expectations are not of deities but the humans who speak of the benefits of belief.

Further, I didn't invent that expectation. It's often been claimed throughout history that the enlightened are imbued with the kinds of qualities mentioned above, not because they are weak but because they are relaxed, calm and contented. What qualities do you believe enlightenment (or equivalent) would imbue?

Fanman -

In my opinion, atheism is built on pretty firm foundations. Well, as firm as can be had considering the fact that we're fallible . Critical thinking allows one to find contradictions, there may be some contradictions in atheistic theories, but in my experience, they are only contradicted by anecdotal accounts; not massive holes in their logic. As we have it, the evidence supports atheism, there's no empirical evidence for the existence of God or any other supernatural entities. Does this mean that they don't exist, I don't know. I find that relying on our senses and human capabilities to interpret the nature of reality is a double-edged sword. In that its a mistake to rely on them completely, and a mistake to rule them out completely.

I think this is right. It's a good working hypothesis.

It's also almost certainly right we don't understand much at all in the scheme of things, maybe we aren't even capable of more than a distorted perception or understanding of a tiny fraction of reality. And as critters with a need for understanding, for a meaningful and coherent model or narrative, we make stuff up which feels right, satisfies less tangible needs, our existential angst. Materialism does a good practical job of making the world manageable, religious faith fulfils a need to make the world more psychologically manageable.

Fanman wrote:Atheist myths? I think that atheistic “beliefs” are strongly supported by evidence or at least evidence-based.

Sigh.... I guess no matter how many times I address this nobody is going to get it. Ok, so I suck as a writer, we have evidence of that. If this is an insufficient answer, please see my previous 17,398 posts on this topic.

Ormond said,

Making things complicated is how experts maintain their status as experts. Anybody who is famous probably got that way by telling a lot of people what they want to hear. Many of us like glorious stories of profound transformation, so some people tell those stories. I'm not saying all this talk is wrong, only that it seems like rather a distraction from the far simpler business of learning how to manage the volume controls.

That is a nice thought, Ormond! Will you allow a personal musing to compliment what you are saying: “It is sad to think we live in a world where people think they worship the Lord, but in actuality they have deified the labyrinth of their own mind and the shrewd exploit this.”

Gertie wrote:Fanman -

In my opinion, atheism is built on pretty firm foundations. Well, as firm as can be had considering the fact that we're fallible :) . Critical thinking allows one to find contradictions, there may be some contradictions in atheistic theories, but in my experience, they are only contradicted by anecdotal accounts; not massive holes in their logic. As we have it, the evidence supports atheism, there's no empirical evidence for the existence of God or any other supernatural entities. Does this mean that they don't exist, I don't know. I find that relying on our senses and human capabilities to interpret the nature of reality is a double-edged sword. In that its a mistake to rely on them completely, and a mistake to rule them out completely.

I think this is right. It's a good working hypothesis.

It's also almost certainly right we don't understand much at all in the scheme of things, maybe we aren't even capable of more than a distorted perception or understanding of a tiny fraction of reality. And as critters with a need for understanding, for a meaningful and coherent model or narrative, we make stuff up which feels right, satisfies less tangible needs, our existential angst. Materialism does a good practical job of making the world manageable, religious faith fulfils a need to make the world more psychologically manageable.

Largely agreed.

If materialism/monism brings practical benefits and religion/dualism provides emotional benefits, what might philosophy bring to the table? Is philosophy being squeezed out of the public conversation by science, as has been claimed by Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson?

I personally see a place for philosophy in the modern world as conducting meta analyses of all the material that's on the table - research findings, history and natural history, culture, myths, subjective accounts, math, whatever - and considering where the relationships and connections may lie. I haven't run this thought past anyone before. Does it make sense?

Toadny wrote:

Whitedragon wrote:So many debates gravitate around the degrading of the Lord. In our attempts to disprove him or discredit him, we find some satisfaction. These questions and accusations bring us to a new question, what has he actually done wrong?

Ok, I've got a bit of a list:

1. Bushbabies. I don't know about the rest of you but to me those eyes are just too fecking big and I don't like the way they look at you one little bit.

2. Those monkeys or baboons with the red and blue bottoms. He must have been pulling our plonkers there I reckon.

3. Actually animals generally are probably a bit of a cock-up on His part. I sit down for a quiet dinner with the Missus, put a nature programme on TV and before you can even take a mouthful one of the little feckers will be defecating all over the place (hippopotamus) or tearing the head off of a duck (badgers do this). It's all very unpleasant and so unnecessary.

I have to go now but I'll be back with more regrettable animals later this evening.

Toadny, that was an amusing list, but watching people’s behaviour is stranger than all the disturbing visuals you can name. For instance, the stupidest little things often cause the biggest problems; have you ever been among people fighting and you notice the solution is so simple, but for some reason they are like lobsters in a bucket; before one gets out, the others pull it back.

Whitedragon wrote: “It is sad to think we live in a world where people think they worship the Lord, but in actuality they have deified the labyrinth of their own mind and the shrewd exploit this.”

Well, ok, thanks for sharing but...

Are you worshiping "The Lord"?

Or are you worshiping your ideas about "The Lord?"

You seem pretty attached to an extensive collection of opinions about "The Lord" so it seems reasonable for others to question whether you might be doing just what you seem to be implying others are doing, "deifying the labyrinth of your own mind".

Perhaps it is sad that you are confusing others with that person you see in the mirror?

Ormond wrote:

Whitedragon wrote: “It is sad to think we live in a world where people think they worship the Lord, but in actuality they have deified the labyrinth of their own mind and the shrewd exploit this.”

Well, ok, thanks for sharing but...

Are you worshiping "The Lord"?

Or are you worshiping your ideas about "The Lord?"

You seem pretty attached to an extensive collection of opinions about "The Lord" so it seems reasonable for others to question whether you might be doing just what you seem to be implying others are doing, "deifying the labyrinth of your own mind".

Perhaps it is sad that you are confusing others with that person you see in the mirror?

You are right when you refer to the mirror, Ormond, this is personal experience. To clarify, we should be spending time finding peace or the “off button,” as you put it, but instead we focus on our worries. Therefore, the question begs, are we worshiping our deities or the confusion and stresses in our minds? Why do religious people go back every time to their place of worship, to focus/worship on their worries or to find peace in the actual religion/deity?

Dark Matter wrote:

Unlike other mystics, Descartes' made the mistake of thinking he could find cognitive certainty.

It's because he was an honest rationalist. Together with his inauguration of scepticism , if he had been a thorough-going empiricist he'd have accepted uncertainty.

Dark Matter:

Straw man. Where was his assessment wrong in the quote? It's nothing different than what I've said time and time again.

Straw man? It was not his assessment that is wrong, it is that you are wrong in thinking that he supports your position:

#221:
It is clear that atheists here do not reject God, but an image of a being alongside other beings. They fear appearing as weak, insecure and irrational, so they project those feelings onto believers to convince themselves that they are not being foolish. This kind of projection and stereotyping would be laughable if wasn't so sad.
#231:
Any example of atheists thinking differently?

You have supplied your own example by citing Descartes.

When you say:

The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.

Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself is an idea. It is, to use Descartes language, an affection. Do not confuse his use of the term with other uses, an affection is an attribute.

I repeat: to affirm God is as atheistic as to deny God because either assertion makes one extraneous to God.

You are affirming God but denying that God is a being. To say that God is Being itself is an affirmation. It is an affirmation that atheists familiar with this claim reject. You attempt to defend your beliefs by building your own straw man. You attempt to isolate your beliefs from criticism by limiting atheism to a rejection of God as a being, and thus think that you have saved your God because your God is not a being.

Did you know that Descartes was something of a mystic? Let's take a look at that post with this in mind and rewrite accordingly

What textual basis do you have to claim that Descartes was “something of a mystic”? Rather than examining whether what I say is consistent with the text you arbitrarily rewrite it according to what you want him to be saying. When you rewrite you are no longer quoting, so you should not be using quotations.

Belindi:

Is a person an atheist if she believes in the integrity of man's quest to establish the immanent god?

Descartes does not establish an immanent god, he claims that the idea of God is immanent, that the idea of something perfect can only come from something perfect. It is a weak argument, but it serves his purpose, that is, to avoid censure for his heresy - the perfectibility of man.

You are affirming God but denying that God is a being.

If God is everything everywhere (a single unified reality), then God would exist, but not as a "being" ie. something separate and distinct.

So why call it "God" someone is probably about to ask? Indeed. Why call it anything, because any word we might use will imply separation and division, such is the nature of nouns. Even the definition "everything" suggests a collection of things.

All such discussions are built upon the highly speculative almost laughable unproven assumption that the highly imperfect reasoning powers of a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies are adequate to analyze and discuss the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God proposals.

It's not this or that conclusion within the God debate that is irrational.

It's the debate itself.

Until our esteemed fellow members get that, they will be condemned to travel endlessly round and round the same little circle to no useful effect.

Given that most members here are pretty intelligent, and that this has been explained about 1,000 times and never been refuted, we can come to a new theory.

We aren't actually interested in the God subject at all. We're interested in the experience of nerdy head butting. If that is true, that would help explain why we never make any progress on the topic itself. We aren't interested in the topic, and don't want to make any progress on it, because progress might threaten the head butting game.