Philosophy Discussion Forums

Gertie: I understand why what I say seems to you to be evasive, vague and even mundane. I don't expect anything else. That's because whatever I say misses the mark. The problem is that religion and religious values are intensely personal and transcend human language. It's like trying to describe a Van Gogh to a blind person.

I'll try, anyway, but right now I gotta go.

Dark Matter wrote:Gertie: I understand why what I say seems to you to be evasive, vague and even mundane. I don't expect anything else. That's because whatever I say misses the mark. The problem is that religion and religious values are intensely personal and transcend human language. It's like trying to describe a Van Gogh to a blind person.

I'll try, anyway, but right now I gotta go.

Fair enough.

I understand the position of people trying to articulate what for them is something ineffable, and the role of analogy (as I said I've had religion myself), my suspicion is that it's difficult because it has to remain unarticulated as when it's broken down it loses that sense of numinous otherness. The mystery evaporates.

I do agree that religion is intensely personal, there are as many religions as there are people in a sense. I think it's part of what I was alluding to, projecting our beliefs and psychological needs onto something flexible, powerful and mysterious (analogous) enough to give them the context which feels appropriate. Religion as rorschach if you like.

But I appreciate you giving it a fair go, and I'll try to keep an open mind.

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: Now, to summarize the whole argument in eight statements:

1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. But my nonexistence is possible, for I am not a necessary being but one that changes or comes to be.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing.
7. This infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing being is what is meant by a theistic god.
8. Therefore, a theistic god exists.

You are simply stating you believe in an unmoved mover, that this unmoved mover has to be 'God' as described in the bible, and that you believe that it is a given that it can not be any other way. The problem is your trying to explain a good part of the unexplainable with what you think is or isn't possible and you more or less end up with a circular argument because you simply assume there can not be any other way that it be. What is 'existence' and how is it caused? What is 'God' and how can we know that he or perhaps some God-like beings exist? Can there be an infinite regress and if there can not be why is that so? Can 'God' be some monster such as some of the evil gods described by Lovecraft? Can a universe be created by a near infinite number of impersonal seemly unimportant processes instead of my a God, and if not why is that so? If it is possible for there to be a unmoved mover, or something that isn't caused by anything else, why can't there other things that exist that where uncaused? Why does there have to be only one 'unmoved/mover' other than multiple unmoved/movers might be too complicated or make us uncomfortable? In short you are jumping to a conclusion as to what may be the explanation to one or more non-trival problems that have yet to be solved without realizing there is likely an infinite number of ways it may actually be than the way that you think it is.

Perhaps you may want to look up 'turtles all the way down', 'Münchhausen trilemma', and 'Circular argument' to better understand some of the problems with your argument. Also a few sci-fi books or movies might help as well to help expand your mind .

Renee wrote:
I am sorry. But the ONLY empirical truth that has the strength of a priori truths is "cogito ergo sum".

Actually "cogito ergo sum" isn't a truth because it is merely of form of tautology. 'I' (which I believe to be a human being) is capable of 'thinking' (which can only be done by thinking things such as human beings and only if such thinking things exists and not perhaps say imagined thinking thing) and because I'm capable of such action I must exist; or at least exist at the time of such action is performed, however brief it may be. But isn't that like saying that it is a 'truth' that a certain street is 'Main street' when the street could just as well been called 'Bank street' or perhaps 'Bob street'. If that is the case, then the name 'Main street' is merely a label for the street and not really anything more. In the same way the words 'I', 'think', and 'exist' are labels to things we experience but may not fully understand. It is like saying 'I think, therefore I exist' is just a clever way of saying 'This thing I call 'I' is capable of thinking, and when 'I 'question my own existence it proves I exist because only a thing that exists can think'. However is this because it is true or because we say and/or label it as so? If 'I' isn't a person but instead is a computer program among hundreds or thousands of other similar programs running on the same machine, then 'I' may be merely an illusion as there would be hardly any separation between the various programs running at the same time other than how the machine keeps track of them. The act of 'thinking' could be blurred as an individual thought could be prerecorded piece of information that is feed over and over to many other programs sometimes at the same time; and the act of 'existing' could be completely different than we think of it as which such a person only made possible by a dance of electrons which may only run the program a few nanoseconds every minute. Or perhaps the program could go into hibernation for a few months in middle of such a person questioning their existence ( making it so that they didn't exist about 99.99999999999% of the time they where questioning their existence. Since we never really know what an 'I', 'think', or 'exist' is or how it is possible, I think saying 'I think therefore I am' is just another way of saying 'I think I exist as thing that thinks , therefore I must be thinking thing that exists; even if I don't really know what I/thing, thinking, existing really is'.

Gertie wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:Gertie: I understand why what I say seems to you to be evasive, vague and even mundane. I don't expect anything else. That's because whatever I say misses the mark. The problem is that religion and religious values are intensely personal and transcend human language. It's like trying to describe a Van Gogh to a blind person.

I'll try, anyway, but right now I gotta go.

Fair enough.

I understand the position of people trying to articulate what for them is something ineffable, and the role of analogy (as I said I've had religion myself), my suspicion is that it's difficult because it has to remain unarticulated as when it's broken down it loses that sense of numinous otherness. The mystery evaporates.

I do agree that religion is intensely personal, there are as many religions as there are people in a sense. I think it's part of what I was alluding to, projecting our beliefs and psychological needs onto something flexible, powerful and mysterious (analogous) enough to give them the context which feels appropriate. Religion as rorschach if you like.

But I appreciate you giving it a fair go, and I'll try to keep an open mind.

Back. Had a birthday dinner with my sons and their families.

Anyway, it's not that things have to remain unarticulated, but can't be articulated.

I don't know how familiar you are with classical theism or neoplatonism, but the ideal to which I am committed is best represented by a customized version of divine simplicity or Plotinus' One. It is my answer to the question of what must be in order for what is to be as it is. It is a conceptual interpretation of personal experience and analysis which, as you pointed out, is largely, but not entirely, a product of culture. Some here will say it is the product of indoctrination, and they are not entirely wrong. But the skeptics' words and attitude are no less a product of indoctrination, though of course they don't see it that way. It's understandable. Nothing is more difficult to see that the eyes with which we see.

You are absolutely correct to say there as many religions as there are people. It can't be any other way. We are, after all, finite beings looking to the Infinite.

Based on my experience, one of the most difficult ideas to convey is the idea that Creatorship is not an attribute of God or the One, but the aggregate of "his" acting nature. That is to say, what I call "God" didn't just get up one morning and decide to make a universe. Rather, it is his eternal and unchanging nature to manifest unity in maximum diversity. We therefore live, move and have our being in the interaction between top-down and bottom-up energies.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 3:43 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote: I suspect that there are many people, atheists and theists, who are unable to understand analogies as analogies and not as literal truths.

You got that right!!

If religion is permanent need for men to find meaning in a confusing and uncertain life then religion is here to stay. What most people think an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in God. Most people are not philosophers or theologians and most people don't ask "what is God in which some people don't believe?"

Most people don't ask "what must be in order for what is to be as it is?" I think we have to formulate an answer to this question in order to make sense of this crazy world.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 3:48 am to add the following --

Gertie, I can flesh it out if you like, but I'd like to know how familiar you are with divine simplicity before I do that.

You put aside solving the mysteries of the universe for a party? Good choice! Hope you had a good time

I'm not familiar with it, so I had a look at the Stanford section on Plotinus Neo-Platonism. Here's my take on their version.

It's a nice story and I can see the appeal to sophisticated 21st Century westerners. We have two major mysteries we focus on now, Cosmology and Consciousness/Value. You might say they're our current contenders for an explanatory God of the Gaps, and this story is a good fit. It also meets the contemporary desire for There Must Be Something More, which is what many thoughtful people are left with after rejecting traditional theism, but feeling unfulfilled by materialism.

I totally get all that. But Plotinus' story doesn't resonate with me, as perhaps it should on its own terms if he were really onto something (my soul is obviously too discursive!). I see no reason to believe it, except as a more psychologically satisfying way to talk about things which can be talked about in more mundane/scientific ways, or simply described as unknown. And nothing we've learned about the world since his time supports his line of thinking.

I can also see how someone who did believe this would look at traditional religions as analogous attempts to get a handle on this very abstract 'deeper truth'. We are creatures of narrative. But that's just as patronising as you think materialist atheists are, because they too believe they've hit on the right story, just like you do.

There are also people who say there are things we don't know, but none of these stories convince me, or sufficiently psychologically move me to adopt a position of Faith. And I think that's the intellectually and emotionally honest position to take. It doesn't mean I don't understand analogy.


But hey, who knows...

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 2:09 pm to add the following --

I don't think cogito ergo sum is reductive enough!

Whatever the Latin is for 'Thoughts Exist' is where he should've ended up.

Whatever the Latin is for 'Thoughts Exist' is where he should've ended up.

Gertie

Maybe the Latin cogito caused him to conflate subject and predicate.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 2:01 pm to add the following --

Belindi wrote:

Whatever the Latin is for 'Thoughts Exist' is where he should've ended up.

Gertie

Maybe the Latin cogito caused him to conflate subject and predicate.

I like that word conflate! It sounds as if it rather rudely refers to hot air .

Dark Matter wrote: It's not a simple question of what's true, but what ideas best reflect the nature of our loyalties.

You hit the nail on the head, Dark Matter!! Finally a statement you uttered I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Some have their loyalty with god, their idol, their one and only true god. Some others have their loyalty to the truth.

I find god and worshipping god mundane, much like you find the search for truth mundane.

I am very glad you revealed this much. This means that there is no need to try to convince you or Anthony Edgar or Felix of the truth. To you guys that is an issue you are not concerned with.

You are concerned with what is not mundane to you, and that thing is your extreme loyalty to your god and to your religion.

This is fine, I have no problems with this.

I only have to ask one question though, and you may give me an analogy for an answer, as long as it makes sense. The question is, what is the point for you, personally, to come on a philosophy forum where there are people whose loyalty to the truth is greater, much greater, than their loyalty to any god? Obviously the two sides will never find common ground, so what's the point of disrupting others in their gentle occupation, and insisting that your loyalty is what they should adopt? Or if your aim is not that, then what's the point of letting us gentle folks know that you consider our loyalty with disdain?

Of course the philosophers will put up a resistance when you interrupt their search for the truth and you talk about a loyalty, which they don't feel, which is not their own.

I have to admit, my respect for you grew manifold for admitting your loyalties and how important they are to you. You showed courage, honesty, and candid frankness with that. I respect that in a man and in a woman.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 3:51 pm to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Whatever the Latin is for 'Thoughts Exist' is where he should've ended up.

Erm... Descartes was looking for a proof for a physical entity in this world... he did not find it. But he found his mind to be the closest to a physical entity that can be proven to exist.

He was not going to change the world with "cogito ergo sum", he simply made an observation and drew the consequences.

Thoughts may exist... but they are fleeting, they don't have any permanence. Recurrence, yes, but no permanence. A mind has a permanence. Thoughts are also a product of the mind... which means they are a property of the mind, not separate entities.

There is for Descartes no disjunction between ‘I am’ and ‘I think’. The formulation arose a part of his method of doubt. His existence is something he cannot doubt for to doubt it he must exist. It is the first, foremost, and fundamental thing of which he is certain.He may be deceived of all else but of this he is certain.It is his first principle and foundation. His “proofs” of God’s existence is dependent upon his own. I will leave open the question of whether he successfully turns this around so that his existence becomes dependent upon God or if he actually intended any such thing at all. I will only mention that heresy was a real and present danger to him and his work. Descartes adopted as his motto: He lived well who hid himself well.

Descartes subjective turn has yet to be overturned. Whatever claims we make about a transcendent being or transcendent ground of Being or beings is inextricably subjective. It is thus a matter of choice, of conviction, of attitude, of faith. Is there a transcendent reality accessible through an experience of transcendence? This too is a matter that is inextricably subjective. The problem is that there is no touchstone. The experience itself is obviously subjective. Some claim to have had such an experience and insist that it is of something real that is not subjective, but some mystics say it is an experience of the interior of the mind and/or affirm that the imagination is the vehicle. Descriptions are typically culturally determined. One might object that this is because this is the only way to convey what is experienced to others, but Christian mystics, for example, may report they have seen Christian iconography whereas those who are not familiar with these icons will not.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 3:18 pm to add the following --

Renee:

He was not going to change the world with "cogito ergo sum"

He called it his Archimedean point with which he could move the entire earth (second Meditation). History shows it was not too much of an exaggeration.

Fooloso4 wrote;

There is for Descartes no disjunction between ‘I am’ and ‘I think’. The formulation arose a part of his method of doubt. His existence is something he cannot doubt for to doubt it he must exist. It is the first, foremost, and fundamental thing of which he is certain.He may be deceived of all else but of this he is certain.It is his first principle and foundation.

Thanks for that Foolosoph4. Does the above imply that Descartes has faith in reason? Descartes is a rationalist , and pure reason , which is assured when there is a Demon to ask all the awkward questions, is Descartes' eternal idea.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 4:29 pm to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Fooloso4 wrote;

There is for Descartes no disjunction between ‘I am’ and ‘I think’. The formulation arose a part of his method of doubt. His existence is something he cannot doubt for to doubt it he must exist. It is the first, foremost, and fundamental thing of which he is certain.He may be deceived of all else but of this he is certain.It is his first principle and foundation.

Thanks for that Foolosoph4. Does the above imply that Descartes has faith in reason? Descartes is a rationalist , and pure reason , which is assured when there is a Demon to ask all the awkward questions, is Descartes' eternal idea.

(Renee, it was actually Gertie who wrote "Whatever the Latin is for 'Thoughts Exist' is where he should've ended up.")

It makes perfect evolutionary sense for human beings to have a felt need to make sense of the world, and "God" fills the gap in our understanding better than "chance." However, the "why" is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation is life itself, and life is not reducible to an idea. It is something we experience. I wonder how the world would be now if Descartes had said "I experience, therefore, I am."

All too often, we let let our beliefs (calling it "truth") get between ourselves and our experiencing of life. We may call it being loyal to the "truth," but when conceptions of truth master life, life perishes: it becomes a doctrine instead of a life. It's becomes idolatry. Truth is life itself, not the body of facts associated with it.

Belindi:

Does the above imply that Descartes has faith in reason?

I would say that for Descartes reason replaces faith. In the dedication to the Meditations:

To the Wisest and Most Distinguished Men, the Dean and Doctors of the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris

he says the Meditations are for those who lack faith in order to know what is known by faith. I think he is up to something much more subversive thought. He undermines their authority and replaces it with the authority of the thinking self.

… undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to fall down of its own accord - I will at once attack those principles which supported everything that I once believed (1st Meditation)

Descartes is a rationalist , and pure reason , which is assured when there is a Demon to ask all the awkward questions, is Descartes' eternal idea.

It should be noted that the Demon or evil genius replaces his first formulation - an all powerful God who has the power to deceive us. He makes the arbitrary claim that it could not be God because:

it is said that he is supremely good

It is said? He is in the process of doubting everything he has ever learned, everything he has ever believed, everything he has been taught and he accepts this because it is said? We should also be suspicious of what he is up to with his proof of God based on God's perfection. We have good reason to question the claim that the idea of perfection must come from something perfect. As long as we have the idea of better and worse we can arrive at the idea of perfection.

Dark Matter:

It makes perfect evolutionary sense for human beings to have a felt need to make sense of the world, and "God" fills the gap in our understanding better than "chance."

These are not the only two options. Evolution is not guided by change but rather cumulative change in accord with survival.

I wonder how the world would be now if Descartes had said "I experience, therefore, I am."

That is in effect what he said. Look at how he defines a thinking thing:

A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and senses. (2nd Meditation).

He goes on to say that sensing means to see, hear, and feel.

Renee wrote:

Dark Matter wrote: It's not a simple question of what's true, but what ideas best reflect the nature of our loyalties.

You hit the nail on the head, Dark Matter!! Finally a statement you uttered I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Some have their loyalty with god, their idol, their one and only true god. Some others have their loyalty to the truth.

I find god and worshipping god mundane, much like you find the search for truth mundane.

I am very glad you revealed this much. This means that there is no need to try to convince you or Anthony Edgar or Felix of the truth. To you guys that is an issue you are not concerned with.

You are concerned with what is not mundane to you, and that thing is your extreme loyalty to your god and to your religion.

This is fine, I have no problems with this.

I only have to ask one question though, and you may give me an analogy for an answer, as long as it makes sense. The question is, what is the point for you, personally, to come on a philosophy forum where there are people whose loyalty to the truth is greater, much greater, than their loyalty to any god? Obviously the two sides will never find common ground, so what's the point of disrupting others in their gentle occupation, and insisting that your loyalty is what they should adopt? Or if your aim is not that, then what's the point of letting us gentle folks know that you consider our loyalty with disdain?

Of course the philosophers will put up a resistance when you interrupt their search for the truth and you talk about a loyalty, which they don't feel, which is not their own.

I have to admit, my respect for you grew manifold for admitting your loyalties and how important they are to you. You showed courage, honesty, and candid frankness with that. I respect that in a man and in a woman.

Still feel that way? Whether you realize it or not, you got slammed pretty hard in post #41.

Fooloso4: There is for Descartes no disjunction between ‘I am’ and ‘I think’. The formulation arose as part of his method of doubt. His existence is something he cannot doubt for to doubt it he must exist.

Yes, Kant's reply to Descartes was: I am not... cannot exist; for if I am not, it follows that I cannot become aware that I am not."

I will only mention that heresy was a real and present danger to him and his work. Descartes adopted as his motto: He lived well who hid himself well.

I gathered that his motto is just another way of saying, "The unexamined life is not worth living." That is, to retreat from the world into contemplation - hide in thought.

Fooloso4 wrote:

I would say that for Descartes reason replaces faith. In the dedication to the Meditations:
To the Wisest and Most Distinguished Men, the Dean and Doctors of the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris


he says the Meditations are for those who lack faith in order to know what is known by faith. I think he is up to something much more subversive thought. He undermines their authority and replaces it with the authority of the thinking self.

By " faith" I didn't mean faith in God's existence, or power, or goodness etc. Nor faith in the efficacy or truth of some religion. By "faith" I meant preference for some basic axiom. So I wondered if Descartes' faith was like that of Spinoza whose most basic axiom is reason, as it is for any rationalist philosopher. Faith in reason doesn't exclude belief in the efficacy of inductive reason, and scepticism is a method for rationalists and empiricists.