Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote:I think Judaism suffers from the same PR problems as those of other religions, ergo, the behaviour of adherents is a poor advertisement

There are many millions of Jews in the world, even if we limit the count to only religious Jews. Like people everywhere some of these folks are cool, and some are not, with most being a muddled mix of the two. In any population consisting of millions of people it's going to be impossible to credibly slap a simplistic label on that group. The larger the group, the more this is so.

I think what's happening here is that you are an ideological atheist (someone addressing the subject nearly every day) and so you see only the ideological theists, especially the ones that confirm your biases. You're not seeing the cool theists, because you're not looking for them.

Belindi wrote:Greta, I too am more attracted to a religious sect when adherents whom I meet are nice. The Roman Catholics I have met have been kind, calm, and liberal, which makes me wonder what it is about that theology or practice which is so good.

I accept the anecdotal report of your own personal experience of Catholics, and am happy for it. But of course there are a billion Catholics in the world and not all of them are wonderful. In fact, most of them are not what we would think of as being liberal. And there is a great deal of ideological conflict going on within modern Catholicism, and a good deal of that debate is not so kind and calm.

My take is that Catholics tend to be highly moralistic people, like their parents the Jews. Note that "moralistic" does not automatically translate to "moral", such is the human condition. The intense focus on moralism seems to bring out both their best and worst qualities. Catholics do an enormous amount of good work in the world, but the passion for judgmental finger pointing blaming and shaming can get really tiresome sometimes.

My sense is that the relentless Catholic focus on "being nice" tends to miss understand the life example of Jesus. Personally, I don't see Jesus as being a nice guy in the way we usually use that word, but a passionate and compassionate revolutionary. I suspect few Catholics would actually invite Jesus to their Christmas dinner party out of fear he would do something socially inappropriate like jump up on his chair in the middle of dinner to give yet another visionary sermon.

When Jesus came the last time he stepped outside of the Jewish religious group consensus he was born in to and charted his own new course. He annoyed so many of his neighbors with his revolutionary sermons that they finally decided to kill him.

I suspect that were Jesus to come again, a great many Catholics would soon become very unhappy with such behavior. Catholicism has been the dominant philosophical group consensus of Western civilization for over a thousand years, and Jesus was a revolutionary who liked to kick over such carefully tended little apple carts. What happened the last time Jesus was here would most likely happen again were he to return.

Apex_Predator said,

God created Satan knowing what it would lead to, the introduction of death to the newly created humanity, the temptations leading to millions if not billions of souls being judged unworthy and sent to eternal damnation.

This is more destruction than dropping a nuclear bomb on innocent people.

Even Einstein, who didn't directly create the nuclear bomb but assisted with its creation, regretted his actions. God never expressed one iota of regret for creating Lucifer, knowing the end game.

Apex_Predator, one needs to make a careful study into the nature of Satan, especially in the Old Testament. There, when looking closely, you will not find Satan to be an enemy of the Lord. There is much misunderstanding about Satan, which is too long to share. There is a general ill portrayal and belief of his character, which is not in line with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt. Evil does not begin with Satan, but has a nebulous existence, due to the rule of opposites. In fact, the Lord put us in a safer environment by introducing Satan, since living without the knowledge of opposites is dangerous. “All things truly wicked starts from innocents.” Ernest Hemingway

Satan’s part is not only to expose us to evil, but also to strengthen us is everyday life. Imagine the world was perfect, as you describe it; but there was on little island filled with wicked people. As soon as we meet them that cancer will gradually spread. Lastly, we are far from hopeless and can evolve and grow, but not being exposed means only that some other party, with much more sinister intent will find us.

Greta wrote:

Gertie wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Right. But different strokes for different folks.
Jewish theology had the good fortune to bump into Greek philosophy early on, and created the makings of a flexible synthesis which can work on different levels, visceral and intellectual. I think that if it wasn't a good psychological fit at some important level, it wouldn't have had the staying power, people wouldn't have been so motivated to make it work on all levels.

Nowadays it offers an enticing platter of meaningfulnesses, which you can pick from and trim into your perfect god, just right for you. That was my experience anyway - which doesn't mean that's the way everyone sees it of course, and it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Some people would say any and all ways of imperfect critters like us talking about a perfect god must fail, can't encompass the full perfection of god, only be crude inadequate pointers, so all you can do is treat the imperfect map as if it's the actual territory, accept with faith and live it. 'Let Jesus into your heart and let your life be transformed by its truth'. And if Jesus transforming your life results in for example validation of homophobia... well White Dragon can explain that away somehow.

I think Judaism suffers from the same PR problems as those of other religions, ergo, the behaviour of adherents is a poor advertisement. Simply, if we see someone who seems less calm, dignified and respectful than ourselves, and they are claiming that theirs is a "religion of love" and that it provides wisdom, then that does not seem credible of attractive.

If theists regularly behaved in a way that suggested that they were above the fray, able to admit being wrong, showing high levels of patience, gentleness and wisdom, then I might figure they are on to something. Instead, when I have suggested this to theists they say they won't lie down and be victims (ie. won't turn the other cheek). Seemingly patience, gentleness and wisdom are thought to be weaknesses.

"Turning the other cheek" never really caught on. A few insane passages in Leviticus and Jesus whipping people in the temple seem more popular. (Note that the story of the temple was, like many others, may have been taken from the Egyptian legend of Horus, who, as the heir of his father's temple, whipped his father's enemies).

Sorry Greta I wasn't clear, I meant Christianity (based in Jewish theology) met Greek Philosophy and there was a fair bit of cross-fertilisation in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You can see how monotheism would be a good fit with emerging neo-platonism for example (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) -

...mindful consciousness (nous, often translated as thought, intelligence, or intellect) is in an important sense ontologically prior to the physical realm typically taken for ultimate reality (Mind over Matter).

...reality, in all its cognitive and physical manifestations, depended on a highest principle which is unitary and singular. Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”. Since it is reasonable to assume, as the Neoplatonists did, that any efficient cause is ontologically prior to, and hence more real, than its effect, then, in the hierarchy of being, the first principle, whatever it is, cannot be less “real” than the phenomena it is supposed to explain. Given the veracity of the first assumption (the ontological priority of intelligence and consciousness), it follows at once that the first principle must be a principle of consciousness. In consequence, the fundamental challenge all Neoplatonists struggled to meet was essentially the following: How are we to understand and describe the emergence of the universe, with all its diverse phenomena, as the effect of a singular principle of consciousness? In particular—and in this regard Neoplatonism shares certain concerns with modern cosmology—how is it possible to understand the emergence of the physical, material universe from a singularity that is in every sense unlike this universe?
...

What was it that made the radically top-down idealism of the Neoplatonists so appealing? Disregarding in this context the religious-sentimental appeal Neoplatonism undoubtedly must have had and perhaps still has, its philosophical attractiveness and significance lies in the fact that it offered a maximum of explanatory power on the basis of just one metaphysical principle.
...

It may be useful first to state that the pagan Neoplatonists were not creationists. That is to say, whatever account they were giving about the universe’s origin, this narrative was not to be misunderstood as recounting a creation in time or at the very beginning of time. Instead, they speculated that the process of the emergence of the universe from the divine principle, as they conceived of it (described below), has gone on forever, just as it continues at this very moment and will continue to do so, sustaining a world without end. When the general outlook of Neoplatonism was appropriated and adapted to refine and articulate the creeds of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, this feature of the doctrine, and the connected doctrine of the eternity of the world, would become a vigorously debated issue.

Second, unlike the ancient theologians of Israel and Egypt, the Neoplatonists did not think that the universe could spring from the deity directly and in a way that surpasses all understanding, for example by being thought and spoken into existence. Their more refined view was that reality emerged from “the First” in coherent stages, in such a way that one stage functions as creative principle of the next.

This kind of emanationist cosmology rests on the tenet—based to some extent in observation, but elevated by them to the status of a heuristic principle—that every activity in the world is in some sense double insofar as it possesses both an inner and an outer aspect.

more here if you're interested https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/

On your broader point yeah, I think it all points to people creating religions, the good the bad and the ugly, it's all us.

Gertie said:

Sorry Greta I wasn't clear, I meant Christianity (based in Jewish theology) met Greek Philosophy and there was a fair bit of cross-fertilisation in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You can see how monotheism would be a good fit with emerging neo-platonism for example (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) -

Hi, Gertie, do you think your "cross-fertilization" could apply to the radical different views from Hebrew Scriptures to New Testament views on Satan?


WhiteDragon Said,

Apex_Predator, one needs to make a careful study into the nature of Satan, especially in the Old Testament. There, when looking closely, you will not find Satan to be an enemy of the Lord. There is much misunderstanding about Satan, which is too long to share. There is a general ill portrayal and belief of his character, which is not in line with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt. Evil does not begin with Satan, but has a nebulous existence, due to the rule of opposites. In fact, the Lord put us in a safer environment by introducing Satan, since living without the knowledge of opposites is dangerous. “All things truly wicked starts from innocents.” Ernest Hemingway

Satan’s part is not only to expose us to evil, but also to strengthen us is everyday life. Imagine the world was perfect, as you describe it; but there was on little island filled with wicked people. As soon as we meet them that cancer will gradually spread. Lastly, we are far from hopeless and can evolve and grow, but not being exposed means only that some other party, with much more sinister intent will find us.

Whitedragon:

… one needs to make a careful study into the nature of Satan, especially in the Old Testament.

Good advice but hat one finds, however, is something quite different from what you claim. The term ‘satan’ originally means a human enemy or adversary, but eventually comes to mean a particular entity or being, as in the book of Job. It is used both as an adversary to humans and as an adversary of God.

Gertie:

Sorry Greta I wasn't clear, I meant Christianity (based in Jewish theology) met Greek Philosophy …

A key figure is the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who influenced Origin, Plotinus, and other Christian theologians. What is interesting is the synthesis of reason, revelation, and mysticism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

Clearly, speculative imagination plays a central role and blurs any hardline division between reason, revelation, and mysticism. This is one reason why those who insist on facile divisions between theism and atheism along the lines of reason are hopelessly misguided. Skepticism, or more precisely zetetic or Socratic skepticism, is not a matter of reason versus religion, for it is skeptical of the overreach of reason and this overreach is characteristic of the philosophic religion engendered by Philo and still prominent today alongside other religious beliefs that are antithetical to reason as well as those that are opportunistic with regard to the use of reason and science.

Fooloso4, would you please tell me what 'pagan' refers to in the following exerpt from the conclusion to the article on Origen in the dictionary to which you have just supplied a link?

Origen was an innovator in an era when innovation, for Christians, was a luxury ill-afforded. He drew upon pagan philosophy in an effort to elucidate the Christian faith in a manner acceptable to intellectuals, and he succeeded in converting many gifted pagan students of philosophy to his faith.

Here and elsewhere in the article about Origen "pagan" seems to refer to cultures of belief other than Greek .

Whitedragon wrote:
Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt. Evil does not begin with Satan, but has a nebulous existence, due to the rule of opposites. In fact, the Lord put us in a safer environment by introducing Satan, since living without the knowledge of opposites is dangerous. “All things truly wicked starts from innocents.” Ernest Hemingway

Satan’s part is not only to expose us to evil, but also to strengthen us is everyday life. Imagine the world was perfect, as you describe it; but there was on little island filled with wicked people. As soon as we meet them that cancer will gradually spread. Lastly, we are far from hopeless and can evolve and grow, but not being exposed means only that some other party, with much more sinister intent will find us.

Your argument is a non sequitur fallacy since there is nothing to support your claim that 'God' is trying to strength us by forcing us to have to deal with 'evil'. Our ability to deal with nature evil (and the evil we produce ourselves) comes from our natural ability to survive; if we DIDN'T have this ability we won't even be alive. I'm imagine if we ever encountered a problem that was bigger than we could handle (like an asteroid about to destroy the earth), theist could claim that it too was part of his plan even if it contradicts this belief that 'God' strengthening in order to deal with evil.

In a nutshell, your argument is just another example of someone trying to claim that 'God did it' and/or 'it is part of his will' when we don't know (or we don't like the answer) to how something works in the world around us.

Belindi wrote:Fooloso4, would you please tell me what 'pagan' refers to in the following exerpt from the conclusion to the article on Origen in the dictionary to which you have just supplied a link?

Origen was an innovator in an era when innovation, for Christians, was a luxury ill-afforded. He drew upon pagan philosophy in an effort to elucidate the Christian faith in a manner acceptable to intellectuals, and he succeeded in converting many gifted pagan students of philosophy to his faith.

Here and elsewhere in the article about Origen "pagan" seems to refer to cultures of belief other than Greek .

For instance here:

Origen's debt to Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy is quite obvious; his influence on the development of later pagan philosophy is - at least from the perspective of most contemporary scholarship - rather less obvious, but it is there.

Belindi:

Here and elsewhere in the article about Origen "pagan" seems to refer to cultures of belief other than Greek .

As I understand it, the term is being used here to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian philosophers. Pagan philosophers would primarily be the Greek or Hellenic schools of Plato and Aristotle as well as Stoicism and Epicureanism. The followers of these schools were not necessarily Greek and might hold cultural beliefs that differed from the Greeks.

Origen's debt to Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy is quite obvious; his influence on the development of later pagan philosophy is - at least from the perspective of most contemporary scholarship - rather less obvious, but it is there.

The article goes on to mention Origen’s influence on the pagan philosophers Proclus and Iamblichus who were Neoplatonists but not Christian Neoplatonists.

Fooloso4 siad,

Good advice but hat one finds, however, is something quite different from what you claim. The term ‘satan’ originally means a human enemy or adversary, but eventually comes to mean a particular entity or being, as in the book of Job. It is used both as an adversary to humans and as an adversary of God.

Going into a study of Satan is an off topic discussion, so let us just say that good study reveals a different story, perhaps we can start a thread on this?

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 4:54 am to add the following --

Dclements wrote:

Whitedragon wrote:
Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt. Evil does not begin with Satan, but has a nebulous existence, due to the rule of opposites. In fact, the Lord put us in a safer environment by introducing Satan, since living without the knowledge of opposites is dangerous. “All things truly wicked starts from innocents.” Ernest Hemingway

Satan’s part is not only to expose us to evil, but also to strengthen us is everyday life. Imagine the world was perfect, as you describe it; but there was on little island filled with wicked people. As soon as we meet them that cancer will gradually spread. Lastly, we are far from hopeless and can evolve and grow, but not being exposed means only that some other party, with much more sinister intent will find us.

Your argument is a non sequitur fallacy since there is nothing to support your claim that 'God' is trying to strength us by forcing us to have to deal with 'evil'. Our ability to deal with nature evil (and the evil we produce ourselves) comes from our natural ability to survive; if we DIDN'T have this ability we won't even be alive. I'm imagine if we ever encountered a problem that was bigger than we could handle (like an asteroid about to destroy the earth), theist could claim that it too was part of his plan even if it contradicts this belief that 'God' strengthening in order to deal with evil.

In a nutshell, your argument is just another example of someone trying to claim that 'God did it' and/or 'it is part of his will' when we don't know (or we don't like the answer) to how something works in the world around us.

On the contrary, Dclements, this argument is something, which even many Satanists hold fast. You misunderstand the argument; it is not an argument of “trying to explain,” but rather an argument of fact. You will not find Satan as a fallen angel in the Hebrew Scriptures; he has a role of temperance not destruction. Even in the New Testament, there are not that many texts, which portray him as evil. You are right when you say we generate that evil ourselves, but it is Satan’s work to temper us against “sin.” Calamity is not part of the discussion, so it is excluded from this post.

Thank you Fooloso4 , and also for drawing attention to Origen.

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 6:43 am to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote:

Going into a study of Satan is an off topic discussion, so let us just say that good study reveals a different story, perhaps we can start a thread on this?

Would this be to trace the history of what has been called 'Satan' ? Or to possibly find connections or one connection between Satan-type ideas? Or to find a use for the name Satan in contemporary life for instance in politics, art, or religion?

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 6:48 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Thank you Fooloso4 , and also for drawing attention to Origen.

I note that Origen attaches his philosophy of God to the axiom that evil is absence of good. Of course one takes pleasure and a feeling of safety from that idea. However how is it a better axiom than that good is absence of evil? (Schopenhauer)

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 6:43 am to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote:

Going into a study of Satan is an off topic discussion, so let us just say that good study reveals a different story, perhaps we can start a thread on this?

Would this be to trace the history of what has been called 'Satan' ? Or to possibly find connections or one connection between Satan-type ideas? Or to find a use for the name Satan in contemporary life for instance in politics, art, or religion?

Belindi said,

Would this be to trace the history of what has been called 'Satan' ? Or to possibly find connections or one connection between Satan-type ideas? Or to find a use for the name Satan in contemporary life for instance in politics, art, or religion?

This would be to understand the role of Satan as per the definition of Hebrew Scriptures, (since the New Testament is supposed to draw from the “old”), this in itself will open doors into Satan himself as seen by various groups of people today too. As far as art is concerned, there are many instances where the church rather drew from art than portraying the accurate image of the archetype, Satan.

Firstly, Satan can mean, (enemy of G_d), or adversary as per Hebrew dictionary: (A Concise Hebrew dictionary and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament – Hollady), a dictionary used in academic study. When “a satan/accuser/adversary” appears in Hebrew Scriptures, that are an enemy of G_d, it is a person. The word, satan, appears very few times in the Hebrew Scriptures, but when it does it seldom is Satan incarnated, except in Job. In the book, Job, Satan is not the “enemy of G_d, but an angel, which according to Hebrew Scriptures never fell from Heaven. Ezekiel 28 is an example of the inaccurate tale of how the profit laments over Satan’s fall, but in reality, they speak of a human king, not a heavenly being. It seems that the fall of Satan was an import of Roman thoughts and ideas, drawn from their own deities.

This does not mean that there are no evil forces or even evil beings at work, but the way the church portray Satan and Lucifer, (which btw is not the same thing), is inaccurate and the “Old” Testament does not support it, neither do large sections of the New Testament support it.

Whitedragon:

Going into a study of Satan is an off topic discussion, so let us just say that good study reveals a different story, perhaps we can start a thread on this?

It seems to me that this is more on topic than many of the issues being discussed. If God created everything then God created Satan. So, this is directly related to the question of what God did wrong.

As to the term satan in the Hebrew Bible, here is a complete list:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7854.htm

If you go through each entry you will find that they confirm what I have said. What you will not find, however, is support for your claim:

Satan’s role, in general, is to make humanity stronger by trying and testing them. He plays an important role of tempering the character of humans, of which even the Son was not exempt … In fact, the Lord put us in a safer environment by introducing Satan, since living without the knowledge of opposites is dangerous … Satan’s part is not only to expose us to evil, but also to strengthen us is everyday life.

Belindi:

I note that Origen attaches his philosophy of God to the axiom that evil is absence of good. Of course one takes pleasure and a feeling of safety from that idea. However how is it a better axiom than that good is absence of evil? (Schopenhauer)

An interesting question. For Origen it goes back to Plato and the Greek question of the end or good of a thing. To ask: “what good is it?” is to ask not only about the value of something but its purpose or that for which it is. We retain this meaning when we say that something that does not function properly is no good. This, of course, does not mean that it is evil.

The question arises for Plato’s of the good of the whole, or, put differently, as the question arises in the Republic, what is the Good itself? Related to this is the question of how the good of each thing relates to the Good itself, that is, the problem of mereology.

So, for Plato the Good is not simply evaluative, but is about the proper relation and function of the part to the whole. For Origen and Christian neoplatonism in general it is a matter of unification with God as the realization of one’s part within the whole. Evil as the absence of good means the inability to function properly as part of the whole.

I do not know if Schopenhauer’s axiom is better, but it does reflect a difference in attitude or temperament. Schopenhauer was a pessimist. See his Studies in Pessimism:
ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/a ... index.html

WD

Hi, Gertie, do you think your "cross-fertilization" could apply to the radical different views from Hebrew Scriptures to New Testament views on Satan?

No idea, sorry. Not in my bits and pieces of reading.

So do you believe Satan is an actual being, and causes stuff to happen? Just curious.

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 7:44 pm to add the following --

fooloso

A key figure is the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who influenced Origin, Plotinus, and other Christian theologians. What is interesting is the synthesis of reason, revelation, and mysticism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

Clearly, speculative imagination plays a central role and blurs any hardline division between reason, revelation, and mysticism. This is one reason why those who insist on facile divisions between theism and atheism along the lines of reason are hopelessly misguided. Skepticism, or more precisely zetetic or Socratic skepticism, is not a matter of reason versus religion, for it is skeptical of the overreach of reason and this overreach is characteristic of the philosophic religion engendered by Philo and still prominent today alongside other religious beliefs that are antithetical to reason as well as those that are opportunistic with regard to the use of reason and science.

I think we tell ourselves all kinds of stories to explain why we do or don't believe something, for myself I've noticed I'm a sceptical type by nature and not remotely mystical, so the But How Can You That? response comes naturally to me. Still, it strikes me as a valid position, sensible and reasonable.

Clearly, speculative imagination plays a central role and blurs any hardline division between reason, revelation, and mysticism.

Nicely put, I think that's a neat summary of a certain type of theism. I'm wondering if language plays a role too. Different types of theism sometimes use distinctive types of language in particular ways, 'channelling' thinking in a certain way. Perhaps even just evoking a mood which feeds back into your way of thinking about something.

-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 7:49 pm to add the following --

oops, edit -

''But How Can You That?''

should have been -

''But How Can You Know That?''

You Knew that, right?