The absurdity of philosophical conclusions wrt religion

[Aqueous Id]

Without differentiating science from philosophy: what evidence has proved, through best methods for drawing inferences, is that every conception of God from antiquity is a fabrication. Upon reaching this discovery, further inquiry into the existence of God is rendered moot. You can beat that dead horse all you want, but it won't change a thing. It simply produces the most blatant evidence of denialism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat wrote:

The simple existence of a God doesn't come with any specifics.​

The meaning of the word 'God' is often extremely vague. At its most general, 'God' often suggests sort of a set of philosophical abstractions. If we interpret 'God' as creator of the universe, its designer, its sustainer, its first cause and so on, we find ourselves with a generic "God" without specifics.

Whatever additional specifics a particular religious believer's concept of 'God' is fleshed out with, typically derive from his or her religious tradition. But since these additional specifics can be quite diverse and dissimilar, depending on the tradition, somebody's simply saying that they believe in 'God' doesn't tell a listerner a whole lot, unless that listener already knows what tradition the speaker adheres to.

An important aspect is not only the relationship god has with the material world but also the living entity - this is the umbrella that the specifics arise from

Spidergoat:

It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.​

Ok, so what readings can you cite that argue persuasively against what Spidergoat said? How do they accomplish it?

never encountered a normative description (IOW how one has to act in order to know god) in scripture?

Religious believers' often seem to begin with arguments for the broadest (and vaguest) possible concept of 'God'. The so-called 'theistic proofs' will often be cited at this stage. If a listener accepts the force of these (rather doubtful) arguments, then he or she is left applying the word 'God' to some generic philosophical functions (first-cause etc.).

Then a non-sequitur often occurs, in which the religious believer, thinking that he or she has successfully demonstrated God's existence, moves immediately on to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or perhaps to your own Krishna. And all of the myths and writings traditionally associated with these religious traditions are simply assumed, without any additional argument, to refer to and to be identical with the hypothetical object of the generic philosophical functions.

My point, and seemingly Spidergoat's as well, is that the step from philosophical abstraction, from a generic belief in "God", to the specific teachings of this or that actual religious tradition, still needs to explained and justified. After all, it's entirely possible that if the universe truly had a first-cause, that the first-cause will turn out to have nothing remotely to do with any of our human religious mythologies.

Perhaps this would make sense if approaches to the question of god were vastly different or irreconcilable. For instance, which traditions, beginning with the notion of god as the summum bonum, proceed to lay out a path of spiritual progress outside the notion of the living entity being in a state of dependence in a role of service to god?

 

[lightgigantic]

You think that this is all that elitism/exclusivism in the name of religion is about??

when it goes wrong - yes

But these are effectively a self-referential trio that might as well be one.

If you want to properly understand sastra, you need a guru. But to pick a good guru, you need to properly understand sastra. Same with saddhu.
It's a triple bind.

Theoretically, the principle of the triple check is a good one.
But there are several very demanding requirements that one must fulfill first before one can employ it.

You seem to already be doing it if you default me (or some other theist, whom you say you must inherently trust) to the role of guru

If a person doesn't even have a guru, then refering them to the triple check is pointless.

Ditto above

The "gamble of life"? What are you talking about?
Do you hold a weak agnostic stance??

I'm talking about the necessity of faith being placed in some sort of authority beyond one's capabilities, potency or expertise. As a rule its only the severely misanthropic insane people who approach living in the world as being contextualized by nothing more than their power of being (although usually their actions bring them before the wrath of the justice system so they are forced to submit anyway)

Somehow, you seem to think that religious association is nice and neat and that Carnegie's approach works well in it.

No I think it is variegated, hence the requirement for perception

That is a truism. However, it's not clear what relevance individuality is supposed to have in religious life.

If you think it essentially boils down to holding on to the coat tails of others you have simply relegated individuality a non-essential role - its strange when persons advocate a deteriorated sense of self ("the only safe option is when authority takes absolute and complete control and responsibility for me") as a prerequisite for safety.

 

[lightgigantic]

Without differentiating science from philosophy: what evidence has proved, through best methods for drawing inferences, is that every conception of God from antiquity is a fabrication. Upon reaching this discovery, further inquiry into the existence of God is rendered moot. You can beat that dead horse all you want, but it won't change a thing. It simply produces the most blatant evidence of denialism.

The irony is that to advocate science as establishing god arising from fabrication requires quite a bit of extraneous philosophy that has nothing to do with science (and dead horse flogging too I might add ...)
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Perhaps this would make sense if approaches to the question of god were vastly different or irreconcilable. For instance, which traditions, beginning with the notion of god as the summum bonum, proceed to lay out a path of spiritual progress outside the notion of the living entity being in a state of dependence in a role of service to god?

Of course, generally, all traditional theisms agree that the living entity is in a state of dependence in a role of service to God.

But for the outsider/newcomer, at least when living in a multicultural, multireligious setting, there are some what appear to be unbridgable problems:

1. Which religion to join? Which religion is the right one?
The various theisms may essentially suggest the same things, but that doesn't really make the choice among them any easier.

2. How to deal with the negativity from theists / members? Esp. given that they are the ones one has to rely on for one's knowledge of God.



Natural theology / henology may be neat enough in theory, but they aren't suitable as a basis for action.

Unless, of course, one would assign a high enough value to one's conjectures about how the theoretical principles of natural theology / henology are to be carried out into practice (this could also include an ecclectic approach).
For example, by inventing one's own gratitude prayer before taking a meal, or inventing one's own prayer before going to bed.

The upside of such an approach is that it provides room for true genuineness on the part of the practitioner, as such a practitioner could really mean what they say, with minimum ritual and automatism.

But the question is, whether God would accept that. And of course, organized religion certainly looks down on invention and ecclecticism.

A further problem is that such a practice is very individualistic and potentially alienating, and it is reasonable to question how long such a practitioner could maintain such a practice before it would become absurd to themselves as well.

 

[wynn]

when it goes wrong - yes

And when it goes right?

You seem to already be doing it if you default me (or some other theist, whom you say you must inherently trust) to the role of guru

Ha!
As it is, we are having an exchange with an uneven ratio of power, and two not exactly willing participants.

I'm talking about the necessity of faith being placed in some sort of authority beyond one's capabilities, potency or expertise.

But what do you mean by that?

If I read scriptures or if I follow instructions, I am still relying on my own capabilities of comprehension and action.

Even if one places one's faith in others, one has still essentially placed one's faith in one's own discernment.
"I am a good and smart person, therefore, my choice of guru is right."

If you think it essentially boils down to holding on to the coat tails of others you have simply relegated individuality a non-essential role - its strange when persons advocate a deteriorated sense of self ("the only safe option is when authority takes absolute and complete control and responsibility for me") as a prerequisite for safety.

What else??

I am not glad about this, but it seems that organized theisms demand precisely that:

"Surrender to the theistic organization, its authority, and you will be safe.
Do anything without first obtaining the approval of said authority, and you endanger yourself.
Surrender to the theistic organization, its authority should be the last expression of your free will and individuality.
As it is, your individuality is not real individuality, it is materialistic, and not worth maintaining, therefore, you should give it up.
If you surrender to the theistic authority, and do as it tells you, you will eventually perhaps get a true individuality. Until then, you are just a worthless, mindless pawn, an expendable cog in the system."


All that is left to him is a hope that if he grits his teeth and perseveres against all odds, at the moment of death his present personality will be destroyed and he will wake up in the spiritual world with a brand new identity, no connection whatsoever between the two.
Source

 

[Aqueous Id]

The irony is that to advocate science as establishing god arising from fabrication requires quite a bit of extraneous philosophy that has nothing to do with science (and dead horse flogging too I might add ...)
:shrug:

What I said was: Without differentiating science from philosophy, what evidence has proved, through best methods for drawing inferences, is that every conception of God from antiquity is a fabrication.

Best methods need not fit into a pigeonhole called science. We need only apply common sense. In other words, the average wino on the street could just as easily grasp this as a biologist would. Or a theologian.

A prima facie reading reveals that these seminal notions are merely fabrications.

Therefore, further inquiry into the existence of God is rendered moot.

 

[lightgigantic]

What I said was: Without differentiating science from philosophy, what evidence has proved, through best methods for drawing inferences, is that every conception of God from antiquity is a fabrication.

But that's the problem : you ARE differentiating science from philosophy since the science that has anything to say about it is extremely soft, subject to interpretation and as close to drawing a unified consensus as the sun is to producing ice cubes

Best methods need not fit into a pigeonhole called science. We need only apply common sense. In other words, the average wino on the street could just as easily grasp this as a biologist would. Or a theologian.

Incorrect - its only persons who subscribe to the ideology of atheism that accept it (whether they be winos or whatnot)

A prima facie reading reveals that these seminal notions are merely fabrications.
Therefore, further inquiry into the existence of God is rendered moot.

Which brings us to the second necessary aspect of your statements - dead horse flogging
:shrug:

 

[wellwisher]

Say we work under the assumption that atheism is based on reason. Human nature is not fully rational. One cannot always predict what the individual, never mind the herd, will do next. Reason precludes a full understand of human nature since it is hard to reason something that is not fully rational.

You need another set of tools. Logically, you deal with the irrational, using tools based on irrationality, since these are cut from the same cloth. Religion is one of those tools. For example, one thing atheism fears with religion are those periodic inductions into radicalism. This is made possible because religion can tweak human nature.

This has to do with the neural basis for human nature. If you think of natural instinct, which is easier to see, it allows an animal to integrate itself with its inner nature while also integrating itself with outer nature. There is a delicate balancing act in eco-systems. This is not done with logic since philosophy, which is the master of logic, has yet to allow this with human nature. It is actually done with 3-D logic (x,y,z) instead of 2-D logic based on (x,y) cause and effect. The Z-axis is what allows their instinct to go where philosophical logic can only approximate. Human nature is the same way or is based on 3-D logic.

To give a loose analogy for 3-D logic, picture a ball that is has height, width and depth or is 3-D. We can approximate this 3-D ball with a large number of 2-D planes each at a slightly different angle but all with a common center. These planes are logic planes of cause and effect.

For example, all orientations of philosophy together (not separated) would be a good approximation for a 3-D philosophy, since it would take into account the truth in each of the many orientations. No one plane can fully express the 3-D ball since the plane is flat and lacks that extra depth which all the planes approximate.

Say I take the ball and lean on it, so the ball squishes. What will happen is all the many 2-D planes become distorted and moved into alternate positions that once single 2-D planes had occupied. This creates a doubt in what had appeared to be a tight set of 2-D logic. Human nature works at 3-D with its unpredictability helping to distort the tidy packages of 2-D, so knowledge can evolve toward 3-D. But since we try to limit knowledge to 2-D, human nature appears irrational.

A good example is a stereo-type. We try to force all the 3-D diversity of a group into one size fits all. We try to get the mind focused a 2-D logic line, based on how we justify that one size. Anyone who tries to point out the other sizes is considered irrational. This is true if irrational means 3-D. But it is treated like it is lower than 2-D, due to the irrationality of human nature and the unconsciousness it can create.

The value of this is it allow use to define the 2-D planes of the 3-D ball. One stereo type will almost always induce an alternate position. Anyone honest with themselves will now be able to see the opposite. Now we have two planes which use the same center. The moderate then looks in the middle and make a third plane, etc. The 3-D ball is being approximated. Wisdom understands human nature and is able to see the 3-D that is developing.

In my experience, all POV contain truth while none contain the full truth. Together they been to approximate the 3-D truth. But to get there we need to maintain all the planes in place. This is done via the bias within human nature. Then some leave the plane and look at the 3-D and try to understand it there. This is also human nature trying to express itself as 3-D. As a team, humans evolve.

 

[spidergoat]

...never encountered a normative description (IOW how one has to act in order to know god) in scripture?

...

There is no such thing as normative when we talk about scriptures or what they say, the scriptures from religions around the world are all different and contradictory.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no such thing as normative when we talk about scriptures or what they say, the scriptures from religions around the world are all different and contradictory.

kind of like saying that there is no such thing as normative when we talk about medical applications since they are all contradictory (someone wants to stick a needle in you (sometimes to wake you up and sometimes to put you to sleep .. a further detail of the contradictory nature) , another a tablet, another wants to cut you open, another sew you up, another wants you to exercise, another wants you to rest, one wants you to eat lots of things, another wants you to eat nothing etc etc).

IOW for as long as one remains ignorant of the actual goal of an endeavor (which in medicine would be "improved health") and how it applies to individual time place and circumstance, one can say "there is no such thing as normative .." about anything under the sun

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

And when it goes right?

You have correct deferment and performance of obligation

But what do you mean by that?

If I read scriptures or if I follow instructions, I am still relying on my own capabilities of comprehension and action.

comprehension/discernment of what exactly?

Even if one places one's faith in others, one has still essentially placed one's faith in one's own discernment.

which is indeed the foundation of any act , big or small

"I am a good and smart person, therefore, my choice of guru is right."

depends if they had any further tools of discernment/comprehension outside of themself

What else??

I am not glad about this, but it seems that organized theisms demand precisely that:

"Surrender to the theistic organization, its authority, and you will be safe.
Do anything without first obtaining the approval of said authority, and you endanger yourself.

Surrender doesn't mean abandon ship - it means utilize - which is heaps more challenging and difficult than simply doing nothing and saying "I leave it up to you boss"

Surrender to the theistic organization, its authority should be the last expression of your free will and individuality.

Anyone who says that just breached siddhanta

As it is, your individuality is not real individuality, it is materialistic, and not worth maintaining, therefore, you should give it up.

twice now

If you surrender to the theistic authority, and do as it tells you, you will eventually perhaps get a true individuality. Until then, you are just a worthless, mindless pawn, an expendable cog in the system."

and three times

All that is left to him is a hope that if he grits his teeth and perseveres against all odds, at the moment of death his present personality will be destroyed and he will wake up in the spiritual world with a brand new identity, no connection whatsoever between the two.
Source

good example of application not giving the goal due to messed up theory

(sambandha abhideya prayojana)

 

[spidergoat]

kind of like saying that there is no such thing as normative when we talk about medical applications since they are all contradictory (someone wants to stick a needle in you (sometimes to wake you up and sometimes to put you to sleep .. a further detail of the contradictory nature) , another a tablet, another wants to cut you open, another sew you up, another wants you to exercise, another wants you to rest, one wants you to eat lots of things, another wants you to eat nothing etc etc).

IOW for as long as one remains ignorant of the actual goal of an endeavor (which in medicine would be "improved health") and how it applies to individual time place and circumstance, one can say "there is no such thing as normative .." about anything under the sun

:shrug:

So you agree with me? The prescription for a rare disease as much as for knowing what God wants has no uniform solution. But common diseases have common cures. Where is the equivalent in religion? The lack of a normative method for finding out what God wants reveals the lack of any true religious knowledge... just like a rare disease for which no one has a cure.

 

[lightgigantic]

So you agree with me?

for as long as one remains ignorant of the actual goal of an endeavor, sure

The prescription for a rare disease as much as for knowing what God wants has no uniform solution.

why speak of rare diseases? Its the degree that one is ignorant of the actual goal that determines it.

But common diseases have common cures. Where is the equivalent in religion?

And the common cures are linked by what? Knowledge about the goal of "improved health".

Even if one begins with the goal of religion being "understanding what god wants" there is enough validity in that to take it as a bearing

The lack of a normative method for finding out what God wants reveals the lack of any true religious knowledge... just like a rare disease for which no one has a cure.

I'm not so sure about that since there is a lot of substance that can be unpacked from that simply goal that has implications for the living entity, the material and the relationship between the two (which is often the realm that religious pursuit loses sight of that goal)

 

[spidergoat]

How can one know the goal if knowledge is the goal? You seem to be saying you can only find the answer if you already formulate the answer ahead of time.

Common cures are linked not because of knowledge of the concept of good health, but due to the nature of the disease. If the nature of God were consistent, then knowledge of God would be consistent.

 

[lightgigantic]

How can one know the goal if knowledge is the goal? You seem to be saying you can only find the answer if you already formulate the answer ahead of time.


Common cures are linked not because of knowledge of the concept of good health, but due to the nature of the disease. If the nature of God were consistent, then knowledge of God would be consistent.

knowledge or knowledge what god wants?
concept of good health or knowledge of what good health is?

 

[spidergoat]

You are evading the question. There are normative cures because the disease is the same around the world. There is no normative practice for finding out the nature of God, what he wants from us, because there is no normative religion. There isn't even a normative goal in religion, some of them seek personal enlightenment, and others seek to implement the will of a god.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are evading the question.

Not at all - I am pointing out the fluidity of the terms. You talk about having a concept of good health ... which plainly seems like an issue of knowledge.

There are normative cures because the disease is the same around the world.

But I just explained how application to them is full of contradictory issues

There is no normative practice for finding out the nature of God, what he wants from us, because there is no normative religion.

Much like if we focus on one key aspect of medicine (like say diet) we find that is also insufficient to cover the length and breadth of sickness and diseases.

There isn't even a normative goal in religion, some of them seek personal enlightenment, and others seek to implement the will of a god.

You can't see how those two borrow from each other?
How can one implement the will of god without enlightenment?
And if one is already enlightened, what possible reservations would they have about implementing the will of god?

 

[spidergoat]

Your fluidity is another word for being completely and totally evasive. If there is one god, then there would be on religion, but there isn't. Buddhist enlightenment has nothing to do with God.

The cure for a specific disease only varies when doctors don't know what it is and how to cure it. If they knew what it was, the cure would be identical. Therefore, religions don't refer to any objective God, they all think it's something different, which is why the theistic religions are all different.

 

[lightgigantic]

Your fluidity is another word for being completely and totally evasive.

You are the one plying "concepts" as some how distinct from "knowledge"

If there is one god, then there would be on religion, but there isn't.

kind of like saying if there was functional medical practice there would be one application

Buddhist enlightenment has nothing to do with God.

If they can engineer placebos or sugar coat pills for positive progressive benefit in medicine, why on earth do you think god would be so literal minded as to limit all paths of spiritual progress to being blatantly obvious about him directing it (particularly if coming to the material world is a default adversion to god)

The cure for a specific disease only varies when doctors don't know what it is and how to cure it.

not at all - there are various procedures to do something according to complications of time, place and circumstance.

If they knew what it was, the cure would be identical.

which then just leaves the question of who they are doing the procedure on, whether they have resources to do it, who will be doing it etc etc

[Therefore, religions don't refer to any objective God, they all think it's something different, which is why the theistic religions are all different.

The differences carry through to your presentation of medicine.