What is perfect?
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: What is perfect?
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is perfect?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: What is perfect?
Except, of course, that people didn't encounter any such entity - unless they were visited by space aliens, in which case they would have described or depicted those aliens accurately. Humans have always been the most powerful living thing in their world - they killed mammoths, saber-tooth tigers and whales! The only thing more powerful than themselves were meteorological phenomena - and how would those lead to the notion of a family of human gods, which seems to crop up in urban, stone-wall-building civilizations around the world, while largely absent from the mythology of reed- and thatch-dwelling peoples on the land?Spectrum wrote: In the olden days, with limited 'vision' any entity more powerful than human beings was regarded as a 'god' which led to polytheism.
When? From what new source?Then insecurity and the ego set in
Per usual, this just means that the latest military empire swamps the belief-system of its subject peoples with its own dominant metaphysics, usually incorporating, with minor changes of name or character, many local deities and practices as it grows.The usual, 'mine is better, stronger, more powerful than yours'.
Where in history do you see an escalating theological arms-race? As far as I can make out, not until AD: there is some jockeying between Christianity and Islam, between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, then the Reformation - but these are mainly canonical disagreements, regarding the same god. Now, this Jehovah, even though he was singular - at least in the creation story - didn't start out imbued with absolute perfection. Omnipotence and omniscience were not explicitly mentioned in Genesis, and later in the bible, he throws tantrums, makes wagers, lets his favourites get away with criminal acts, while smiting innocents for no good reason ... is quite as ill-behaved as Zeus, in fact.
I don't think so. I think Renaissance science gave him the big push.This inevitably lead to infinite regression.
I follow the logic, but still don't have a source for the doctrine.To avoid infinite regression, God must be absolutely perfect.
Maybe it was a papal encyclical?
-- Updated October 16th, 2017, 9:38 am to add the following --
Yes, I think this pretty well sums up how organic - that is to say, natural, rooted in the country of origin - evolution of a belief-system works. It just keep eating up the smaller, local beliefs until it has a mythological literature far too big for anyone to follow. It's not rationalized into coherence or a disciplined canon. The Catholic prelates made a huge effort to rationalize, as did the Protestants. I see two reasons why they felt the need: the religion itself was imported, and to advance the political unification of Europe.Chili wrote:In Eastern mysticism, all of these things are just hand-waved as incomprehensible and transcendent. You got your God, I got mine, and they all are reflections of one impersonal transcendent perfect being which both pervades and transcends the entire universe. http://greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/ved ... amidam.php
- Scribbler60
- Posts: 177
- Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am
Re: What is perfect?
That is, of course, simply a re-stating of my original post: that one's god tends to be beyond space, time and our understanding. By definition this god is incomprehensible, which is extraordinarily convenient for believers because it removes that cumbersome, troublesome burden of proof.Chili wrote:In Eastern mysticism, all of these things are just hand-waved as incomprehensible and transcendent. You got your God, I got mine, and they all are reflections of one impersonal transcendent perfect being which both pervades and transcends the entire universe. http://greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/ved ... amidam.php
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: What is perfect?
Where else do you see this tendency? Most of the mythologies of human cultures say no such thing.Scribbler60 wrote:That is, of course, simply a re-stating of my original post: that one's god tends to be beyond space, time and our understanding.
Where is this definition?By definition this god is incomprehensible,
What makes you think they felt any such burden?which is extraordinarily convenient for believers because it removes that cumbersome, troublesome burden of proof.
It seem to me that a lot of assumptions are made by various people regarding other people's mind-sets, world-views, psychology and belief-structure
that are not well supported by external fact - though admittedly strong on internal consistency and rationale.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is perfect?
As I never tire of pointing out, human life is full of beliefs which are well nigh indispensable, and which cannot be proven - reality of the world, reality of other minds...Scribbler60 wrote:That is, of course, simply a re-stating of my original post: that one's god tends to be beyond space, time and our understanding. By definition this god is incomprehensible, which is extraordinarily convenient for believers because it removes that cumbersome, troublesome burden of proof.Chili wrote:In Eastern mysticism, all of these things are just hand-waved as incomprehensible and transcendent. You got your God, I got mine, and they all are reflections of one impersonal transcendent perfect being which both pervades and transcends the entire universe. http://greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/ved ... amidam.php
- Scribbler60
- Posts: 177
- Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am
Re: What is perfect?
It's standard theistic thinking, at least in the Judaeo-Christian context. Here are some examples:Alias wrote:Where else do you see this tendency? Most of the mythologies of human cultures say no such thing.Scribbler60 wrote:That is, of course, simply a re-stating of my original post: that one's god tends to be beyond space, time and our understanding.
A God Not Bound by Space and Time
What is God's relationship to time?
Scribbler60 wrote:By definition this god is incomprehensible,
What Are the Attributes of God?Alias wrote:Where is this definition?
INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.
Scribbler60 wrote:which is extraordinarily convenient for believers because it removes that cumbersome, troublesome burden of proof.
Well, that's my point, innit? By removing their god from the realm of human comprehensibility (is that a word?) theists have conveniently removed any burden of proof on their part. It's not that their god is knowable but we just haven't figured it out yet (like, say, consciousness); it's that their god is innately unknowable. It cannot be proven using human understanding, it can only be experienced by revelation, which, of course, leads to all sorts of problems, such as which revelations are valid, which aren't, and what's the measurement you use to determine one from another.Alias wrote:What makes you think they felt any such burden?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: What is perfect?
Yes, I've already conceded to that one. That one related group of religions does not constitute a universal tendency, and really isn't very much like the Hindu one.Scribbler60 wrote:[Where else do you see this tendency? ]
It's standard theistic thinking, at least in the Judaeo-Christian context.
And the bible studies on-line now are responses to modern challenges, not part of the Judean tradition, much less its Mesopotamian roots.
Okay. A modern Christian apologist.Where is this definition?]
INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.
Accordingly, I'm provisionally placing that definition in late 20th century America.
That Christians wished to escape the burden? You've said so, yes.Scribbler60 wrote:[What makes you think they felt any burden of proof? ]
Well, that's my point, innit?
But you haven't explained why they should have felt any need to prove that their god is real, or that he has any of the attributes claimed for him.
Do you not find this extraordinary?
No other peoples, afaik, have ever produced a body apologetics. They simply told their stories, erected their altars, built their calendars, engraved their images, chanted their elegies, carried out their prescribed rituals and killed their designated sacrificial victims. No proofs, no explanations, no arguments.
- Scribbler60
- Posts: 177
- Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am
Re: What is perfect?
Unless I miss my guess - entirely possible - it seems that you are I are actually arguing the same thing: that, at least in the context of modern Christians in an age which has, for all intents and purposes, disproved the existence (or at least a need) of a god, they have developed a cluster of apologetics texts and hypothesis which can't withstand any scrutiny. When confronted with this reality, they often fall back upon the "Well, God is mysterious" or "God is outside space and time" or "God is not comprehensible to our limited human understanding." All those argument are, of course, arguments from irrationality and incredulity. Hardly a basis for constructing a faith.Alias wrote:[What makes you think they felt any burden of proof? ]That Christians wished to escape the burden? You've said so, yes.Scribbler60 wrote: Well, that's my point, innit?
But you haven't explained why they should have felt any need to prove that their god is real, or that he has any of the attributes claimed for him.
Do you not find this extraordinary?
No other peoples, afaik, have ever produced a body apologetics. They simply told their stories, erected their altars, built their calendars, engraved their images, chanted their elegies, carried out their prescribed rituals and killed their designated sacrificial victims. No proofs, no explanations, no arguments.
They resist accepting responsibility for the burden of proof because most likely know, in their heart of hearts, that there actually isn't any, and they rely upon personal revelation - ignoring all those attendant difficulties - instead.
And on that happy note, I'm going for a motorcycle ride!
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: What is perfect?
I wasn't arguing. I was asking for the sources of information: where the assumptions come from.Scribbler60 wrote: Unless I miss my guess - entirely possible - it seems that you are I are actually arguing the same thing:
It seems to me that we - forum participants - while stringent in our requirements of whatever information is presented on most topics -
are oddly cavalier in our attitude to statements regarding religion. I wondered why we so readily accept unsupported opinion on this one subject.
That's not an "at least"; that's the crux of the matter.that, at least in the context of modern Christians
It seems to me that we often (usually?) take the most exceptional example to use as a template for generalizing about religions.
This means, too, that we're drawing conclusions about the intent and content of all religion, all mysticism, from this one end result of a long, muli-branched process, which has yielded many other kinds of end product. Moreover, we draw conclusions about the origin of all religious impulse from how Christianity is employed in the modern world, and about the many generations practitioners of religions on all continents from the current American spokesmen of Western Christianity.
Ah, there! One particular, expansionist god, with a good deal of political and economic influence at stake, is confronted by a burgeoning, highly persuasive challenger - modern science.in an age which has, for all intents and purposes, disproved the existence (or at least a need) of a god, they have developed a cluster of apologetics texts and hypothesis which can't withstand any scrutiny.
This is not something any other religion has ever had to face.
So the response of modern Christians to modern skeptics tells us very little about the intent or content of religion generally, or the nature of ancient gods....
or any universal qualifications for deity...
nor the philosophical concept of perfection.
- Scribbler60
- Posts: 177
- Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am
Re: What is perfect?
(Just got back from a short ride and didn't get killed, so the day is pretty good after all.)
Anyway... I have to approach this from a modernistic Judaeo-Christian perspective because that's the only one with which I am remotely familiar. Having been ensconced in that form of theism for years, it is the only one with which I have direct experience. I cannot speak from the perspective of, say, Hinduism, or Islam, or, well, any other faith tradition because I haven't lived that life. Any assumptions I would make regarding those other faith traditions would be exactly that: assumptions. As such, they wouldn't be valid.
By the way, other religions did have to face such challenges. The Muslim world had to face it during the Golden Age of Islam. Alas, sadly, the conservatives, led by Al Ghazali, carried the day (much like the fundamentalists are trying to do right now in the US). It became an affront to Allah to look at the world scientifically because Allah was the centre of all things. (It's not that much different in parts of the US where creationist lies are now being taught in the science classroom.) Islam has never recovered. It probably never will.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: What is perfect?
Which is where most us are. From here, we can say with a degree of confidence: Christians regard their god as the only perfect thing in the universe.Scribbler60 wrote: Anyway... I have to approach this from a modernistic Judaeo-Christian perspective because that's the only one with which I am remotely familiar.
Why make inferences about all gods, everywhere? It's unnecessary to the question at hand.
Same family of religions, same god, same historical period.By the way, other religions did have to face such challenges. The Muslim world had to face it during the Golden Age of Islam.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: What is perfect?
It is not specifically mentioned in the Bible but it is obvious in the Quran, i.e. Allahu Akbar, i.e. God is Great to the extent there is no other God except Allah which is all powerful and thus perfect.Alias wrote:I follow the logic, but still don't have a source for the doctrine.To avoid infinite regression, God must be absolutely perfect.
Maybe it was a papal encyclical?
Perfection is not explicit in the Bible, but it is Christian philosophers like St. Anselm who introduced the ontological God, i.e.
The ontological god reflect perfection, i.e.History of the Ontological God:
1078: St. Anselm, Proslogion. Followed soon after by Gaunilo’s critique In Behalf of the Fool.
1264: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa. Criticises an argument which somehow descends from St. Anselm.
1637: Descartes, Discourse on Method. The argument of Discourse 4 is further elaborated in the Meditations. The Objections—particularly those of Caterus and Gassendi—and the Replies contain much valuable discussion of the Cartesian arguments.
c1680: Spinoza, Ethics. Intimations of a defensible mereological ontological argument, albeit one whose conclusion is not (obviously) endowed with religious significance.
1709: Leibniz, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding. Contains Leibniz’s attempt to complete the Cartesian argument by showing that the Cartesian conception of God is not inconsistent.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... #HisOntArg
"God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived" - St. Anselm,
which imply perfection in this case.
So my argument still stands;
- Absolute perfection is an impossibility
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Therefore God is an impossibility.
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: What is perfect?
Your premises are only relevant to a particular description of God so your conclusion only applies to that God.Spectrum wrote: So my argument still stands;
- Absolute perfection is an impossibility
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Therefore God is an impossibility.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is perfect?
Is it not an expression of supreme human hubris to conclude that if people "cannot conceive" of an entity that it must be *perfect* ?Spectrum wrote:
The ontological god reflect perfection, i.e.
"God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived" - St. Anselm,
which imply perfection in this case.
So my argument still stands;
- Absolute perfection is an impossibility
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Therefore God is an impossibility.
No doubt there's all *kinds* of imperfect stuff I can't conceive of.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023