Is faith a good way to believe?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
The wholeness and order of the Cosmos (Plato) now looks to me like panentheism not theism.
There are two issues to be considered. The most obvious is that Socrates was sentenced to death for being an atheist and so if Plato was an atheist it was necessary for him to hide it . (Descartes faced the same problem based on the Church’s response to Galileo). The second is that he recognized that atheism was not a good public teaching. He does not deny gods but does not affirm them either. There is no mention of gods in the image of the Forms. Theistic Platonists might conceive of the Good as God, but the text itself does not support such a reading. It is something they bring to it.
When you say "there is no logos of the whole" do you mean that nobody can explain Cosmos absolutely but must in all reason do so only doubtingly and partially.
I left it intentionally ambiguous because this ambiguity is part of the problem - is the logos human or is there a logos of the cosmos that man can come to know? As a skeptic he cannot say one way or the other whether there is a cosmic logos and so he addresses only the human logoi. But this is not limited to reasoned speech. Poetry and the imagination play an important role. Aspiration (your post #131), the image of the ascent from the case, is often ignored by philosophers whose whole concern is reason. Platonists, on the other hand, fail to see Plato’s poetry and imagery as poetry and mistake it for truth.
The Sun which the philosopher king could see outside of the Cave , i.e. the Form of the Good , was what the philosopher king aspired to , or in other words the philosopher king's faith .
Something like that. I actually wrote the above before reading this far. I am hesitant to call it the philosopher’s faith. While that description might fit the aspiring philosopher, I cannot say that Plato had faith in the existence of the Good as it is presented in the Republic. Based on a consideration of other dialogues, and most clearly in the Symposium, it is eros that both inspires and that to which the philosopher aspires - the erotic desire for wisdom. In theological terms, it would be the god Eros who takes center stage, but of course Plato is being playfully ironic.

As to the cave, we should not, so to speak, be too quick to make the ascent, for by doing so it does not come to our attention what Plato is saying and doing. We need to pay attention to the “puppet masters”, that is, those who make the images whose shadows are seen on the cave wall. They are the opinion makers, the makers of the images we take to be the truth. Prior to the image of the man who ascends from the cave there is the image of the man freed from the cave wall who is able to turn around and discover the opinion makers. In other words, the freedom from the cave is not ascent out of the cave but takes place when one becomes cognizant of the opinion makers, those who influence the way we think and see things, who shape our beliefs and opinions. It is freedom from our founding mythologies.

But it is here that the enthusiastic reader of Plato’s image of the cave may be fooled. Plato reveals the opinion makers but what is not seen is that he too is an opinion maker. He simply replaces old images with new ones, ones that still hold sway today. The Good and the other Forms are just images, Plato’s philosophical poetry. Those who mistake the images for the truth are what he calls “philosophical dogs”, faithful guardians of the founding myth.
1. The philosopher king remains the permanent elite among permanent prisoners in the Cave.
There is a sense in which the whole thing is a joke, and Socrates discusses this extensively. Philosophers cannot be kings or rulers in any ordinary sense of the term. Even today philosophy is often seen as a worthless endeavor and philosophers as hopelessly out of touch. But if you look at the ideas that have shaped western culture they can be traced back to the philosophers, and this includes our religious beliefs. So, yes, the philosopher king remains the elite, but this is not a permanent position. There is always a tension between the philosopher and the political and religious elite.
2. The prisoners in the Cave are rescued from their ignorance by the philosopher King.
The question is: what does it mean to be rescued from ignorance? As I suggested above, Plato replaces the old images with new ones and so some believe that they have been rescued from their ignorance, but they remain ignorant because they simply replace old images with Platonic images. They do exactly what Socrates says the prisoners have always done - believe images not to be images but the things of which they are images.

And the truth itself? We remain ignorant of it when it comes to what Socrates called in the Apology the “most important questions”.

3. Not the philosopher king ,nor the prisoners, nor any former prisoners are able to view the Sun except through the eyes of faith.
What they view are images, the product of philosophical poetry, what we imagine the Good itself and Beauty itself and Justice itself are. If one knows an image as an image will he or she be willing to place faith in it? It is only when one believes that the images are not images but the truth itself that one puts faith into it. The “philosopher-king” knows the image is an image. A useful instrument for the aspiring philosopher and a public teaching but he does not worship his own image.

4. The Form of the Good can be argued by moderns, especially perhaps by Buddhists, to correlate with inherent predisposition towards fairness as in distributive justice.
Plato and Aristotle both made similar arguments. The Good is that to which we aspire. Everyone wants what is good. The difficulty arises when we try to determine what the good is. Plato does not reject Protagoras’ claim that man is the measure. He is aware, however, of just how dangerous this can be. It can lead to a radical relativism. Fixing the good in an eternal unchanging reality served as the antidote. It should be kept in mind that this discussion of the Good and the cave occurs in a dialogue devoted to the question of justice.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Nick_A »

Belindi:
The wholeness and order of the Cosmos (Plato) now looks to me like panentheism not theism.
I agree. In fact I believe as of now that if there ever is a unification of science and the essence of religion, Panentheism will serve as its foundation.

A person can argue opinions all there life and get nowhere. But getting beyond opinions intellectually requires beginning with a premise or a hypothesis if you prefer to sincerely explore.

In my case I have asked myself seriously if what I witness as creation is the result of everything arising from nothing as an accident or if creation is the result of conscious need and intent which is beyond the limitations of my dominant dual mind to comprehend. Everything arising from nothing and forming a complex living machine called organic life on earth which feeds on itself and reproduces in order to survive seems obviously absurd. There is no reason or necessary force to create it.

Newton’s first law of motion states that An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.. What is this unbalanced force which brings dead materiality into being?

All this appears silly to me and doesn’t explain anything. However creation beginning from above and through the process of involution, unity into diversity, forming devolved material fractions of the whole which taken together result in the cosmoses makes far more sense as a premise. Choose your premise and then begin to reason. Can Man's objective meaning and purpose be the result of a universal need. Can we grow to understand it rather than find satisfaction through living in denial? I’ve chosen mine as the Good or the state of ISNESS beyond the limitations of time and space within which the universe and its process of existence takes place. That is the beginning.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Steve3007 »

Apologies for the delay in this reply. I was moving house.

Nick_A, post #150:
In all fairness you are probably not familiar with these types of ideas so they are easy to misunderstand. You cannot condemn a contradiction since you haven’t yet opened to the contradiction.
I don't know what you mean here by the expression "you cannot condemn a contradiction". I was commenting on a fairly simple couple of sentences by Simone Weil that you had presented to me. I didn't condemn anything. I pointed out that it is self-evidently true that the things done by animals and objects are possible.
The world and our universe as we see it is governed by universal laws...
I'd say that it is described by laws. But carry on.
...Its creatures are also reactions to universal laws. All that is possible, the process of existence, is governed by laws. If that is the case, there is no room for God. Doing the impossible in a universe within which everything is connected by the possible would cause the destruction of the universe since its inner connectedness would fall apart.
I think you're making a common mistake of thinking that the descriptive laws of physics have something in common with the prescriptive laws of human societies. The word may be the same but the concept isn't. Physics simply observes patterns in observations and postulates that those patterns will be repeated in future observations. If they are repeated reliably then they are deemed to be laws of physics. Physics doesn't tell the universe what to do. It observes what it does do. That being the case, I don't think your argument that it leaves no room for God is valid. Doing the impossible, by definition, makes it possible. If an observation reliably establishes that something in the universe has "broken" a law of physics - a law of gravity for example - then it is not the universe that is wrong! It is the law that needs to be updated.

-- Updated Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:29 pm to add the following --

There appears to be very little about this God concept that is universally accepted. Different people appear to have widely varying views about it. So there's not much I can say about it myself that I can be confident is a universally accepted truth. But, in the context of physical law (those descriptive laws that I was referring to) if you are telling me that one of the characteristics of God is that it can do the impossible then the best way I can think of to understand that statement is that you are saying that God is not describable. It does not follow patterns of behaviour that can be codified into something that we would call a law.

As far as I can see, that means that you are telling me that God's behaviour is indistinguishable from randomness. But that doesn't seem to entirely fit what a lot of other people with apparent knowledge of the matter say. For sure, I've heard people say things like "God moves in mysterious ways". But I've also heard people refer to the God concept as if it behaves somewhat predictably, like humans, other animals and physical objects. People often seem to do or say certain things towards this God because they think that those actions or words (sometimes referred to as "prayers") increase the likelihood of God behaving in a particular way. So they clearly have a mental model - a working hypothesis - something not entirely different from a law of Nature - in their head about the way in which God behaves.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Nick_A »

Steve3007 wrote:Apologies for the delay in this reply. I was moving house.

Nick_A, post #150:
In all fairness you are probably not familiar with these types of ideas so they are easy to misunderstand. You cannot condemn a contradiction since you haven’t yet opened to the contradiction.
I don't know what you mean here by the expression "you cannot condemn a contradiction". I was commenting on a fairly simple couple of sentences by Simone Weil that you had presented to me. I didn't condemn anything. I pointed out that it is self-evidently true that the things done by animals and objects are possible.
The world and our universe as we see it is governed by universal laws...
I'd say that it is described by laws. But carry on.
...Its creatures are also reactions to universal laws. All that is possible, the process of existence, is governed by laws. If that is the case, there is no room for God. Doing the impossible in a universe within which everything is connected by the possible would cause the destruction of the universe since its inner connectedness would fall apart.
I think you're making a common mistake of thinking that the descriptive laws of physics have something in common with the prescriptive laws of human societies. The word may be the same but the concept isn't. Physics simply observes patterns in observations and postulates that those patterns will be repeated in future observations. If they are repeated reliably then they are deemed to be laws of physics. Physics doesn't tell the universe what to do. It observes what it does do. That being the case, I don't think your argument that it leaves no room for God is valid. Doing the impossible, by definition, makes it possible. If an observation reliably establishes that something in the universe has "broken" a law of physics - a law of gravity for example - then it is not the universe that is wrong! It is the law that needs to be updated.

-- Updated Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:29 pm to add the following --

There appears to be very little about this God concept that is universally accepted. Different people appear to have widely varying views about it. So there's not much I can say about it myself that I can be confident is a universally accepted truth. But, in the context of physical law (those descriptive laws that I was referring to) if you are telling me that one of the characteristics of God is that it can do the impossible then the best way I can think of to understand that statement is that you are saying that God is not describable. It does not follow patterns of behaviour that can be codified into something that we would call a law.

As far as I can see, that means that you are telling me that God's behaviour is indistinguishable from randomness. But that doesn't seem to entirely fit what a lot of other people with apparent knowledge of the matter say. For sure, I've heard people say things like "God moves in mysterious ways". But I've also heard people refer to the God concept as if it behaves somewhat predictably, like humans, other animals and physical objects. People often seem to do or say certain things towards this God because they think that those actions or words (sometimes referred to as "prayers") increase the likelihood of God behaving in a particular way. So they clearly have a mental model - a working hypothesis - something not entirely different from a law of Nature - in their head about the way in which God behaves.
I can reply better if I know you are open to this description of Simone Weil's concept of "absence" as described in Wiki. Tell me if it makes any sense to you and then if it does I can explain how it fits into what you've written.
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogony, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part. Similar ideas occur in Jewish mysticism.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis ("emptiness") preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. (See Apophatic theology.)
This notion of creation is a cornerstone of her theodicy, for if creation is conceived this way (as necessarily containing evil within itself), then there is no problem of the entrance of evil into a perfect world. Nor does this constitute a delimitation of God's omnipotence, if it is not that God could not create a perfect world, but that the act which we refer towards by saying "create" in its very essence implies the impossibility of perfection.
However, this notion of the necessity of evil does not mean that we are simply, originally, and continually doomed; on the contrary, Weil tells us that "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world".[51] Weil believed that evil, and its consequence, affliction, served the role of driving us out of ourselves and towards God—"The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it."[52]

Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Steve3007 »

Note: From here on, I'm going to refer to God as "He" as that is the usual convention.

Nick_A on Simone Weil:
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogony, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part. Similar ideas occur in Jewish mysticism.
This appears to be saying that before anything was created, God was everything and everywhere. So in order to create anything He had to, as it were, pull his stomach in; create space for it by making Himself smaller. That's fine. If this "utter fullness" idea is taken as a premise then I can see how that follows from it.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis ("emptiness") preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. (See Apophatic theology.)
OK, so since the universe of objects, creatures and people was created in the space which God vacated then we are not part of God. I can't argue with that. But I don't see how it necessarily follows that we are the opposite of God. It just allows that we could be. Being "not something" does not automatically make us the opposite of that thing.

Anyway, humans, squirrels, stars, rocks and so on are not God and therefore at least could be damned and unholy. Yes. Got that. Although I'm not sure how the concept of being damned or unholy applies to a rock.
This notion of creation is a cornerstone of her theodicy, for if creation is conceived this way (as necessarily containing evil within itself), then there is no problem of the entrance of evil into a perfect world.
As I said above, I don't see how it follows that God making space in order to create us necessarily makes us the opposite of God. In any case, I don't see why this argument is needed in order to deal with the so called "problem if evil". I've never seen that as a problem anyway. As discussed in various other threads around here, if the whole God idea is accepted as a premise then I can accept the standard answers that are normally given as to why He allows the existence of evil and suffering. I don't see the "pulling his stomach in" idea (as I called it above) as required.
Nor does this constitute a delimitation of God's omnipotence, if it is not that God could not create a perfect world, but that the act which we refer towards by saying "create" in its very essence implies the impossibility of perfection.
OK. If God is perfect and the things He creates are not Him then the things He creates might not be perfect. But, as I said, that isn't necessarily true.
However, this notion of the necessity of evil does not mean that we are simply, originally, and continually doomed; on the contrary, Weil tells us that "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world".[51] Weil believed that evil, and its consequence, affliction, served the role of driving us out of ourselves and towards God—"The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it."[52]
This appears to be saying that the challenge of dealing with evil is what brings out the good in us. Dealing with adversity makes us better people. Fair enough. It's a common enough idea. Often expressed in such expressions of homespun wisdom as: "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or "necessity is the mother of invention" or by pretty much all of Rudyard Kipling's poem "If".

---

General thought: To be honest, I tend to find these vague abstract ideas a bit pointless and not obviously relevant to anything in real life. Talking about how there might be this God thing and He might have made himself smaller in order to create the universe isn't a particularly philosophically, intellectually or emotionally interesting/satisfying idea. Seems too much like arguments about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I prefer real stuff about real people and things. Maybe that means I am a secularist after all? I don't know.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Nick_A »

Steve, let me deal with your general thought first
General thought: To be honest, I tend to find these vague abstract ideas a bit pointless and not obviously relevant to anything in real life. Talking about how there might be this God thing and He might have made himself smaller in order to create the universe isn't a particularly philosophically, intellectually or emotionally interesting/satisfying idea. Seems too much like arguments about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I prefer real stuff about real people and things. Maybe that means I am a secularist after all? I don't know.
I think you would agree that some people have a need for philosophy defined as the love of wisdom? If they do they have a calling to feel “why” which resonates in the depth of their being. So even though the God question is beyond the domain of our literal mind it is still attractive to some and pursued through “pondering” as opposed to arguing. So from the religious philosophical perspective pondering is a need and not just a way to feel important.

You seem to be more concerned with pragmatism. Is there any societal good in keeping the God question open? I can only answer from my experience. I’ve been around long enough and have experienced enough to conclude that unless humanity as a whole experiences and expresses the unification of science and the essence of religion, we are doomed. Technology will allow us to do many things but we won’t know what to do. As a result science will also further the lowest drives of our species resulting in horrors I shudder to imagine.

Science can come to appreciate a skeleton of creation within human meaning and purpose becomes obvious. As you know now schools only speak of evolution. Eventually IMO “involution” or the cosmic movement of unity into diversity will be documented. Once we realize that the complimentary flows of forces leading both towards and away from the source (evolution and involution) much like the complimentary blood flows both towards and away from the heart it raises the question of our purpose within it. We know we serve the purpose of dust to dust as does all animal life. But could we have an additional potential, a lawful conscious purpose we can consciously evolve towards? Wouldn’t recognizing it be pragmatic? If we do, how can we awaken to it and can science further this purpose? If Simone is right in the following and we could verify this relationship, wouldn’t it change everything by opening our psyche to conscious evolution and what is lost through our ignorance?
I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A , on Simone Weil:
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis ("emptiness") preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. (See Apophatic theology.)
But to be what God is not is unnecessarily dualist. There are two aspects of being. One aspect is process, which Spinoza called Natura Naturans, and the other aspect is the array of creation e.g. rocks, cups, squirrels, old coca cola cans, atoms, which lumped all together Spinoza calls Natura NaturataI make no excuse for the Latin as Latin is so much more precise than English and this matter calls for precision!I mean Natura Naturans, the process of nature, can co-exist with the other aspect of nature which is all the things of nature.

The process, i.e. becoming, function of Natura Naturanswas suggested to me by a contributor on one of these forums I dont know if it's impolite to mention another contributor by name, and he might be on the other discussion forums anyway.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
Quoting Weil:

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science.
It is only by the inability to see or the ability to ignore differences that different things appears to be the same.

Wittgenstein:
If white turns into black some people say “Essentially it is the same”. And others, if the colour becomes one shade darker, say, “It has changed completely” (Culture and Value, 42)
And, of course, this says more about the person making the judgment than it does about what they are judging.

Nick_A:
“To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.” Simone Weil
If scientific inquiry leads to God so be it, but what are we to make of the claim that this is its “veritable destiny”? Weil’s waiting for God is harmless enough but while she is waiting she should not meddle or dabble in science. Perhaps she thinks it is all the same but the difference between her theology and science is that she begins and ends at the same place where she hopes to find her God who is both origin and conclusion. Science, however, is not guided by some notion of veritable destiny, but is rather free inquiry without a predetermined outcome.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Nick_A »

Belindi wrote:Nick_A , on Simone Weil:
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis ("emptiness") preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. (See Apophatic theology.)
But to be what God is not is unnecessarily dualist. There are two aspects of being. One aspect is process, which Spinoza called Natura Naturans, and the other aspect is the array of creation e.g. rocks, cups, squirrels, old coca cola cans, atoms, which lumped all together Spinoza calls Natura NaturataI make no excuse for the Latin as Latin is so much more precise than English and this matter calls for precision!I mean Natura Naturans, the process of nature, can co-exist with the other aspect of nature which is all the things of nature.

The process, i.e. becoming, function of Natura Naturanswas suggested to me by a contributor on one of these forums I dont know if it's impolite to mention another contributor by name, and he might be on the other discussion forums anyway.

Belindi
But to be what God is not is unnecessarily dualist. There are two aspects of being. One aspect is process, which Spinoza called Natura Naturans, and the other aspect is the array of creation e.g. rocks, cups, squirrels, old coca cola cans, atoms, which lumped all together Spinoza calls Natura NaturataI make no excuse for the Latin as Latin is so much more precise than English and this matter calls for precision!I mean Natura Naturans, the process of nature, can co-exist with the other aspect of nature which is all the things of nature.

The process, i.e. becoming, function of Natura Naturanswas suggested to me by a contributor on one of these forums I dont know if it's impolite to mention another contributor by name, and he might be on the other discussion forums anyway.
You are equating God with creation which reminds me of Pantheism. Simone is suggesting something closer to Panentheism. From this perspective God doesn’t exist. Rather God IS. Existence is a process taking place within IS. Isness is a state of being while existence is a process in eternal change and temporary results. God IS and we EXIST. This isn’t dualism

-- Updated Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:36 pm to add the following --

F4
If scientific inquiry leads to God so be it, but what are we to make of the claim that this is its “veritable destiny”? Weil’s waiting for God is harmless enough but while she is waiting she should not meddle or dabble in science. Perhaps she thinks it is all the same but the difference between her theology and science is that she begins and ends at the same place where she hopes to find her God who is both origin and conclusion. Science, however, is not guided by some notion of veritable destiny, but is rather free inquiry without a predetermined outcome.
Science deals with facts and their interaction while the essence of religion is concerned with “being:” the objective quality of NOW. Science deals with fragments of the whole while the essence of religion is concerned with wholeness that devolves into a human perspective

. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ... Albert Einstein


Simone understood. Einstein and others understood. You prefer to deny. Unfortunately this denial is not harmless when it infests school systems and serves as a most efficient form of spirit killing on the young held captive.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A wrote:
You are equating God with creation which reminds me of Pantheism. Simone is suggesting something closer to Panentheism. From this perspective God doesn’t exist. Rather God IS. Existence is a process taking place within IS. Isness is a state of being while existence is a process in eternal change and temporary results. God IS and we EXIST. This isn’t dualism
I concede it's not dualism. I do see Spinoza as pantheist not panentheist, although this is controversial. Within Spinoza's system Natura Naturans is easily taken to be superior to Natura Naturata (the things of nature). It's possible that the slide from pantheism into panentheism is caused by lingering attachment to theism, and panentheism seems to me to be closer to theism than it is to pantheism.

When all is said and done metaphysics is speculative and anybody's ontic stance is a matter of faith and of pragmatism. This discussion can proceed from a pragmatic point of view, i.e. morally and politically, but really one's metaphysical stance is personal and speculative.

For my pragmatic comment on Irenaeus versus Valentinus please see the discussion around Simone Weil, and the value of mysticism in religion and metaphysics.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
I concede it's not dualism.
I think you were right and should not have conceded. First, the distinction between what is and what exists is a form of dualism - what is is other than what exists. Second, Weil believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God and as such God exists. The problem is the struggle between two conflicting tendencies - to put God beyond what can be said and to talk about God. Or, as I saw it put somewhere: to eff the ineffable.

Nick_A:
… the essence of religion is concerned with wholeness that devolves into a human perspective
The human perspective is the only perspective we are privy to. The religious concern is not a transcendence of the human perspective, and so there is no “devolving” into a human perspective.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ... Albert Einstein
You trot this out every time the topic of science comes up as if by mechanical reflex. As I have pointed out in previous posts this statement in context means something quite different than what you want it to mean. The first thing that needs to be cleared away is what he did not mean. He was circumspect in public but in a private letter he was much more forthcoming:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. (To Erik Gutkind, 1954)

Here is the full paragraph from the essay you quoted from:
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
He denies your claim that:
… the essence of religion is concerned with “being:” the objective quality of NOW.
Religion, according to Einstein, deals with values, goals, and meaning. It is the source of “the aspiration toward truth and understanding”. One might object that the aspiration toward truth and understanding is rightfully part of science, but he defines science narrowly as the methodology by which our desire to know becomes more than blind stumbling:
Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. . .

Why does he say that science without religion is lame? Because, as he says in the essay:
For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
He says that:
… a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.
What must be emphasized is that Einstein sees religion in wholly human or secular terms. It does not have access to “being” or “the objective quality of NOW”. It is blind and incapable of rational foundations. But, as quoted above, he does call “the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason” a religious faith. Religious faith is for Einstein faith in human reason.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Dark Matter »

He denies your claim that:
… the essence of religion is concerned with “being:” the objective quality of NOW.
Religion, according to Einstein, deals with values, goals, and meaning. It is the source of “the aspiration toward truth and understanding”. One might object that the aspiration toward truth and understanding is rightfully part of science, but he defines science narrowly as the methodology by which our desire to know becomes more than blind stumbling:
A distinction without a difference.

-- Updated March 16th, 2017, 6:08 pm to add the following --

Your constant hair-splitting is boring, F4.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Dark Matter:
A distinction without a difference.

Your constant hair-splitting is boring, F4.
So, you are in agreement with Einstein’s view of religion? You agree that talk of God is childish? That religion is blind and incapable of rational foundation? That it is about the desire to know but that knowledge is the domain of science? That religion is about the determination of values and goals but lack divine foundation or guidance? That faith has nothing to do with the divine but is faith in human reason? That any distinction between your view of religion and his is hair-splitting?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Nick_A »

Einstein wrote:
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Plato spoke of remembrance and Einstein spoke of intuition. Both are the results of awakening to reality hidden by the literal mind.

The literal mind is the way of science and remembrance through pondering is the domain of religious truth. Secularism is the domain of the Great Beast which demands obedience to secular affirmations such as political correctness.

Institutions of psychological child abuse known as schools specializing in modern methods of spirit killing do their best to kill intuition and natural awe and wonder in favor of secular indoctrination.
”The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry." - Simone Weil
Secular indoctrination which has destroyed the natural hunger of the soul in many of the young is the prized goal of progressive secular education through which the Great Beast becomes God. The students must be protected from those like Plato, Simone Weil, and Einstein. Whatever they are exposed to must be carefully censored so as not tp provoke unapproved thinking. The indoctrinated don’t need to think. The Great Beast thinks for them and teaches them by means of "experts" what they need to know
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” ~ Albert Einstein
The servants of the Beast must be protected from such heresy. The next thing you know they will ask about intelligent design which cannot be allowed. We know that only Man is logical.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Is faith a good way to believe?

Post by Dark Matter »

Fooloso4 wrote:Dark Matter:
A distinction without a difference.

Your constant hair-splitting is boring, F4.
So, you are in agreement with Einstein’s view of religion? You agree that talk of God is childish? That religion is blind and incapable of rational foundation? That it is about the desire to know but that knowledge is the domain of science? That religion is about the determination of values and goals but lack divine foundation or guidance? That faith has nothing to do with the divine/ but is faith in human reason? That any distinction between your view of religion and his is hair-splitting?
Not only is your constant hair-splitting boring, but so are your non sequiturs and sophistry.

Example: Einstein's view on religion is irrelevant, though not always. In order of being asked:
not always
not always
no
not always
no
no/both
irrelevant
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021