Truly, sir, you are a stranger to rigor and reason. Your own first impression is good enough for you, and you think it should be good enough for others.Count Lucanor wrote:Exactly why will that be?Chili wrote: I would think that the most scientific skeptic believes everything around him is the result of "physics, all particles and the void" and then is immediately skeptical that other persons are conscious agents.
What is godness?
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is godness?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What is godness?
Although I wouldn't mind being a 2, I wonder why I wouldn't make it to 1. After all, belief in the existence of other minds implies belief in the existence of other people, since minds only go with people. And I do know for certain that people exist.Greta wrote: If we applied the methodology of Richard Dawkins' seven point spectrum of theistic probability to the problem of other minds, then complete belief in other minds would scare 1 and complete disbelief scores 7, in which case Conte might be a 2, ie. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in [...] and live my life on the assumption [...]."
-- Updated November 1st, 2017, 10:37 pm to add the following --
There's an old saying in my country: why waste gunpowder on black vulture? If you want rigor and reason to be applied to your loose, innocuous comments, you are asking for more than what you are willing to give.Chili wrote:Truly, sir, you are a stranger to rigor and reason. Your own first impression is good enough for you, and you think it should be good enough for others.Count Lucanor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Exactly why will that be?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is godness?
Sure, Dawkins has about as much skill in theology as theists often have about evolutionary biology. Nonetheless, grading belief in this way seems to be one reasonable way to look at belief, as long as we don't unreasonably expect a perfect fit. For instance, I vacillate between 3 and 5 but the extremes of the scale definitely don't apply.Burning ghost wrote:I would say Jung doesn't fit anywhere on that scale anymore than I do. The reason Dawkins put Jung in the scale (and ironically at the top??) shows how mind-numbingly ignorant he can be of anything out of his own immediate field of interest. That said Dawkins does make an incredible amount of sense in many ways and has some brilliant argumentation against the more extremist adherers of religious dogma.
The concept of "God" undoubtedly exists. Understanding what it means TO YOU is the real problem. Dawkins has his understanding of it and from what I've seen his view is extremely flat.
RD classes himself as a six on the scale. I have no problem with his interpretation of Jung either, who appears to have developed belief in old age. He "knows" - ostensibly a 7, but that's only talking the talk.
Some say that suicide bombers and others prepared to lay down their lives have true faith. However, beneath that apparent faith often lies ultimate sacrifices made for family, or a personal death wish. I suspect that only a vanishingly small percentage of so called believers would qualify as a "1".
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: What is godness?
Yeah! haha! I cringed at the sight of those names too. I was only using the link to refer to Jung's words not relate them to whatever those particular people on that site were trying to shoehorn his ideas into.
The explication of what he meant stands alone. Although the explication of "archetypes" and "collective unconscious" are not dealt with properly. Those two concepts are the one's that most of the "new age mystics" took up as their own and tended to resemble something quite different to what Jung meant. That said Jung did appear to veer into territory I would call "mystical" in other instances (an example would be his intro in the I Ching - which I found to be quite silly in many ways!)
Greta -
If I was to take the scale in the terms Dawkins seems to put it I would say I am pretty much a solid 7, yet I completely agree with Jung too regarding how he frames the concept "god". That is why I am saying Dawkins has misrepresented Jung's position. Jung is not talking about anything like a 'deity' (a conscious being existing separately) he is referring to the human psyche juxtaposition (so to speak) the world or, as would be better put in a phenomenological sense, about the world (in the epistemic and ontological positional sense.)
To all -
As to the idea of an 'actual' GOD, a being existing with omnipresence. I am incapable of comprehending such a thing and for all intents and purposes it is an irrelevance and beyond the scope of rational proof. I cannot think of a thing that does not exist anymore than a non-being can think of a thing that does exist (such as the non-being not sitting next to me with yellow eyes wearing a purple hat cannot have much to say about me at all). As a mere proposition it has no meaning or grounding in human reality. As a matter of belief or non-belief it is a flimsy ghost of an idea that is out of tangible reach, beyond logical investigation and seemingly something to us merely because we can say there is possibly stuff "out there" we have yet to experience or have misunderstood in some way.
Personally understanding what it is to be human is my concern. Trying to extend to some place beyond is exactly part of what being human is about. Trying to fight out of your own being is part of the process of grounding your sense of self.
I honestly view those who merely "believe" in an actual deity as something like the blind men and the elephant. It doesn't matter what you sense only how you frame your understanding. The concept of 'god' is a very amazing attribute of human achievement. It is such an overwhelming concept that people often feel the need to slot it into whatever cultural system is at hand and by doing so slice away a large part of the intrigue it possesses. Being such a far reaching concept it is quite capable of reaching into various cultures and attitudes with relative ease.
What intrigues me is how belief is shaped and how, through language, we express and frame the world we are all about. The concept of 'god' is something like the "frame" which we possess and we cannot see it only put it to use.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: What is godness?
OK, I think I understand your concerns here. The question ' Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an ancient metaphysical question. This is different from the OP question which, if memory serves, you deem 'laughable', including any atheists' or others' attempts to discuss this topic in philosophy of religion.Dark Matter wrote:"Godness" is an acceptable word if used it the right context, as in describing lesser gods or "demiurges," but it is entirely inappropriate when used in a way that suggests that the ground of being -- that what must be in order for what is to be as it is -- is a being among other beings and can therefore be defined and talked about like your next door neighbor. Let me put it this way: why is there something rather than nothing? What is the cause or ultimate ground of the something that obviously exists? Is it a "godness" that can be reduced to a big man in the sky, a compound of describable parts? We can know that an Ultimate Ground exists (though some would deny even that), but what can we say about it? Not a damn thing. We can say what it is not and learn something from that, but that's it.Georgeanna wrote:.
I prefer to engage with a topic I don't know anything about, and ask questions, all the better to further my knowledge and understanding. It is interesting to read, digest and offer views - there is no need for a deep knowledge of classical theism. This is philosophy of religion. Flexibility of thought rather than dead dogma.
I had never come across the term 'godness' before. And so begins an exploration.
Isn't that part of philosophy? Is that 'laughable' ?
It may well be laughable in the sense that like the metaphysical question, there never seems to be an answer deemed satisfactory or satisfying. It is what it is.
Given the amount of threads dedicated to philosophy of religion, it seems we are gluttons for punishment.
Head-bangers all.
The nature of the beast ?
I talked about the small 'goodness' of human endeavour compared to the grand 'Goodness' of an illusory absolute perfect Being, some call 'God'.
If we take our tiny brains, substantive material with electrical impulses, perhaps there is a Mighty Brain out there...
A bit like Dr Evil and Mini-Me - 'Eeeeeeee!'
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What is godness?
With all due respect to the memory of Mr. Jung, I do think he belongs in that list. He could well be considered one of the fathers of modern Woo Woo. His conception of the "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" are a reframing of old themes from Idealism, combined with mystical nonsense. Mr. Jung was quite a credulous man and didn't seem to be able to put limits to any claim of a spiritual realm.Burning ghost wrote:Count -
Yeah! haha! I cringed at the sight of those names too. I was only using the link to refer to Jung's words not relate them to whatever those particular people on that site were trying to shoehorn his ideas into.
I'm not sure how Jung's views could be misrepresented, as the article is completely made of quotes from his work.Burning ghost wrote: The explication of what he meant stands alone. Although the explication of "archetypes" and "collective unconscious" are not dealt with properly. Those two concepts are the one's that most of the "new age mystics" took up as their own and tended to resemble something quite different to what Jung meant. That said Jung did appear to veer into territory I would call "mystical" in other instances (an example would be his intro in the I Ching - which I found to be quite silly in many ways!)
Bravo, bravo!!! That does make a lot of sense. Surprisingly (no underestimation intended), you get the prize for the most down to earth post in this thread.Burning ghost wrote: As to the idea of an 'actual' GOD, a being existing with omnipresence. I am incapable of comprehending such a thing and for all intents and purposes it is an irrelevance and beyond the scope of rational proof. I cannot think of a thing that does not exist anymore than a non-being can think of a thing that does exist (such as the non-being not sitting next to me with yellow eyes wearing a purple hat cannot have much to say about me at all). As a mere proposition it has no meaning or grounding in human reality. As a matter of belief or non-belief it is a flimsy ghost of an idea that is out of tangible reach, beyond logical investigation and seemingly something to us merely because we can say there is possibly stuff "out there" we have yet to experience or have misunderstood in some way.
Personally understanding what it is to be human is my concern. Trying to extend to some place beyond is exactly part of what being human is about. Trying to fight out of your own being is part of the process of grounding your sense of self.
I honestly view those who merely "believe" in an actual deity as something like the blind men and the elephant. It doesn't matter what you sense only how you frame your understanding. The concept of 'god' is a very amazing attribute of human achievement. It is such an overwhelming concept that people often feel the need to slot it into whatever cultural system is at hand and by doing so slice away a large part of the intrigue it possesses. Being such a far reaching concept it is quite capable of reaching into various cultures and attitudes with relative ease.
What intrigues me is how belief is shaped and how, through language, we express and frame the world we are all about. The concept of 'god' is something like the "frame" which we possess and we cannot see it only put it to use.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is godness?
Since you scoff at method itself, happy to embrace whatever gut impression you have, you must also applaud the "down to earth" attitude of past cultures who believed in a flat earth? After all, it eschews all this fancy stuff which is the result of logic and experiment.Count Lucanor wrote:Bravo, bravo!!! That does make a lot of sense. Surprisingly (no underestimation intended), you get the prize for the most down to earth post in this thread.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: What is godness?
Fair enough. I will try to show his position as best I can in the future sometime. I can only say what I know and how I know it. Some parts of what he says I am less willing to adhere to. It is misrepresented because the key concepts have not been explained only glossed over.
Here is how he starts off talking about the concept of the collective unconscious:
I have spoken to a few of the "new age" types in my life and found that none of them have actually read Jung's work. Their understanding is usually second or third hand where his words have been selected to fit whatever view the author wishes to express. The fact that Jung was willing to dig into esoteric writings and religious symbolism set him up as a target for anyone who wished to dismiss him.Probably none of my empirical concepts has met with so much misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what follows I shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept, (2) a description of what it means for psychology, (3) an explanation of the method of proof, and (4) an example.
- The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Second Edition), C.G. Jung, p.42
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What is godness?
I see, you're going to be another one who yells stuff from the stands, but does nothing else.Chili wrote:Since you scoff at method itself, happy to embrace whatever gut impression you have, you must also applaud the "down to earth" attitude of past cultures who believed in a flat earth? After all, it eschews all this fancy stuff which is the result of logic and experiment.Count Lucanor wrote:Bravo, bravo!!! That does make a lot of sense. Surprisingly (no underestimation intended), you get the prize for the most down to earth post in this thread.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is godness?
That's you. That's all on you. There's no way to engage you in a more rigorous way if you yourself are just "yelling" yoor overall impressions without backing them up or investigating them.Count Lucanor wrote:I see, you're going to be another one who yells stuff from the stands, but does nothing else.Chili wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Since you scoff at method itself, happy to embrace whatever gut impression you have, you must also applaud the "down to earth" attitude of past cultures who believed in a flat earth? After all, it eschews all this fancy stuff which is the result of logic and experiment.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What is godness?
I'm willing to take a bite at this, but you have to send over a link. It might be a good new topic.Burning ghost wrote:Count -
Fair enough. I will try to show his position as best I can in the future sometime. I can only say what I know and how I know it. Some parts of what he says I am less willing to adhere to. It is misrepresented because the key concepts have not been explained only glossed over.
Here is how he starts off talking about the concept of the collective unconscious:
I have spoken to a few of the "new age" types in my life and found that none of them have actually read Jung's work. Their understanding is usually second or third hand where his words have been selected to fit whatever view the author wishes to express. The fact that Jung was willing to dig into esoteric writings and religious symbolism set him up as a target for anyone who wished to dismiss him.Probably none of my empirical concepts has met with so much misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what follows I shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept, (2) a description of what it means for psychology, (3) an explanation of the method of proof, and (4) an example.
- The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Second Edition), C.G. Jung, p.42
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is godness?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What is godness?
For someone who whines that much over not getting all the information he wants and complains about "overall impressions", you apply very little method yourself. With rigorous method one can deal with any statement one disagrees with or finds inconclusive. There is not only a burden in the method of exposition, there's also one in the method of inquiry. You cannot expect the other party to do that for you. And if we add that there's no exposition in contrast either, the picture is clear.Chili wrote:That's you. That's all on you. There's no way to engage you in a more rigorous way if you yourself are just "yelling" yoor overall impressions without backing them up or investigating them.Count Lucanor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
I see, you're going to be another one who yells stuff from the stands, but does nothing else.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: What is godness?
Ok great show us how its done instead of just throwing pies and using phrases like "fairy tales" etc.Count Lucanor wrote:For someone who whines that much over not getting all the information he wants and complains about "overall impressions", you apply very little method yourself. With rigorous method one can deal with any statement one disagrees with or finds inconclusive. There is not only a burden in the method of exposition, there's also one in the method of inquiry. You cannot expect the other party to do that for you. And if we add that there's no exposition in contrast either, the picture is clear.Chili wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
That's you. That's all on you. There's no way to engage you in a more rigorous way if you yourself are just "yelling" yoor overall impressions without backing them up or investigating them.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is godness?
While Jung was clearly not referring to Santa God, I'm not sure that Dawkins's scale was only meant for that very most base definition. Jung would not have said what he did if he was only making an allegorical comment. His use of "God" there is not the same as Einstein's metaphorical statements; for Einstein the metaphorical deity was a matter of awe and curiosity, but for Jung it was a matter of psychological survival.Burning ghost wrote:Greta -
If I was to take the scale in the terms Dawkins seems to put it I would say I am pretty much a solid 7, yet I completely agree with Jung too regarding how he frames the concept "god". That is why I am saying Dawkins has misrepresented Jung's position. Jung is not talking about anything like a 'deity' (a conscious being existing separately) he is referring to the human psyche juxtaposition (so to speak) the world or, as would be better put in a phenomenological sense, about the world (in the epistemic and ontological positional sense.)
2023/2024 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