Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

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.
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Belindi »

Eduk wrote:
In practice it's difficult for bigoted people to change their attitudes but in all cases, short of mystical experience, what changes attitude is reason and reason alone.
You may mean something different from me when you say reason but in my opinion reason may define some attitudes but not all. Especially when people step out of their speciality they rely more and more on emotion than reason. And people often step out of their speciality.

Reason is not all or nothing. Sometimes a person who usually engages brain before fist will behave uncharacteristically. There are also persons who characteristically engage fist before brain. However the more a person reflects (within practical bounds) before acting, the more that person is probably right. Professional training of doctors, lawyers, philosophers, teachers, etc. aims to make the student reflect and not shoot their mouth, or gun, or fist out before thinking as much as the occasion allows .

Extreme instances of both reflectivity and impulsivity are clinically neurotic. It so happens that politicians are never clinically reflective , but there is now for instance President Trump who shows signs of unusual impulsivity, even in his business dealings.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Ah yeah you give some good examples. Doctors, Lawyers, teachers (I remove philosophers as that is a different subject) all train hard, and work in their fields of specialisation and for the most part are logical and reasonable regarding those fields they have trained for. The problem comes when you start talking about fields which you haven't trained in. And the unreasonableness is exaggerated when the field in question has been politicised.
In my opinion most people have a good idea about some subjects, neutral (as in no idea) ideas about most subjects and downright objectionable ideas about some subjects. As you say reason isn't an off switch it is applied with great variance.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Nick_A wrote:Dclements, so you are a sceptic and a nihilist. I guess it could be worse; you could be a progressive..
I was going to try and defend my position as a nihilist, but then I realized that what you just said is a compliment compared to how most theist or even atheist react to my claim of being a nihilist. In reality, nobody is really a nihilist (except maybe some manic depressant people) so I most of my views are compatible to skepticism/ fallibilism and hedonism than purely nihilism, since I would be constantly contradicting myself if I was a pure nihilist. Although if I was a true nihilist maybe I wouldn't care if I was always contradicting myself...maybe I shouldn't think about it too much.
Nick_A wrote: Anyhow, you wrote:
Again I may be wrong but I think part of your problem doesn't involve secularism, religions, society, or the ideals we are taught as children; it involves the problems with reality itself.
Quite true. I believe Plato was right to describe the human condition as if being in a cave attached to shadows on the wall. So if we do live in psychological illusion we cannot know either what we are and be in touch with objective human meaning if it does exist. In that sense I am also a nihilist
We can pretty much verify that the purpose of the man animal is the same as any other animal. Our purpose is to transform substances through our bodily processes. We are part of a living machine called organic life on earth which eats itself and reproduces. It is nature’s way. We feed on life and life feeds on us for the purpose of transforming substances.

Plato defined Man as a being in search of meaning. Is Man limited to the meaningless purpose of the man animal? The essence of religion and some philosophers suggest the potential for conscious humanity that is not limited to mechanical reaction but capable of conscious action. This quality of consciousness receives from a higher conscious level of reality and gives to below on the level of the earth to the Man animal. Man acquires objective meaning through the application of consciousness. I would agree with you then that Man lacks meaning on earth. Meaning and purpose is the same as for all organic life. Objective meaning for man is only possible for conscious humanity.[/quote]
I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are also touch on areas where I believe we really do not know one way or another, or at least right now we don't. As I have said to my brother Allan (when I was really wasted) 'We are dumb little monkeys who are likely to destroy ourselves before we really know or accomplish anything'. However there are days where I question if that is really our fate. I sometimes like to think that theism (as well as some other religions ans systems of belief) was partly created to increase social cohesion enough so that we didn't destroy ourselves before we even started, but that may be more of a fantasy than reality. What I think it is safe to say is that man has a chance to be more than a mere animal since it is even plausible for even some of the more intelligent animals to become more than mere animals themselves.
Nick_A wrote: You recommend Postmodernism. Can you really see me involved with a philosophy which asserts the path to truth comes from a bunch of experts BSing in Plato’s cave and defining truth.
You have to start somewhere, and the books I suggested are more of a very distilled (ie. simplified) version of the BS your talking about than the unabridged version of it. As a person with ADHD I can say for myself I don't have the time to read a lot of BS myself, but I occasional have to read something in order to know what people are talking about sometimes. Also it is more accurate to say that the books are about the people who CHALLENGE the assumption we know the truth and why they do it instead of them being about people who assert they know the truth; and by reading and understanding their arguments you might be able to better articulate your own arguments. Again, however the choice is yours and yours alone to make, although it might be worthwhile to go to Amazon and spend enough time skimming the books as you have put in writing your arguments as to why you don't want to read them.
Nick_A wrote: From the Gospel of Thomas:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Yes and Socrates said something about the unexamined life is not worth living, but if you were some Hindu monk somewhere living on top of a mountain somewhere seeking 'enlightenment' there are times you could really use a cheeseburger and less time spending in meditation. My point is that there is both pros and cons to spirituality and materialism, and it is useful to accept there are some things about one that are better at solving problems than another. Or another way to put it is that I agree with you that some materialist and other people should try to know themselves better (although that can mean a lot of different things), but there are other people who already have done enough of this that perhaps that it is better that they spend some more time trying to augment their other skills as well or try to improve their lives in other ways.
Nick_A wrote: A young person who has experienced the vertical quality which connects qualities of consciousness will understand this. The secularist won’t since they are not open to it. They are attached to man made subjective meaning. When a person becomes capable of conscious self knowledge this quality of consciousness can be helped by a higher quality of consciousness. Those not open to this path to meaning will just keep pushing the boulder up the hill and watch it go back down. Shakespeare describes the futility and the destiny for creatures of mechanical REACTION. It may be different for conscious man capable of conscious ACTION as an expression of human meaning.
What you say may be true of some secularist, but not all. While you don't have to do this, I suggest that you rethink a statement that you write to say 'SOME' of a group of people instead of saying 'ALL of THEM', because as soon as you say 'ALL of THEM' you are both making a hasty generalization fallacy and adding additional bias into your argument that you do not want to have; or at least I hope you do not want to be biased. As a nihilist I'm skeptical of anything involving higher quality of consciousness, 'enlightenment', etc. although I will admit there has been times when I have had my own 'spiritual experiences' and/or 'talked with God' (although I was very very drunk some of those times). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I regard wisdom as wisdom whether it be from 'God'/some kind of alter conscience/or just good old being clever enough to think it up.

Also EVEN IF someone is open to the path you talk about (or path similar to it) there is no guarantee that one will not 'just keep pushing the boulder up the hill and watch it go back down'. The curse of Sisyphus (ie that guy that was condemned to push the rock up the hill) is potentially the fate of the human race NOT just a few people who choose to 'not helped by a higher quality of consciousness'. There is no easy path to 'salivation' or some kind of existence that has purpose. I guess what I'm trying to say is if you don't believe in an afterlife (and you have learned how to stop fretting too much about this), you still fret about what your purpose is from time to time and worry about after this life is done there may be little to no purpose to one's existence; no matter how much they have tried to connect to some higher quality of consciousness.

While this fate may not be a problem for everybody (ie some people may be lucky enough to leave behind some meaningful legacy), I personally believe that the one's that don't think it is a problem for them are more or less just fooling themselves. Because of this, I more or less consider the curse of Sisyphus to be a shared problem for the entire human race even if some of us have figured how not to worry about it.

Nick_A wrote:
MACBETH

She should have died hereafter.     
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Well yes, Shakespeare could artfully describe the human condition and the 'burning house syndrome' (ie. you live your entire life in a house that is burning and your trying to escape, but in the end your trapped no matter what you do), but as far as I know most people do there best to avoid fretting about it whether through religion, drugs, or some other kind of vice than spend a lot of time thinking too much about it. I personally wonder if Abrahamic religions where not so prevalent in our society if more effort might be spent trying to extend human life than waste a lot of effort trying to prepare us for an afterlife. However my opinion I'm pretty sure is in the minority, and even if it wasn't I'm unsure if it would really make a difference..but then again maybe it could.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Belindi »

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
If you are a nihilist do accept this and leave it like that?

If you are a nihilist do you grow a backbone and make your own meaning and purpose?

-- Updated January 23rd, 2017, 2:24 pm to add the following --

Remember, that Scottish king who made the speech (see how superstitious I am!) was unmanned by a fearsome wife.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Nick_A »

Dclements wrote:
I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are also touch on areas where I believe we really do not know one way or another, or at least right now we don't. As I have said to my brother Allan (when I was really wasted) 'We are dumb little monkeys who are likely to destroy ourselves before we really know or accomplish anything'. However there are days where I question if that is really our fate. I sometimes like to think that theism (as well as some other religions ans systems of belief) was partly created to increase social cohesion enough so that we didn't destroy ourselves before we even started, but that may be more of a fantasy than reality. What I think it is safe to say is that man has a chance to be more than a mere animal since it is even plausible for even some of the more intelligent animals to become more than mere animals themselves.
First let me say I appreciate your attitude. You don’t exhibit the same nasty attitude expressed by many atheist, secularists, and nihililists. IMO you are raising sincere points which lead to important questions. Compared to the potential for human being, we may be “dumb little monkeys.” We just don’t know the potential for human being. Can people cooperate in such a way that could open an awareness to human conscious potential? I believe so but also know there are only a relative few willing to cooperate in the cause of experiential truth of human conscious potential. How many for example would be willing to take CIRET seriously? Here is an organization of talented intellects, artis, and mechanics who know they represent the basic three facets of human being: mind, body, and spirit. They all know they are talented in one aspect. They all have a piece of the truth tht exists as ONE when mind, body, and spirit are united as ONE at a higher level of reality.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

Clicking on the English version of Moral Project we see at th beginning:
1.We are witnessing an unprecedented revolution engendered by the fundamental sciences and in particular by physics and biology. This revolution is overturning conventional ideas of logic, epistemology and day to day life as a consequence of its technological developments. It is vital to recognize the existence of a considerable discrepancy between the new vision of the world which is emerging from the study of natural systems and the values which predominate in the social sciences and in the life of modern society; values based, to a large extent, upon mechanical determinism, positivism or nihilism. This discrepancy is extremely harmful and harbours the threat of destruction of our species. It is essential to seek the underlying causes, to reflect upon possible remedies and to try to put these into operation.
2 -
One of the obvious causes of this discrepancy is the fragmentation of knowledge. Extreme specialisation is a necessary evil since it helps to accelerate the acquisition of knowledge, but it leads, at the same time, to a darkening of meaning. On the one hand the fragmentation leads man to see himself as a stranger in a world invaded by an incomprehensible complexity. On the other hand it causes a rupture between the organs of reflexion and those of decision-making in society. Thereby are thrown open the doors to absurdity, to non-sense, to violence and to implacable dynamic of self-destruction.
Faced with this situation it is vital to encourage, in every possible way, research activity into a new scientific and cultural approach - transdisciplinarity - in an attempt to reconstitute a coherent picture of the world.
Pursuits like transdisciplinarity lead me to believe there is hope for a minority to survive fragmentation creating a darkening of meaning.

This shared conscious intention to evolve towards a level of reality where a person acquires balanced inner unity is a necessary idea. I know it will be rejected but the point is that there is a minority who feel the value in the pursuit and will seek to be part of it. It is a beginning to becoming more than a dumb little monkey.

I also have a touch of ADHD. Since I’ve learned the importance of conscious attention as the means for the non illusory experience of life and when coupled with a conscious awareness of a level of reality greater than the one my life takes place in, it became clear that our collective loss of the ability for conscious attention is the main cause of our acceptance of Plato’s cave as conscious life.
Or another way to put it is that I agree with you that some materialist and other people should try to know themselves better (although that can mean a lot of different things), but there are other people who already have done enough of this that perhaps that it is better that they spend some more time trying to augment their other skills as well or try to improve their lives in other ways.
Could they be done simultaneously? For example you probably entered a room sat down and turned on a computer. Was it a conscious act or did it just happen? We are only conscious for brief moments during the day. Most of the time we run on automatic pilot. Conscious self awarness is unnecessary. Yet to know yourself or have the experience of yourself, you would have the conscious experience of entering the room, sitting down, and turning on the computer. People who have tried know how difficult this is.
Also EVEN IF someone is open to the path you talk about (or path similar to it) there is no guarantee that one will not 'just keep pushing the boulder up the hill and watch it go back down'. The curse of Sisyphus (ie that guy that was condemned to push the rock up the hill) is potentially the fate of the human race NOT just a few people who choose to 'not helped by a higher quality of consciousness'.
The can be no guarantees. Can a caterpillar know what a butterfly is capable of? There is only the instinct to become one. A person may be drawn to contemplation of meaning more than what the world offers. The world condemns them as a whole. I support these seekers of truth who seek more than a middle ground between two forms of secular misconceptions. They are called to be more than a chicken or a monkey in a world glorifying fragmentation at the expense of a quality of meaning in which human meaning and purpose are experienced.
"A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eagle hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air. Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat of its strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbor. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth--we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was." ~ Anthony De Mello
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
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Sy Borg »

I like this Jaron Lanier interview about the possibility of an afterlife: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S69janNZ9KM

I liked his arguments against:

1) denial of any possibility of an afterlife which "imposes a weird discipline" on other people's hopes and makes them resent science

2) superstitious belief - because any belief that lowers the value of this life is disastrous for this life.

The bottom line of all these arguments is the afterlife, and the fact is that none of us know. So we might as well allow freedom of thought and also to value this life in case there is nothing (or nothing so good) afterwards.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Belindi wrote:
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
If you are a nihilist do accept this and leave it like that?

If you are a nihilist do you grow a backbone and make your own meaning and purpose?
Does growing a backbone and making your own meaning and purpose change anything or better yet does being a nihilist in any way prevent one from growing a backbone and making their own meaning and purpose? If I'm a nihilist I can still partake in hedonistic acts and this illusion we call 'reality' (or I should say I have to since my only other option is lying in bed all day), but I still have to wonder if my actions will make any difference. There are times when I'm sleeping and I realize I'm sleeping in my dream, I get a chance to control my dream and do whatever I want to ; or at least until I wake up or forget that I'm in a dream. However there are other times I'm in a dream and when I realize this (and can't control the dream), I can get scared of getting trapped in the dream and not being able to wake up; which in some was could be worse than death if it lasted forever.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as human being we can take some kind of comfort in that our actions have some potential to make the world a better place;even if the effect is so small it is almost moot. However there is also a constant nagging that we could do more if just something else was in our grasp (whether that thing be some kind of knowledge or resource) and that nagging feeling can become so strong it can turn into a panic attack if someone lets it. I may be wrong but I think this not too different from the emotional outburst or whatever you want to call it when teenagers want something (and that something doesn't seem so much to them) but they can't get it even if they really want it; such as something going wrong in a important relationship.

Wow, I just realized what causes 99.9% of the angst behind many of the break up songs I heard all these years since I was a teenager myself ; although I kind of knew that already. :)

(If you don't know any of these songs that I'm talking about you can watch/listen to some of the following songs on Youtube)

Rat In a Cage (with lyrics)
In the end - Linkin Park (with lyrics)
(Actually almost all Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory Album songs is a break up song)

Linkin Park - My December [Lyrics]
The Greg Kihn Band - The Breakup Song
(I'm being forced to use the forum's yid/YouTube tags (ie. system doesn't allow me to post raw YouTube urls) in my post and can't guarantee they will work. If it doesn't work they are easy enough to cut and paste to YouTube's search engine)

I guess the problem in the end is whether anything can be done, or if sometimes just trying to maintain our composure is all we can do when faced with unwinnable situation; and even that may be moot in and of itself. I may be wrong but I think getting into and being in a set of unwinnable situation(s) is a universal human experience no matter who you are.

Belindi wrote:
-- Updated January 23rd, 2017, 2:24 pm to add the following --

Remember, that Scottish king who made the speech (see how superstitious I am!) was unmanned by a fearsome wife.
Could you expand on that or at least how it pertains to this problem?

-- Updated January 24th, 2017, 2:36 pm to add the following --
Nick_A wrote:Dclements wrote:
I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are also touch on areas where I believe we really do not know one way or another, or at least right now we don't. As I have said to my brother Allan (when I was really wasted) 'We are dumb little monkeys who are likely to destroy ourselves before we really know or accomplish anything'. However there are days where I question if that is really our fate. I sometimes like to think that theism (as well as some other religions ans systems of belief) was partly created to increase social cohesion enough so that we didn't destroy ourselves before we even started, but that may be more of a fantasy than reality. What I think it is safe to say is that man has a chance to be more than a mere animal since it is even plausible for even some of the more intelligent animals to become more than mere animals themselves.
First let me say I appreciate your attitude. You don’t exhibit the same nasty attitude expressed by many atheist, secularists, and nihililists. IMO you are raising sincere points which lead to important questions. Compared to the potential for human being, we may be “dumb little monkeys.” We just don’t know the potential for human being. Can people cooperate in such a way that could open an awareness to human conscious potential? I believe so but also know there are only a relative few willing to cooperate in the cause of experiential truth of human conscious potential. How many for example would be willing to take CIRET seriously? Here is an organization of talented intellects, artis, and mechanics who know they represent the basic three facets of human being: mind, body, and spirit. They all know they are talented in one aspect. They all have a piece of the truth tht exists as ONE when mind, body, and spirit are united as ONE at a higher level of reality.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php
I don't know what CIRET is but I know of groups that are trying to make the world a better place but encounter seemly impossible obstacles put in front of them when they try to do anything. For example my dad was in nuclear power, and from what I know from him and taking a few course in college pertaining to nuclear power I found out ALL OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY PROBLEMS could be solved using nuclear power alone. However there is a catch, and that catch is that the process to get energy from nuclear power is complicated as well as dealing with leftover radioactive materials can also be complicated as well. And because of this there are political problems as well as the logistical and technological problems as well.

Oddly enough France has manged to become a paradigm of what nuclear power can and/or will be while Germany (do to various political pressure/problems) has stopped using nuclear and has focused their efforts on 'Green' energy; and they too have become a paradigm as to what is possible with Green energy. Or at least hat was the situation when I last read up on it a few years ago.


Nick_A wrote: Clicking on the English version of Moral Project we see at th beginning:

1.We are witnessing an unprecedented revolution engendered by the fundamental sciences and in particular by physics and biology. This revolution is overturning conventional ideas of logic, epistemology and day to day life as a consequence of its technological developments. It is vital to recognize the existence of a considerable discrepancy between the new vision of the world which is emerging from the study of natural systems and the values which predominate in the social sciences and in the life of modern society; values based, to a large extent, upon mechanical determinism, positivism or nihilism. This discrepancy is extremely harmful and harbours the threat of destruction of our species. It is essential to seek the underlying causes, to reflect upon possible remedies and to try to put these into operation.
2 -
One of the obvious causes of this discrepancy is the fragmentation of knowledge. Extreme specialisation is a necessary evil since it helps to accelerate the acquisition of knowledge, but it leads, at the same time, to a darkening of meaning. On the one hand the fragmentation leads man to see himself as a stranger in a world invaded by an incomprehensible complexity. On the other hand it causes a rupture between the organs of reflexion and those of decision-making in society. Thereby are thrown open the doors to absurdity, to non-sense, to violence and to implacable dynamic of self-destruction.
Faced with this situation it is vital to encourage, in every possible way, research activity into a new scientific and cultural approach - transdisciplinarity - in an attempt to reconstitute a coherent picture of the world.

Pursuits like transdisciplinarity lead me to believe there is hope for a minority to survive fragmentation creating a darkening of meaning.
It might help if you factor in the problem of the human condition where people spend something like 95-99% of their energy just living from hand to mouth and are influenced by their own bias one way or another. After studying and discussing philosophy for ten years I'm sure there are still problems will how I think and deal with problems whether they are philosophical or real. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might help to not be too judgmental on the unwashed masses (whatever form they or an opposing side may take) and realize that during most of history advancement has been very, very slow and/or has happened during conflicts and accidents so there is usually a high cost involved one way or another. When most of us where kids, it seemed like 'progress' was just something that happen like getting gifts on Christmas and having parents to take care of us; but as adults we find just living day to day itself isn't easy so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that 'progress' also comes at a price of it's own too.
Nick_A wrote: This shared conscious intention to evolve towards a level of reality where a person acquires balanced inner unity is a necessary idea. I know it will be rejected but the point is that there is a minority who feel the value in the pursuit and will seek to be part of it. It is a beginning to becoming more than a dumb little monkey.

I also have a touch of ADHD. Since I’ve learned the importance of conscious attention as the means for the non illusory experience of life and when coupled with a conscious awareness of a level of reality greater than the one my life takes place in, it became clear that our collective loss of the ability for conscious attention is the main cause of our acceptance of Plato’s cave as conscious life.
I think it might help to add that day to day survive as well as other problems of the human condition can cause problems with how we deal with things. For me I find it easier just to blame anything that human do on or nearly anything that effects us on the 'human condition' and kind of leave it at that since getting too nit picky requires more energy then I like to use when thinking about such issues.
Nick_A wrote: Could they be done simultaneously? For example you probably entered a room sat down and turned on a computer. Was it a conscious act or did it just happen? We are only conscious for brief moments during the day. Most of the time we run on automatic pilot. Conscious self awarness is unnecessary. Yet to know yourself or have the experience of yourself, you would have the conscious experience of entering the room, sitting down, and turning on the computer. People who have tried know how difficult this is.
I guess but I imagine it is not that easy since being good at one requires a certain amount of focus and to be very focus on too very different things at once could be tricky and it might just be easier to to put one aside for a time and use one and then use the other when needed.

For some reason your question reminds me of a scene in a movie where a monk tells his pupil (I think it was Bill Murray) something alone the lines oft he path to salvation is as narrow and difficult to walk as a razor's edge. Up until now I thought he was talking about the how it was easy to just be a monk on a mountain meditating all day and being away from the mountain/monastery it becomes more difficult 'like a razor's edge', but he might have been referring to the process of salvation itself. Anyways I think Kierkegaard does a pretty decent job of explaining the problem of with his 3 modes of existence which are aesthetic (something like Homer Simpson), ethical (an example might be Rocky Balboa) , religious (Joan of Arc and Kierkegaard himself). I believe it would be safe to say that one can not jump from mode to mode at the drop of a hat.

http://marikablogs.blogspot.com/2009/03 ... l-and.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ki ... hemes.html
Nick_A wrote: The can be no guarantees. Can a caterpillar know what a butterfly is capable of? There is only the instinct to become one. A person may be drawn to contemplation of meaning more than what the world offers. The world condemns them as a whole. I support these seekers of truth who seek more than a middle ground between two forms of secular misconceptions. They are called to be more than a chicken or a monkey in a world glorifying fragmentation at the expense of a quality of meaning in which human meaning and purpose are experienced.

"A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eagle hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air. Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat of its strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbor. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth--we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was." ~ Anthony De Mello
Well part of the human condition is that one requires the right resources and knowledge at certain times in order to be able to reach their potential, which can be ot as easy as some people think it to be. If an eagle was brought up as a chicken (if that is even possible), there would be no way for them to know any better and for all intent and purpose they are a chicken when placed in that environment. When people live in a certain environment they adapt to it, and part of that adaption may require that they subvert certain potentials they may have; or another way to put it is a 'potential' or ability is just a possibility of something useful until the right environment or opportunity allows an individual to use it. If that never happens then it is more or less just a useless ability.

In a nutshell, the issues of the world and the human condition are more difficult and complicated than we would like them to be so it shouldn't be too surprising when such problems come back and bite us on the backside after we underestimated them and/or did nothing about them.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Belindi »

Dclements, you don't sound to be what I thought a nihilist was.

Don't you know of the superstition that prevents the superstitious directly naming that particular play of Shakespeare's ? It's for that reason referred to by the superstitious as "The Scottish Play".

My reading of it is that the King in question was easily influenced by the not very credible witches and most of all he was dominated by his murderously ambitious wife , aided by his own ambition. Repressing honour, sympathy, and conscience in order to be able to carry out the murder badly affected both husband and wife, causing her what we would call post traumatic stress, and his anomie.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Belindi wrote: Dclements, you don't sound to be what I thought a nihilist was.
Since I don't know what a nihilist is supposed to sound like (haven't meet many of them myself) I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I usually tell people that they can think of me as just another skeptic (there are more people comfortable being called that and/or people calling themselves a skeptic) if they are really bothered by the apparent contradiction of a nihilist bothering themselves with anything. Or sometimes I just say I'm partial to nihilism. To be honest, part of the reason I like calling myself a 'nihilist' is to draw a little bit of extra attention to myself but then sometimes regret drawing some of that attention when it is too negative. :|
Belindi wrote:
Don't you know of the superstition that prevents the superstitious directly naming that particular play of Shakespeare's ? It's for that reason referred to by the superstitious as "The Scottish Play".

My reading of it is that the King in question was easily influenced by the not very credible witches and most of all he was dominated by his murderously ambitious wife , aided by his own ambition. Repressing honour, sympathy, and conscience in order to be able to carry out the murder badly affected both husband and wife, causing her what we would call post traumatic stress, and his anomie.
I skimmed the wiki article about it for about five minutes but couldn't figure out how it pertained to the post at hand.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Nick_A »

Dclements wrote:
It might help if you factor in the problem of the human condition where people spend something like 95-99% of their energy just living from hand to mouth and are influenced by their own bias one way or another. After studying and discussing philosophy for ten years I'm sure there are still problems will how I think and deal with problems whether they are philosophical or real. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might help to not be too judgmental on the unwashed masses (whatever form they or an opposing side may take) and realize that during most of history advancement has been very, very slow and/or has happened during conflicts and accidents so there is usually a high cost involved one way or another. When most of us where kids, it seemed like 'progress' was just something that happen like getting gifts on Christmas and having parents to take care of us; but as adults we find just living day to day itself isn't easy so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that 'progress' also comes at a price of it's own too.
I may be wrong but are you suggesting that life’s hardships re the cause of the human condition? How would you define the human condition. Was Plato being judgmental when he wrote concerning becoming wise through the study of society in Book VI of his Republic :
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
I prefer to read this as as accurate rather than judgmental. As long as man remains incapable and unwilling to witness ourselves as we are, everything repeats. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is.
Anyways I think Kierkegaard does a pretty decent job of explaining the problem of with his 3 modes of existence which are aesthetic (something like Homer Simpson), ethical (an example might be Rocky Balboa) , religious (Joan of Arc and Kierkegaard himself). I believe it would be safe to say that one can not jump from mode to mode at the drop of a hat.
I agree. As we are the aesthetics, ethical, and religious are not consciously connected but rather connected by imagination. Can a person become consciously able to “be all things to all people” by creating their personality rather than their personality creating them? The fact that we cannot doesn’t mean that conscious Man would be incapable.

Kierkegaard wrote that society creates ethics and this is true for the majority. My concern is for the young who see society as a whole for what it is and doesn’t want to be part of the crowd Kierkegaard wrote In Purity of Heart:
In so far as the good man is clever, he knows, how in the very face of truth the world wishes to have the Good made agreeable, how the crowd desires to be won--the much feared crowd, who "desire that the teacher shall tremble before his hearers and flatter them." He knows all about this--in order not to follow it, but rather by the very opposite conduct to keep as free as possible of these deceptions, that he himself may not adopt any illicit way of deriving some advantage from the Good (earning money, distinction, and admiration) and so that he may deceive no one...

Whenever possible he will prefer to withdraw the Good from contact with the crowd. He will seek to split the crowd up in order to get hold of the individual or to get each by himself. He will be reminded of what that simple old sage remarked in ancient times, "When they meet together, and the world sets down at assembly, or in a court of law, or a theater, or a camp, or any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar and they praise some things as being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of praise or blame--at such times will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?"... The same persons, who singly, as solitary individuals are able to will the Good, are immediately seduced as soon as they associate themselves and become a crowd. On that account the good man will neither seek to secure the assistance of a crowd in order to split up the crowd, nor will he seek to have a crowd back of him, during the time that he breaks up the crowd in front of him.

But just how a good man will make use of cleverness in the outer world does not permit of being more precisely specified in general terms, for that which is necesary can be totally different with respect to each time and to the circumstances of each time. [For example,] that stern prophet who went out into the desert and lived on locusts knew how, in relation to his contemporaries, he ought to express this decisively: that it is not the truth that is in need of men, but men who are in need of the truth. Hence they must come to him, come out into the desert.
There are talented and spiritually aware young people who don’t want to be seduced by the crowd. Of course the crowd will reject this impulse which is very un-chicken like. So who is on their side?
Well part of the human condition is that one requires the right resources and knowledge at certain times in order to be able to reach their potential, which can be ot as easy as some people think it to be.
Are you referring to objective conscious potential or subjective societal potential?
In a nutshell, the issues of the world and the human condition are more difficult and complicated than we would like them to be so it shouldn't be too surprising when such problems come back and bite us on the backside after we underestimated them and/or did nothing about them.
They always will. IMO there are two beginnings for approaching this problem. The dominant one is to discuss what we should DO. Various books and speeches by experts use this method. We have to do this or that and it will work itself out. The second furthered by a small minority. They are concerned with what we ARE and the psychological ignorance arising from it. They are willing to strive to “know thyself,” having the experience of oneself in the cause of truth, as opposed to analyzing and imagining oneself.

There are the young who intuitively know this and I try to support them as opposed to an imaginary compromise between blind belief and blind denial as a solution for the human condition.
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 there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Belindi »

Dclaments wrote:
I skimmed the wiki article about it for about five minutes but couldn't figure out how it pertained to the post at hand.
Referring to the Shakespeare quotation "Out out brief candle. life;s but a walking shadow , a poor player that strusts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is gone. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It refers to the feeling of anomie, as I said. The character who makes that speech in the play in question is suffering from anomie. Anomie is unbelief or lack of faith or trust in anything whatsoever leading to the feeling that life cannot ever be made to make sense; see "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Believers certainly don't believe the above but on the contrary believe very heartily that God has made a world of order and goodness independently of men.


Not all so-called atheists are complete nihilists. Many are Humanists who believe that man measures order and goodness.

Believers in God believe that the reason and order is present in the world independently of men.

Humanists believe that man makes sense of the world, and a Christian Humanist believes that in making sense of the world the man who does so with good will, sympathy and reason is helping to create God.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Not all so-called atheists are complete nihilists
What's a so-called atheist?
I would imagine very few atheists are nihilists.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Atreyu »

The 'middle way' between theism and atheism is agnosticism. Agnostics neither 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in a higher power, and they assert that no one else should either. The 'middle ground' is where the theist and atheist end up when they finally admit that they do not, and can not, ever know....
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Agnosticism is just intellectual cowardice regarding theism. The burden of proof lies fairly in the corner of the theist. If you present an untestable claim then you shouldn't expect to lay the burden of disproof on others.
Unknown means unknown.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Nick_A »

Atreyu wrote:The 'middle way' between theism and atheism is agnosticism. Agnostics neither 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in a higher power, and they assert that no one else should either. The 'middle ground' is where the theist and atheist end up when they finally admit that they do not, and can not, ever know....
Agnosticism is a very deceptive term. A person can become so attached to earthly considerations that nothing else matters. On the opposite side is the person who has become dissatisfied with both theism and atheism as they've experienced them in society so they are considered agnostic. To the former the question is of no importance but to the latter how to know the truth may well be of primary importance.

You use a picture of Ouspensky as an avatar. He understood the relativity of human "being" and essential differences within human being. Not caring is completely different from caring enough to admit one doesn't know so as to be able to consciously receive from above.
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
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