But there are also many foundational axioms that are held without evidence. Scientific materialism is one. It is a metaphysical stance, not a testable hypothesis as evidenced by the fact that its proponents keep defending it, even while the scientific notion of matter is in constant flux. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand this and the logical absolutes are good examples too. There are many presuppositions we all need to make that cannot be justified. Reason is one. Do we go as far as to call them properly basic?

But even so, I fail to see how it gets us to a supernatural. It just tells us of our limitations. I know Christian apologists are fond of saying atheism is a self refuting philosophy (via the theological thinker Alvin Plantinga, and via Kant I suppose) and that materialism can't account for morality , etc. All hoary old favorite arguments.

But in the we can't get away from science being the only reliable source of knowledge, for all its limitations. Is there another source that can be demonstrated to be reliable? I don't believe we can get to ultimate certainty but seems to me that a multitude of sins are often crammed into any gaps we have in science, without any real quality control.

Yes, all the personality disorders are strongly associated with post trauma behaviour and dissociative states. More commonly borderline for females; anti-social PD for males. Yep, trauma needs psychosocial support, talking and, perhaps, medication - depending on the complexity of the trauma. It takes time and resources to overcome.

Nihilism is a word used in many ways. Bottom line any world view that supports or triggers depression - whether it be Christianity or nihilism - still requires intervention. Plenty of suggestions on mental health support websites for this.

Lots of younger men tend to go through periods of bleakness it seems. Some like to call this nihilism, perhaps it sounds less banal.

Existentialism and nihilism was very popular when I was young. Most of us found the proposition of nihilism a cheerful alternative to the false values of a religion or an off the rack suburban worldview. Nihilism meant being free to invent yourself as much as you felt able to.

Only one person I knew developed suicidal despair and a heroin addiction to manage it. He had a mental health issue and fortunately with treatment he recovered, but it took close to a decade.

Perhaps there are hard and soft nihilists. The hard nihilist says that 'nothing matters', not even their own life and, perhaps, this results in them withering and possibly dying. I suppose this has more to do brain chemistry and/or life circumstances than philosophical reflection.

The soft nihilist says there are no transcendent values, no external source of meaning, nothing. I am free to invent myself. This could be considered exciting.

When you speak of 'evidence' you're already assuming an empirical stance, when the nature of the question may be such that it can't be adjuticated by empirical means. — Wayfarer

I know but - and I am serious about this line of questioning, I am not trolling - what else is there but evidence based knowledge? Can you demonstrate any other kind?

What possibly can the difference be between measurement and meaning in practical demonstration (and I recognise the irony in my question)?

I've generally not seen theism as providing ethics or moral thinking at all but it does have commandments or codes of conduct, which are vastly different and no more than traffic lights to obey.

Well I'm pushing buttons here, as it's a philosophy forum, best to ask yourself why. — Wayfarer

Well, you are making the argument that there is a fatal gap in science, two really: abiogenesis and consciousness - is it not the case that these notions are traditionally the first steps in the contemporary advocacy for a supernatural realm?

Yet one of those those who made that voyage became an alcoholic, the other had a life-changing epiphany. — Wayfarer

Funny, but so what?

Sorry poorly expressed. I'm asking you this not saying you said this.

I'm no philosopher, Wayfarer but the fact that science can't yet explain the origin or nature of consciousness to our satisfaction does not mean it won't and it doesn't mean we have to say, 'therefore a deity or supernatural realm exists'. That would be the fallacy from ignorance, surely?

The fact remains that there are no known cases of a mind without a brain. Conceptually it may well be that the experience of consciousness is the brain's equivalent of digestion - a neurobiological process - and our use of language and capacity for abstract concepts serves to create a series of confusions about categories. The kinds of confusions that lead idealists to be skeptical of naturalism.

Daniel Dennett may be a bore, but cognitive science has made way more progress in understanding the human mind than, say, Episcopalianism. It's early days and until there is evidence for a soul or some such dualist notion, let's not take it too seriously. The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist.

The denigration of the scientific method (by increasing numbers) reminds me of a lecture John Searle gave where he said, 'How can you send man to the moon and back and seriously wonder if reality exists, or is it really possible to make secure predictions using inductive reasoning."

The "linguistic turn" is basically meaningless. It's a historical construct. Ditto "existentialism," "continental philosophy," "analytic philosophy," and so on. No one really agrees on what these terms mean, and we shouldn't get hung up on them any more than "postmodern" or "post-World War II."

Thinking is what's called for these days -- and that doesn't end. What we need is different kind of thinking, which is defined by the questions being asked. The questions being asked these days should be in response to our current place in time, our historical situation. To ask "what next?" is a good question, but it could have been asked in any period in history, even during what's now labeled the "linguistic turn." — Xtrix

Nicely put.

Thank you that was interesting and helpful. I haven't explored this material in detail since the late 1980's

I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.
— Tom Storm
Why?? — baker

A person comfortable in their spirituality (as opposed to their religion) does not need to proselytize or harangue others to prove the strength of their faith.

Brass tacks: if you're interested in the text, say something about what you think of it. — csalisbury

That is what I think of it. Sorry.

To achieve this, power wasn't taken out of the equation but rather transferred from man to a celestial being, god. — TheMadFool

Except that this is not what happened. The power was held entirely by human beings - by a very strong political force complete with an army and a figurehead, absentee CEO

I've come to realise that I accept the divinity of Jesus, although I know many don't, and I wouldn't try and persuade anyone. — Wayfarer

Nice summary of those early years, W. I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.

For example, in traditionally Buddhists countries, monks are considered the elite, even though they lead materially very simple lives (or at least, they should, on principle). — baker

Absolutely right - this was my point before - recondite knowledge is the poor person's pathway to an elite status. I suspect this is behind the pursuit of much mysticism.

I believe you chronology is a bit off. Kabbalah was developed centuries after the Gnostics — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite right. I wasn't intending to suggest K was earlier than Gnostics or in fact connected. Nor are the Scientologists :smile: I was just saying that the styles are reminiscent.

The Cathars! I forgot all about them. I still think it is correct to make a connection between the appeal of a secret teaching and a powerless group. It can make them feel special when all manner of shit is raining done on them. In this way, I suspect there is an overlap with conspiracy theories held by community members who feel left out but by 'elites'.

The notion of secret wisdom has always been fascinating too. The Holy Grail is one later symbol of this, but dumbed down as a crass materialist trinket of 'everlasting life.'

In relation to Gnosticism (and yes, it was not monolithic) I was galvanised years back when I read the idea that there was once an additional piller added to the more conventional Christian traditions of Faith and Reason. The third piller of Gnosis (loosely the idea that we are all divine). It sounds as though the early organised church got Faith and Reason together to beat up on Gnosis (in the words of one commentator I read).

But tropes fill the air again - can there be anything more encrusted in clichés than the notion that a venerable early tradition was overtaken by the imperious forces of an organized tradition. The Name of the Rose picks up this theme in medieval times when the church is betraying itself yet again. I won't mention Dan Brown. This theme is on rince and repeat

If we see gnosis as, perhaps, a more venerable answer to faith (no small thing) as a pathway to personal salvation (is that the right word when applied to gnosis?) can anyone tell me what gnosis might look like when applied now to the Christ story - Gnosticism being very much a part of a first century epoch.

That's why Pagel's book, Beyond Belief, appealed to me, as it confirmed this narrative. According to Pagels, Thomas' gospel was markedly different to the Gospel of John, in that it stressed the experiential nature of Christ's teaching and downplayed the idea of Jesus as an ultimate authority. But the powers-that-be coalesced around the Johannine intepretation - principally, I thought, because it is considerably easier to manage believers. We only ever read about the gnostics through the writings of those who vanquished them, like Iraneus and Tertullian. That is why the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts was such a revelation. — Wayfarer

Certainly some Gnostic schools (and early Christianity more generally) suggests that Jesus is a mortal man with Gnosis, not the Holy Spirt galvanizing him. Jesus is seen as an exemplar of the man who transitioned spiritually through knowledge, but not in a literally divine sense. But does this mean we are not to see Jesus as a type of Bodhisattva, I have never quite determined what to conclude.

[

I picked up a vibe early that you were coming in with a kind of detached psychological/analytic approach - kind of therapist-used-to-probing-others-while-their-own-views-remain-safely-unspoken - that just felt deeply counter to the kind of conversation I'm interested in. I pushed back accordingly. — csalisbury

I have to watch how I come across. I certainly can be detached and analytical just as you say. The problem with forums is the conversation can feel impersonal and veiled and because philosophy and cultural studies can hit controversial subjects, it is often hard to know what tone to strike.

The interesting thing about the opening of Thomas is that it has the familiar tropes of mysticism that frankly seem designed to appeal to personal vanity. Secret knowledge/ key to personal transformation. This is right out of Hermetic wisdom or the Kabbalah. But frankly the same proposition is made in Scientology. Is it the case that secret or hidden teachings are the classic refuge of the dispossessed and marginalized? (think I first read that in Isadore Epstein's Judaism - his take on Kabbalah).

What is appealing about mainstream Christianity is the surface appeal of the myth. Jesus is the least mystical of religious teachers. A key teaching is about loving the poor, the weak, the scorned - so detested by Nietzsche and so many modern sensibilities - is actually a powerful idea with far reaching repercussions. There is no need for secret teaching or initiation. That's refreshing. This to me is where orthodoxy (for want of a better term) has the edge on the more secretive Gnosticism. Making something a secret doesn't mean it is more profound, but it sure seems that way.

Perhaps the Gnostic stuff appeals more to people with hierarchical machinations on their mind. "How can I access the real wisdom and the key to ever lasting life?" (or whatever the reward underpinning the doctrines might be) Is it not interesting that the Gnostic teachings also pivot on an idea that is so prevalent now. That the world is coming unstuck and the truth is hidden by design and that only some with the right mindfulness can access this truth. It makes you wonder if QAnon is today's apocalyptic nascent religious tradition with a baroque line in hidden internet based scripture - waiting to be rediscovered in 2000 years and reinterpreted for the times.

Oops, that was more of a flight of ideas than a coherent view.

In the days before the internet it was so hard to get good information on this subject and Pagels was so helpful if you could get her book on order. You kind of needed to have select friends in University religious departments to learn more. The snobbery against Gnosticism was pretty strong. The first translations from the Jung codex had to be ordered from overseas and some were still to be properly completed.

Pagels (who doesn't sing) is a reference to one of the seminal writers on this subject - surely this name is copasetic. Her work on the Gospel of Judas was revelatory to me (no pun intended). The notion of Judas being the most loved and significant of all the disciples (because he had a key role in setting the divine plan in motion) is a compelling idea. A beatific betrayal, if you like. This was also echoed in the novel The Last Temptation of Christ, another extraordinary mystical interpretation of the story.

Interesting, why are you attracted to this approach to the gnostic gospels (perhaps, mysticism in genera?) I notice you're using autobiographical detail, proper names, and indications of your inclusion in a kind of a sanctified, certified community. What does this approach do for you? — csalisbury

I wouldn't assume so much. No proper names used. The tiniest of autobiographical fragments that contextualize my interest in this subject. As to 'inclusion in a kind of sanctified certified community' - sounds like you worked hard at a kind of put down, but I shouldn't assume. What does it do for me? Conversation helps me understand where others are coming from. Mysticism is the one off shoot of religion I have found most interesting over the years, probably its the use of allegory. But it is very easy to get marooned in nonsense too.

What do you make of the first couple parts? — csalisbury

I don't have any views on it as I don't remember the documents well enough. I read some of them in the 1980's and I knew one of Carl Jung's offsiders when the Jung Codex was put together. We spent a good deal of time discussing their significance to early Christianity. Nothing you won't find in Elaine Pagle's famous book (The Gnositc Gospels).

Not attracted. Interested.

There are so many misconceptions about the Gnostic gospels whether it be that of Thomas, Mary, Judas, Phillip - whichever. Because this material is tendentious, scholars are often inaccurate and contradictory on this material too, so you need to be very careful about what you assume from these texts. Why are you attracted to this material?

I have worked in the field for many years. All I am saying is people need not distract themselves with solving puzzles or wondering about criteria or this therapy versus that one, or how many types of classifications or schools there are possible. Bottom line: if you feel sad or unhappy in any way for an extend time. Seek help. Best response. There's no doubt that people distract themselves from treatment by many other activities or rationalizations. I would never say that therapy works for everyone or that medication is the answer, but astonishing transformations and improvements do happen all the time. Psychosocial options are critical too.

It could be argued that is a problem of institutionalism rather than any religious indoctrination in particular. — Paul S

Not sure what that sentence means. But in essence if a movement, in this case, religion, keeps generating institutions all over the world (and in every religious format) that are retrograde, then the issue is religion's effect on people, surely?

Turns out, 80% of depressions can be cured by not having a war where you live. — unenlightened

That's be my guess too.

Jack - analysis/paralysis. It is not very complex. If someone is in despair (whatever you wish to call it) and feeling chronic emptiness, it is likely to be depression and requires treatment/intervention. There is no sense in trying to analyze or categorize this one further. An inability to experience joy, with feelings of dread requires intervention.

What you describe is depression and requires compassionate treatment.

God is one of those things that should rarely escape from the personal realm. Who gives a rat's ass what anybody else thinks when it comes to your religious/spiritual beliefs? — synthesis

The problem is in some countries a particularly primitive expression of religion is a massive influence on generating retrograde social policies and laws and negatively impacting upon the life of others.

I am asking about how therapy helps in response to the problem of human suffering and asking to what extent it may help? Can it even aid in the experience of nihilism? — Jack Cummins

Therapy is no different to any other human activity. You can get good and bad practitioners and models. Generally people need to shop around to find a therapy mode or a therapist they find beneficial. The relationship with the therapist or therapeutic alliance is more important than the mode of therapy. This has been found in most of the research. Practical solutions focused interventions appear to be most beneficial. Merely talking is not likely to be enough.

I am not fond of the term - 'an experience of nihilism'. This is a red herring. If a person is experiencing anhedonia and truly believes that nothing matters this is rarely an expression of philosophy, Camus style. It is usually chronic depression and warrants treatment.

Re: wondering if a forum distorts one's personality.
What did you have in mind ? — Amity

Just that the conversations to my taste are often terribly stilted and stylized - compared to those I have in real life. People tend to exaggerate or diminish parts of themselves in this style of communication.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The dialogues or discussions on any particular topic or book can vary as to the aim, time and energy of the people involved. — Amity

That the act of offering a written opinion over a protracted period is unnatural, compared to an ordinary conversation. Nuance and tone are hard to gauge. A discussion is had slowly over hours or days and has an effect on the discourse.

None of the above is insurmountable or dire, just a curious by product of forum-world.

Politicians, in particular, need their self image to be strong. It is important to be seen as a winner, even when all the facts point in the opposite direction. — Amity

I've known a few politicians. This is lamentable. Really the primary job of a politician is not to give the game away. Looking strong is the easiest way to do this. But it is the public's loss that we see strength in such limited cartoon terms.

Philosophical forums can help shine a light on the reality of our selves, actions and practice and not one that is self-biased, a bit skew whiff. — Amity

Never done this before. I am not on any social media either. I just thought I would give this a fortnight to see whether I found it stimulating. I'm wondering if a forum distorts one's personality. You have quite unnatural conversations in concentrated increments in slow motion.

Nice to chat.

Don't know. I am one of the uneducated so I'm a potential customer.

Yet it does encourage the reader to think for themselves. — TaySan

My point is that they yell about the minuscule amount they know and don't listen and learn. Hence the trouble we have all around the world of hostile tribes only interacting with their own small bubble, getting angrier all the time.

wonder how Dan Barker would respond to your comment and Hillel's insight? Barker seems to be much concerned with the many contradictions which he alleges the Bible suffers from. By his reasoning another, more suitable, title for the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, is "Contradiction" and he wants nothing to do with them. — TheMadFool

Errr... no. The general argument is not just contradiction it is content. Barker's quote, which has been around for decades before he was born, refers to the knowledge you gain about God if you actually read the anthology of fan fiction books anthologised in the Bible. The God described is a morally depraved mafia boss, a mass murderer of innocent human beings, a supporter of slavery, rape and torture, a bully and a coward. It's enough to put you off your gefilte fish.

But in the highly secular society I live in, this has nothing to do with religion. People just think with their wrong heads. — TaySan

Yes, that is entirely true. I am dismayed by fundamentalism and blind faith and most of it is not religious. Richard Dawkins makes his points pretty well but many people dislike his slightly imperious style.

I agree with you. One of the great problems in culture is the lack of critical thinking and also the venturing of dogmatic opinion where the person simply does not have enough knowledge. I have certainly done this myself.

I can be a methodist in certain situations or a particularist in others; there's absolutely nothing wrong in either case. — TheMadFool

I can be a Methodist in certain situation or a Presbyterian in others, it depends on whether there is alcohol. Sorry.... I'm a child.

Thanks. I'm with you. I thought you were heading elsewhere.

But does this mean 2 and 3 are wrong? Or does it mean that how we identify and how we define the concept are two different processes? — Possibility

I guess which Muppet category depends upon context. They are all potentially simultaneously correct.

But all this is predicated on a correspondence version of truth (so detested by Idealists).

To point in the direction of the mop and say 'it is not that case that there is a Muppet in the mop cupboard' sounds like an example of the problem of counterfactual conditionals. People who are anxious about the metaphysical aspects of realism will argue that there are no negative facts and thus correspondence breaks down. This proposition about the mop cupboard doesn't seem to have any corresponding relation to objects and relation to objects in the world. Or something like that.