It's an interesting frame. Outside the world?

As you know, there are various understandings of transcendental. In Kant it seems to be those factors that make experince possible - part of our cognitive apparatus - space, time, probably maths...

Husserl seems to take a similar view and sees the transcendental as the 'act' of consciousness in shaping, (perhaps creating?) the world.

Wittgenstein seems to take a different approach - essentially, how our understanding of our world is shaped by language. Needless to say, that which is outside of language holds a special status.

It's all very curious to a non-philosopher.

When you consider the transcendental, what frame do you find helpful? It strikes me that your form of idealism (as articulated in your article) has some commonalities with Husserl and phenomenology.

We live in transcendence. We are this. I think one has to take the time to leave the text and realize that we are in this "place" that is alien to the language that we use to understand things. — Constance

I see how you are framing this. Interesting. But I'm not sure what the significance of this is, or where it gets us. No doubt it all depends upon how one views the notion of reality and the possibility of knowledge. Does your account owe anything to Husserl's notion of the transcendental ego?

I want to know the nature of something that is there to be observed, like natural condition is there for a natural scientist, PRIOR to it being taken up by cultures and their institutions and turned into an infinitely debatable construct. — Constance

Fair enough. Sounds like philosophy.

Do you have a definition or a simple, descriptive account of the 'transcendent'?

An atheist,
With feelings so strong,
Denies there’s a God,
Which is something quite wrong. — Beverley

Correction. Many atheists actually don't deny the existence of gods. I am an atheist. I don't make a positive claim like that. Many contemporary atheists would put it more like this: I have not heard any good reasons/arguments for accepting the claim that gods exist.

The rest of the poem basically amounts to saying that there is no god and that a concern for the wellbeing of conscious creatures will be a sufficient surrogate. That's pretty much what secular humanists have been arguing for generations.

But to me it seems clear,
All this is absurd.
For the only difference
Is just in a word. — Beverley

I think you'll find that many theists will disagree with this formulation - the notion of transcendent meaning can't be reduced or substituted by a few nouns or verbs.

I wonder where your thoughts lie on the matter. — Constance

I think religion provides comfort and solace. It supports people to manage the fear of uncertainty, death and the often brutal realities of life. For me, it seems to be an emotional and aesthetic response to experince. And when presented as part of culture and heritage, it plays a critical role in how people make sense of reality. We are habitually drawn to coherence, comfort and harmony - despite a world where chaos and suffering predominate - a transcendental domain promises us an entire realm where unity, and completeness may be found and perhaps intermittently reflected in our lives. Personally, I do not share such a worldview.

That argument only works for that one person.
— Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world. — Hallucinogen

If I read you correctly then we probably have nothing further to talk about. You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience. But we already knew this. People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence. The knack here is to discern what constitutes good evidence.

The believer trusts God. That can only look reasonable to someone else who trusts God. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Although probably only reasonable to those who believe the same things about the same gods. Not the gods they don't trust in. Most religious people I have known disbelieve the spiritual experiences of other religions, even calling such visions lies or demonic.

Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping those personal experiences having subjective qualitiies specific to the experiencer, so long as universal features aren't contradicted. — Hallucinogen

You are trying to prove Christianity is true by citing religious experince as evidence. You are aware, I suspect, that as far as Islam in concerned, Christianity is false, right? Jesus is not god and and the Crucifixion story is a myth. So an Islamic person who has the experience of Allah and Mohammad is confirming his/her belief that Christianity is not the true religion. That is certainly what Muslims I have met have told me. Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum?

I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences?

How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?
— Tom Storm

Using a model that establishes the criteria for each category. — Hallucinogen

Such as??

St Faustina Helen Kowalska saw apparitions of Jesus Christ in the 1930s, which have served as the basis for a popular devotion.

Marguerite-Marie Alacoque had visions of Jesus in which He showed her His Sacred Heart
Marie-Julie Jahenny had visions of Jesus' Heart. — Hallucinogen

So what? It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations, like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit. The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know.

Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model. — Hallucinogen

Can you cite reputable studies?

I think compared to our inherited bourgous and egological way of life, stocism and other such doctrines were very austere. And indeed Schopenhaur praises asceticism as the solution to the problem of human willfulness. Easy to say, but very hard to do, unless it's inculcated during your formative years. (I speak from experience.) — Wayfarer

I think disposition has much to do with it. I'm not a fan of owning too many things. I feel better with less. Just sold my car. I am now working though my belongings, with a goal of giving away 50% of it all. And then I will review. There's a thread on the spiritual benefits of minimalism (and its challenges) gestating in my head.

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen

How so?

We can meet people who have had direct experiences (during prayer) of Mohammad and Allah. Are they true too?

I have met people who have had experiences (during meditation) of Krishna and Brahma. Are they true too?

All religions contain people convinced they have had direct and personal experiences of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. All religions also have their miracle stories.

Now even more interesting. We can meet with and interview thousands of people right now who also claim to have been abducted by aliens and have been examined on alien ships before being put back on earth.

How exactly do we determine which of these stories, from such disparate and contradictory sources, are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold. — BitconnectCarlos

From our perspective, yes.

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid. — BitconnectCarlos

What objective basis have you identified that allows us to determine which is valid and which is not?

And the point, to go back to where this began, is that any human belief system can lead to cockroaches and humans being views as analogous.

And before you say 'but scripture is pure' - we can easily point out that scripture requires interpretation. There is no interpretation free understanding of any scripture.

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. — BitconnectCarlos

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects.

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos

You're almost there. Keep thinking this through. People use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries.

The problem with religions is that there is no objective basis for morality. It is always an interpretation of or a personal preference of scripture. Scripture is the multiple choice worldview, leading in any direction we, or our priestly class, believe God says we should go.

*

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you. — BitconnectCarlos

Sometimes it can, but certainly not always. Sounds like the observation of William T Craig rather than that of an urbane Jewish man.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. They even referenced Martin Luther's antisemitic screed, 'On the Jews and their Lies'.

I also recall more recently meeting with a student social worker of Hindu background. In his view, somewhat ironically, the homeless and the beggars were destined to die of poverty and isolation as a result of Karma. 'They are like insects,' he explained. 'We shouldn't help them.'

I don't think misanthropic nihilism is the sole end result of secularism, it's common in religious circles too. Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness' of human life seems to be part of the practice of many religions.

According to this, "many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism. Philosopher of science Dean Rickles says that, "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism."
— Tom Storm
Relativity does give a strong suggestion, but it is going too far to assert full incompatibility.
The two premises of SR is where the trouble is. I googled "premises of special relativity" — noAxioms

You have accidentally quoted @Michael as me.

There are three kinds of time, and those that ask "what is time" never seem to realize it. — noAxioms

I am not asking what is time, I was specifically interested in @Joshs comment about phenomenology and time.

Seems complicated. Thanks.

This is obviously not the case, so consequently we are forced to acknowledge that our consciousness, one way or the other, can encompass more than that which is given right now. We can be co-conscious of that which has just been, and that which is just about to occur.

This seems to be the nub of it.

We can perceive temporal objects because consciousness is not caught in the now. We do not merely perceive the now-phase of the triad, but also its past and future phases.

Interesting. I never thought about music in such terms before but it is fascinating that we can experience and make sense of a melody or a recurring motif and counterpoint in a composition. Our awareness may not be located in the present.

By phenomenological I meant phenomenological
philosophy ( Husserl, Mwrleau-Ponty.) This does not mean mere introspection, but a method of
reflection on experience that brings out structures unavailable to empirical third person models. — Joshs

Can you say some more in simple terms about what this might be? Do you mean that time is also an aspect of consciousness and therefore located in our cognitive apparatus (but that may be closer to Kant?).

This bit about 'evidence' below interested me:

What is missing is the phenomenological experience of time , which involves a different notion of evidence than empirical naturalism makes use of. — Joshs

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie

Many people have come to this conclusion. But 'suffering' wouldn't make sense if we didn't also experience contentment. So for me, whether life is predominately suffering or not, depends on experience, disposition and culture and upon how you understand the notion of suffering itself. My own life experience is too complex or multifaceted to be reduced to a single concept like this.

I feel I am very much a novice — Gingethinkerrr

Welcome.

I'm here because I never privileged philosophy in my life. Wanting to find out what I may have missed. I am not a philosopher, nor do I have the disposition for philosophy. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in views unlike my own. I'm also interested in exploring the presuppositions or building blocks of my beliefs, to see what can be ditched or improved upon. It seems philosophy is extremely difficult to do well. This place is more of a discussion group about philosophical ideas, peopled with the curious, the blinkered, the learned and the monomaniacal.

Why were you smoking at this house? — Jamal

Yes. Oh, the owner died in the 1950's. It was just a big house near where I lived back then, attached to a school. I used to walk past it a lot and sometimes stop by.

This house, once owned by a Catholic gambling czar and alleged petty-criminal here in Melbourne, was always referred to as a wedding cake. Decades ago, I used to smoke cigarettes on the balcony. I'm not ordinarily a fan of the grotesque mansions of the nouveau riche, but this one has some classical appeal.

Don't be a push-over' - I don't see how that's any different to 'have a little hardness to you.' — Barkon

I already said this.

I don't understand your other response. But perhaps we should leave it.

Your words are very garbled. Sorry.

I think it's a pretty vague idea. One person's 'hard' is another's sociopathy. What criterion of value do you measure 'hard' against?

I think the sentiment is an attempt at 'common sense' or what we might call folk wisdom. My mother put it differently - 'Don't be a push over.' I see no moral implications.

Always seemed to me that there was never an expectation in Christianity that 'the world' could be other than a 'vale of tears'. — Wayfarer

Depends on the church.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

My criticism of the characters in monotheism are closer to literary criticism. I dislike Mr Casaubon almost as much as I dislike Yahweh.

If you and I were talking about god and scripture, we would likely be talking allegory and I wouldn't bother talking about scriptural truth. I'm assuming we'd both consider this pointless. But some here seem to believe this stuff.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

Like most Westerners, I grew up hearing sermons about the perfection of nature and god's design. Still a theme, given my last church attendance at Easter. So all I am doing is providing an atheist's counterpoint.

Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death: — 180 Proof

And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism.

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong.

You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture. — BitconnectCarlos

There's really nothing you can't justify using this approach, just like the Muslims do.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. Omniscient omnibenevolent disasters, apparently.

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos

Straw man. But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder even more effortlessly than Pol Pot.

I mean, you're free place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't. :wink: — BitconnectCarlos

:up: I think it's proper to take every opportunity to analyse the narratives we are presented with whether it's the Koran or the Old Testament or The Book of Mormon and identify problems and inconsistences. That's our job.

Anyway, there' s no point letting a little thing like god come between us. Take care.

I'm very sympathetic to this view. Nicely put.

So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income? — Shawn

Socialism is a much broader project that just this. It's also about public ownership, democratic control and social justice. In short, the active participation of citizens in decisions made about them and the redistribution of wealth and resources back into community - education, amenities, hospitals, healthcare, etc. In theory, a universal, basic income might work well in a dictatorship - to help pacify a population.

I get that you're an atheist, Tom, but this a concept expressed in paganism/polytheism. So you're kind of a pagan atheist. — BitconnectCarlos

No idea what a pagan atheist might be. I was just expressing an obvious absurdity about the usual claims of monotheism's perfect deity. Conveying 'truth' through an old book, the contents of which few can agree upon, is sloppy work. The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. And the fact that a god would design an animal kingdom where predation, torment and suffering are a constant necessity for most species to eat, suggests a love of cruelty or more sloppy work. And there's more... but I have no doubt that believers of any stripe can find a post hoc rationalisation for these things, or a way to deny they are present.

:up:

:up:

I admit the story is as far-fetched as it is incomprehensible. — Fire Ologist

:up:

On a personal level a theistic me is a stronger & healthier me. — BitconnectCarlos

Which of course doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not. A Sikh colleague says the same thing. There are vegans and techno pagans saying it too.

My theism is intuitive and derived from the Bible and life events. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. My atheism is intuitive and derived from literature and life events.

the bible is the greatest work of literature ever written. — BitconnectCarlos

I prefer The Good Soldier Švejk as literature, although I suspect as religious texts go, the Mahabharata is possibly the greatest one, but personal taste is subjective.

And you don't need Jesus to be a theist. — BitconnectCarlos

True. But this still doesn't address which god is true, if truth is what matters. Or should we do the populist dance of syncretism and say all gods point to the same divine principle?

If God intervened more, than what good would my friendship with him be? What good would our friendship with each other be, if we were not free to seek our own minds, our own wills and share our own hearts with each other. God wants us to be us, so he doesn’t intervene; but God wants us to be friends with him and each other, so he shows us what friends do, how friends talk to one another, how to love not matter what the cross. — Fire Ologist

To me this story doesn't make sense.

You are simply speculating on why god doesn't intervene. You cannot demonstrate this is the reason.

Remember that god not intervening is a more recent thing. He intervenes and appears in person to prophets and figures throughout the Bible. Why no more? (that's rhetorical - there is no proper answer)

Naturally, for me god doesn't intervene because there is no god.

Or why was it God himself becoming a man, living poor and being killed, so that he could rise again? Why is the incarnation leading to poverty and bloody death needed?

And if God was here, walking the earth to found a church, why did he not write one word down, not one written word by Jesus, to found a 2000 plus year old institution? — Fire Ologist

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention. Hence we now have thousands of Christian sects, some mutually hateful towards each other over doctrine and dogma. All interpreting god's will differently. God could settle this in a minute if he intervened.

Jesus being sacrificed was really just a weekend ruined. I think gods can take this kind of stuff in their stride. I never understood this tale of ritualistic blood sacrifice, which seems absurd more than anything else. God could have provided redemption any number of ways but settled on this piss-poor piece of theatre. What do some atheists say - Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself?

I don't beleive we are in a simulation, but this is my reaction to your points.

First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm

Why would or should they?

Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? — jasonm

Why should we? The model may be perfectly coherent.

Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? — jasonm

If we are a simulation and there is a world outside ours, how would we know what is possible? Since we know nothing of the world outside the simulation, we don't even know if it is done via computers. Would it not be a mistake to assume that what applies in our world applies outside it? This seems an odd position to take.

...insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction. — 180 Proof

Fair enough. How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable?

My questions around this have generally been: if so, then what do we know about this deity if all we have are stories? Do we have any reason to accept this deity exists, except as a character in allegorical tales? Etc.

Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?

I think I probably read and write more with the arrival of the internet because there's just more information out there to digest. — Hanover

I think I do too.

But I've always been drawn to cosmic philosophies, which are somewhat religious in nature. Not necessarily theistic, and in the sense of a cosmic-director God not at all, but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

Well I can't find anything much to criticize in this. Certain things attract us. But it does seem to be the expression of a preference - one predicated on emotional or aesthetic satisfaction perhaps - just as mine is - I've never been drawn to cosmic philosophy or religions, they don't assist my sense making process. However, I do appreciate a dialogue between the different worldviews and I'd much rather discuss matters of meaning with a spiritually inclined person that the average atheist.

And the atheists think the theists are being unreasonable, but it's really the other way around because the atheists are denying themselves the capacity to understand, and that is being unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am an atheist but I don't think theists are being unreasonable.

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we demonstrate such a statement? Which god, by the way?

So I invite you to think again. — tim wood

I've done creative things which others appreciated and made changes, but no feelings of perfection or moments of reverie, I'm afraid.

Have you ever had any moment of the kind of perfection, that you recognized as such, in which you knew there was no how or why or what for beyond it? — tim wood

Not that I recall.

So, in the context of pre-modern philosophy, it was simply assumed that everything exists for a reason, and that this reason is discernable by nous, intellect. — Wayfarer

But was the assumption warranted? Was it not simply a stage of culture? Obviously there are some nostalgic, romantic projects that wish to overturn the modern world and its perceived bereftness but I think a good argument for this seems to be elusive. It all generally coalesces around the idea: "Oh, isn't the modern period hideously ugly and consumerist.' No doubt the premodern period was hideously ugly in its own ways, transcendent meaning or not.

Whereas the naturalist account comprises trying to discern only a material causal sequence, leaving out the broader sense of reason as the ancients understood it. — Wayfarer

But what's the case that this is warranted? Why does it matter what the ancients thought?