You're right, spiritual is not always a good match. Is there a better word? Supernatural? Even more loaded for some. It depends on the claim being made. Scientific anomalies or gaps in knowledge don't really count. We know there are are things that are not yet explained by science, but that doesn't mean we have a better approach for establishing facts about the world.

Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

Even in the unlikely event that we can confirm an example of a supernatural event, the next problem is determining cause. As Isaac Asimov used to say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Is there a way this all makes sense? — Nikolas

Yes, many ways. God puts people to the test. Do not eat the fruit. Do not do anything God asks you not to do. Obedience is fidelity. But if you must concentrate on the fruit, it is knowledge that is the issue - the betrayal of purity. Which in the end facilitates Adam and Eve's pursuit of their own desires and ideas about right and wrong - free will instead of God's will. The first step in the separation of people from God and the tragedy of good and evil becoming mixed together in creation.

formalist gesture in thinking — Joshs

I don't understand what you mean here?

s seeking knowledge evil and remaining ignorant the good? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a God create knowledge and call it evil? If knowledge is evil why create our potential to receive it in the first place — Nikolas

That's not the interpretation I am making. And the question you pose has nothing to do with my proposition. I never said knowledge was evil. But not following God's command is wrong. He is very specific about not eating that bloody fruit.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to? — Nikolas

The only tree of knowledge I know is the kabbalah. Knowledge isn't evil per say but you may be commanded to remain ignorant/simple - in which case seeking knowledge then becomes a transgression.

Also, it requires being a hard atheist, which is just another a dogmatic position. — baker

Most Christians accept evolution. Not sure where the hard atheism comes from.

I'm seems like it is the same for those who prefer western philosophy. It grabs them. They recognize it. It's something they didn't know they already knew. — T Clark

I just had a quick scan on line. It certainly is striking - it reads like poetry and the reader needs to have a particular personality or imagination (I suspect) to get the most from it.

I'm not a big Western philosophy guy so I feel like I should resonate with other modes of expression. But I am a product of my culture and I can't see a way past most of my own presuppositions.

Nicely put but I'm not sure it addresses most of my comments.

Thanks for your response. I was unable to get much out of the Tao Te Ching to be honest (decades ago) but I'll give it another look. I'm sure I can read it in an hour but I am also sure I will not understand it.

This failure of philosophy is a failure to see the whole picture and storytelling that excluded our wrongs. This is a new day and we need to value philosophy to move ahead without doing more damage. — Athena

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true.

On the other hand, I've met other people like you who were saved by philosophy. I must admit I don't get it, but I've come to respect it and accept that it works. For me, it's like jazz. It's not my music and I don't really get it, but enough people I respect value it that it would be silly and graceless to argue. — T Clark

Nicely put. I guess the real job of all of us is to consider ideas we are not necessarily drawn to and perhaps even repelled by (of course you wouldn't want to push this too far). This in itself probably requires a philosophical imagination.

I'm interested in your idea about philosophy being stony. Can you say more in concrete terms (no half-arsed pun intended) about why it doesn't work for you?

[

here are three degrees of Christians: Non-Christians, pre-Christians and Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Non Christians have no interest. Pre-Christians may want to be Christians but are unable. They are like students. — Nikolas

Interesting - you raise many questions. On what basis do you arrive at this Trinitarian model? When you say precepts of Chris (I am assuming you mean teachings of) does it matter if they are the purported original teachings or ones with theological additions? Is it enough to say 'I follow Christ', regardless of quality control? The term pre-Christian is interesting. Why Pre? Generally pre-Christian means Iron Age faiths. Do you perhaps mean nascent-Christian? I am also curious about your use the word 'unable'. Unable to what? To believe it, or is there some other barrier - such as commitment to the purity of the teachings? I think you may have left one out - cultural Christians.

I'm saying that classical metaphysical arguments don't have obvious winners in the real world. And if I give reasons for their futility, I'm also just wasting my time in practical terms, because in general people don't take such things seriously to begin with, and those who like metaphysics are often religiously-politically motivated or just still captured by the notion that they are doing some kind of higher Science. It's a harmless vice, as is critiquing it. — norm

Possibly the most elegant summary of the situation I've yet read.

I get that people like to feel part of a special group of initiated outliers who challenge the mainstream and embrace a numinous reality outside of conventional lifestyles and the ostensible limitations of crass science. I get the attractions of wanting to be one with a higher consciousness through the contemplative life.

What I don't get is the lack of joy in the communication of these ideas. It seems most of what I read is a thick soup of quotes, name dropping and terminology, with the requisite 'my reality is better than theirs' powerplay. I expect that from some atheists. There's almost nothing explaining the benefits or bliss found through the spiritual path and what it actually achieves. Is there somewhere here where this comes up or do we never get past the pissing competition?

I agree with Justice Wendell Holmes.

You can't resolve this highly emotive issue. You either buy into the idea that we live in community and support it and consider tax a way to pay for civilization; or you take the view that we are free individuals and the state is in illegitimate oppressor that takes away our liberty and property. You have also raised a separate matter of how society determines who gets paid what amount for their work. Maybe this is a separate thread.

Yes, but if that is meant to refer to norm’s comments here concerning the relation of language in a Wittgensteinian sense to issues like mind versus body I think it would be missing the point of his argument. — Joshs

You're right, he is not addressing the point as such but then both guys are talking past each other, which seems the necessary end result of competing epistemologies like this. I am more in sympathy with Norm's worldview than Dharmi's.

However, I was just taken by Dharmi's succinct words on this matter of finding wisdom which would apply in a range of contexts and it occurred to me that the old joke, 'I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy' might be applicable. Hence my point about holding statements. Probably too obtuse... sorry.

hat's not what I said. What my position is, is very clear: whether we come to know the meaning/purpose/nature etc. of existence or not, we shouldn't give up on that question. In other words, the whole point of existence is that question. If we never come to knowledge of the answer, that doesn't mean we give up. You seem to believe that "philosophers and philosophy can't answer that question, so that question is unsolvable, so I'm done with philosophy and good riddance." Well, I don't accept that.

I might not have the answer, nobody might very well have the answer. It's possible that getting that answer is impossible. But that doesn't mean we throw in the towel, and accept nihilism. First, that is a logical non-sequitur to say "because we cannot know x, therefore there is no x." That's a fallacy. Second, that's not the point of philosophy. The point of philosophy is to know the Good, know the Truth, know what is Real. Socrates went to his death asking those questions, and all should model his life in that regard. He never said, "I don't know the answer yet, so I guess I'll just stop asking the questions." That's laziness. That's a cop-out. That's what I'd call philosophical suicide. — Dharmi

That's a very dramatic way of phrasing the dilemma but it seems appropriate and I like your wording. I also think sometimes people give up by finding the answer - one that satisfies but is really just a holding statement of sorts. "I'm an X..."

David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions is a salutary reminder of how and in what way the Christian message was revolutionary in the ancient world. — Wayfarer

I greatly enjoy Hart's work. It interests me that he has identified the problem of evil and the suffering of innocents as the one which has capacity to shake his faith.

I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. In addition, so much of what Christ taught may have been lost in the way the Bible was put together. A lot of the teachings which were established were based on the ideas developed by Paul. Another underlying tension in the development of the Christian tradition was the conflicts over Gnostic thinking, and the role of teachers, especially Origen, in deciding what writings were put into the New Testament, and this is critical for thinking about how the way Christian thought developed. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that's all a given. I think all we can go by in assessing a religion in the world is living traditions.

First we would have to agree on what Christianity is as opposed to the well known Christendom functioning in society. Kierkegaard was aware of a difference but obviously is in in a minority. — Nikolas

I hear you but I don't think you can get agreement on this so readily. We don't have a mechanism to discern who is a true Christian and who is not. Generally, if someone calls themselves a Christian, we have to take them at their word unless we have sufficient evidence to the contrary (whatever that might be).

How do you come by your opinion of Hindus and Buddhists and other Asian people living with Eastern philosophy? — Athena

I don't really have a strong view on this. I am attracted to some Buddhism ideas - but isn't everyone? I don't see any Asian cultures that I would swap for mine. I am always most interested in how cultures manage poverty, illness, work and law and order.

Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable! — Athena

Interesting idea. Christianity is an easy target in its limited literalist formulations. I have a soft spot for Christianity and unlike Nietzsche and other resentful thinkers, I consider its reverence towards the weak, the marginalized, the lost, the 'bungled and the botched' to be of profound importance to culture.

It's a pity so much Christianity - especially where it is growing fastest - is of a grotesque, materialistic fundamentalist bent. But it seems most religions and spiritual systems have their gross populist variations.

Not trying to be a dick but why does it matter?

Convention - I say "There is no objective reality." Everyone says, "What are you, an idiot?" — T Clark

Of course around here it is usually - "I say there is an objective reality." Everyone says, "What are you an idiot?"

I think people accept their presuppositions because they fit emotional needs. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.

The other reason is the considered absence of a viable alternative. Which may fit with what you have called Experience.

La Rochefoucauld wrote something like only vanity is offended by vanity. How dare you claim to have the secret or be special! I have it, you silly motherfucker! — norm

Nice quote.

Silence is more sinister in our cacophonous world.

The other, somewhat more interesting question from my perspective is, how is your life different if you doubt fundamental first principles?

For the person who says matter is an illusion and only consciousness is real, what are the practical day-to-day consequences of that view?

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable — khaled

That may not be the whole story though. Reasonable applied to what? If your staring point is less dogmatic, standards of reasonableness have less extreme implications. I am not a philosopher and have no idea but the starting point for me is nothing is 100% certain and there is no agreement about how we can access truth. I would venture that capital T truth may not exist. But is certainty and truth necessary?

Politicians say 'no comment' because their default setting (and their job) is never to give the game away. Someone is always looking to nail a politician for something (media, the other side, lobby groups), no comment serves to minimize potential ammunition.

No comment is best not read into as it contains a universe of potential meanings - including: 'Fuck you!', 'I don't know', 'I don't feel like sharing now', 'I have no views', 'I feel safer saying nothing as it might be problematic if I comment', 'I don't talk about that subject'.

No comment gains power when attached to some kinds questions and is some contexts. Such as, 'Did you hit that person?' No comment here could be read as an admission of guilt. And on it goes...

No comment is a holding statement and rich in potential interpretations.

That's where I am now. The rest is a long story. — T Clark

Thanks for that response. My problem is that people feel or experience all manner of things, from the risen Christ to self transcendence and connection with higher consciousness. And being creative beings, people make all-sorts of connections and symbolic meaning. We are meaning making animals - that much seems clear.

Problem is how do we determine something that is real or useful from something which is an internal conscious state, a hallucination, or a belief, or a feeling?

There are atheists like Dr Susan Blackmore and Sam Harris who practice contemplative techniques, mindfulness, mediation, Dzogchen, Zazen - whatever it might be - and they do not come to the conclusion that science is anything but the primary mode of acquiring reliable knowledge. And all their critics will do is resort to ad hominem attacks - 'they are doing it wrong' or 'they are blocked'.

Seems that introspective experiences like intuitions of transcendence have no more impact on a belief in a higher consciousness or the notion of one mind, say, than an LSD trip. And the frequent connection of these subjective experiences to spooky physics and this or that spiritual tradition does not seem warranted.

Science does not have a privileged viewpoint on reality. It's a way of seeing things, but not the only, and not always the best, way.

I'm just repeating myself. — T Clark

You're not repeating, you're clarifying. I would argue that science does have a privileged position - that's one area we differ. Can you describe these other was of seeing briefly or in dot points and outline what was seen exactly? What can you know spiritually speaking (or whatever word you wish to use by contrast with science.

That's like asking if there is one robust documented example of anything scientific existing — T Clark

You're right, I expressed this poorly. I have no problem with meditation and focused self-awareness and contemplation. Some atheist materialists practice mediation and even accept models of non-duality.

My problem is when people make truth claims they cannot justify - such as there is a higher consciousness that they can access. That there is reincarnation. That there is a soul. Etc. I have no quarrel with people who enjoy Zen mysticism or similar practices and quietly feel better about their lives as a consequence.

Now most of my social circle would likely me label me as nuts for thinking this way, but I suspect that within the group of philosophers in here, there are others who take a similar perspective. Am I wrong? — dazed

Fifty is pretty young to be thinking like this, even with some modest health issues.

It strikes me that 10 years from now is a pretty safe and distant time. I wonder if this is a serious idea or if it is a coping tool for your managing now. For instance - I have a way out on the horizon so I need not be too concerned by the present. This approach has a range of functions depending upon how one is living or thinking about life.

My overall approach when talking to people who are experiencing suicidal ideation (not you, naturally) is to establish what their reasons for living are. If these are sufficiently strong, the reasons for dying are generally overcome.

In my opinion, — Enrique

Are you even qualified to venture an opinion on this subject - what science qualification do you have?

Spiritual causes are not immaterial, they are natural and must participate in evolution defined broadly as organized, self-selective change in substance. If spirits drive change in substance, that will eventually show up as a facet of the theory of evolution. — Enrique

Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing?

So I'm offering my system, and I'm asking you to tell me what's wrong with my system. You haven;t done that, you're just rejecting it for some unknown reason that you haven't explained yet. — Dharmi

If that's what you think you either haven't read me or are not able to understand. You sound like a Christian apologist except with Deepak Chopra instead of Jesus. No thanks.

There is no right or wrong here but only asking which direction attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Neither of those quotes mean much to me and they seem to reflect personalities rather than shed any insights on the nominal subject.

Feynman seems to be associating beauty with the numinous and I guess that's fine. The defended self of the scientist so often accused of using a sponge to wipe away the entire horizon.

Weil's comments become poetic blarney. From the thematic arrangement of the words in the first part of the quote I would guess she fears beauty. If I read this from anyone else I would say they had palpable unresolved conflicts.

I personally struggle to tell what is beautiful from what is striking or arresting or even from what is a visual cliche.

So why is it that when someone says they are (or in more likely aren't since that seems to rub folks the wrong way) attracted to a certain race people call them racist? — Darkneos

Depends on why. Caucasian guy I knew was attracted to Asian women. Unpacked it with him and the following reason was provided. "They are more likely not to answer back and make their partners happy compared to white women.' A racist trope, surely. I think it would be interesting in some cases to learn what is behind the attraction and what that race represents, perhaps even subconsciously.

I'll stick with scientology for now — norm

I'm running with A Course In Miracles, it changed my life.