... there are gods in Buddhist doctrine but they're regarded as merely other sentient beings and ignorant of their true nature ("not-manifest, not-born, not-made," etc), if I'm not mistaken.
If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? And in any case, why do we need another word for Being? (Or existence, if that's what you mean). Why call that "God"? And what about atheists who believe in Being or existence? Don't you think that it's a problem to call "God" something which an atheist can believe in? Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism? — S
Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism? — S
In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. — Wayfarer
But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. — Wayfarer
What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. — Wayfarer
mass child rape by clerics — Jake
Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. — Pattern-chaser
Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort. — Jake
I don't decide upon the meaning of words by looking at how others react to them. — Mariner
Being and existence don't have the same meaning. — Mariner
In the old forum there was a long thread in which (mainly) I and Banno discussed the meaning of "fact", and how it is not (as I argued) synonym with "truth". That distinction is analogous to the distinction between being and existence. Existence is a subset of being, and facts are a kind of truth, but existence does not exhaust being, and facts do not exhaust truth.
This is a very old distinction, of course, and (e.g.) the Platonic dialogues deal with it in great detail. But if one wants a short and illuminating book about it, it is hard to do better than Aquinas' "Ente et Essentia".
To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example, numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them. — Mariner
Why can't you just tell me what it means? — S
For some weird reason, you seem to have gotten it into your head that I must set a single meaning for the word "dog" and tell you what it is with regards to what I've said. — S
To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example [of the difference in meaning between existence and being], numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them. — Mariner
We are trying to talk about something of which we don't have any experience. It is necessary to use symbolic language for that. — Mariner
OK granted with such mute randomness, we finally get an agnostic viewpoint we can all agree on as being agnostic. — BaldMenFighting
However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard — BaldMenFighting
- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation). — BaldMenFighting
As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance. — BaldMenFighting
I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.
Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible. — BaldMenFighting
Ok then, it's agreed, we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior. :smile: — Jake
there are many good reasons to reject ecclesiastical religion, mass child rape by clerics coming immediately to mind. — Jake
How do we construct the most positive possible relationship with this mysterious place we find ourselves in? — Jake
This is the first significant link in that search:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence
It looks credible and balanced. Take it from there. — Mariner
I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. — Wayfarer
So since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of "Anything But God" underwriting philosophy; the 'confict thesis' comes out of that. But the causes of this attitude are often suppressed or forgotten, resulting in a kind of pathological distrust of anything that sounds religious — Wayfarer
Anyway, long story short, I enrolled in Comparative Religion at University. I formed the view that the experiential side of spirituality, the search for enlightenment, which is still preserved in those sources, was lost or suppressed early in the Christian Era. — Wayfarer
But to answer your question - the original impulse behind philosophy as such, was just this kind of quest for individual enlightenment, but through reasoned analysis rather than devotional religion — Wayfarer
It's not reasonable for us to claim an experiential side to Christianity doesn't exist just because we are determined to ignore it. — Jake
since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of 'Anything But God' underwriting philosophy; the 'conflict thesis' (conflict between science and religion) comes out of that. — Wayfarer
I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.