The concept here is, it is difficult to make a reasoned argument against the proposition that man has some in inherent need for knowledge, and understanding. And he has some need for understanding his purpose. And as far as i am aware of them, all of the philosophical attempts to define such meaning, that does not include something "God Like" are unconvincing. If it is existentialism, absurdity, hedonism, nihilism - none seem to convincing - at least to me, and I believe in general. The best individual answers i have heard on this point - tend to be a kind of secular spirituality. One that are focused on love of others, on some selflessness. Which I wont argue against, but always seem rather God centered to me - just without the God. — Rank Amateur

I definitely agree re knowledge/understanding--because it's impossible to survive as a human without those things. So that's pretty much built into us. But I don't think that a search for "higher meaning" or some grand purpose or anything like that is something that necessarily everyone has a drive towards--although it certainly is very common.

Human reason has proven itself useful for an uncountable number of practical tasks that humans encounter. But that fact does not prove that human reason is also qualified to credibly address the very largest of questions. — Jake

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that while religion attempts to explain phenomenon, science seeks to understand and control them. This leads to a mastery of nature and benefit to the general populace. You can genuinely understand why something happens through science, and that’s why it’s our best bet. Sure, it could all be coincidence and we could really understand nothing, but that’s quite a few coincidences.

It is easier to prove that nothing exists rather than proving something does. In some understandings of the universe, a creator is necessary. Who started the universe? I think the better question is what. Why does it have to be a sentient being that created the universe? I think it more likely to be a force or natural mechanism of the universe that created existence. There is no need for a god and no evidence for one. Why should I believe in a benevolent overlord when there is absolutely no evidence to the point that it’s nonexistence is so much more likely.

I agree with your sentiment about us being brothers and sisters. As I said above I have no problem with people being religious in their free time. However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. If it makes you happy and gives your life meaning, fine. If a community wants to build a church and pray for things to get better, fine. But when they walk into their jobs, rationality must rule. I would feel more comfortable living in a building designed by someone who understands math and physics rather than one built by someone who prayed it would stay up and doesn’t understand how to build a house. If they do both, I don’t care, as long as they do the first.

Thanks - again not sure i did a very good job of explaining Rahner's point - sorry the long cut and paste - but thought I would put a more professional explanation here for those who might find it interesting.


Asking, .. What does God mean for the modern person?" Rahner
strove to reinterpret theology in the light of modem thought. His work
was motivated by two goals:

to make theology intellectually respectable

and to make it serve the broadest interests of Christian faith and life.

Like Kant, he starts with the human subject and the possibility of
knowledge. He examines the human experience of knowledge as the
experience of absolute and limitless transcendence. His method
combines philosophy and cultural analysis to look at the world from an
existentialist perspective.

Referred to as a transcendental Thomist, Rahner was deeply
influenced by Aquinas's theology and in particular the notion that all
knowledge has a priori conditions of possibility. Prompted by Kant,
he asks, "Is it possible to know what is ultimately real?" Inspired by
Aquinas, he asks, "Is it possible to gain knowledge of the non-sensible
God?" Departing from Kant's ontology and his axiom that all human
knowledge necessarily refers to sensible intuitions, Rahner wants to
interrogate the possibility of metaphysics. He sees the ability to reach
ultimate truth through what Aquinas calls excessus ( excess), which is
nothing more than the condition that makes it possible for humanity to
experience the world.

For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. The theologian Karl-Heinz Weger notes
that for Rahner "the term a priori points to something in man that is
already present and previously gi~ something, in other words. that
has not simply been acquired on the basis of experience ... All
knowledge, however, is a posteriori knowledge, because without a
posteriori experiences, the person inhabits nothing that can be known
about his/her a priori constitution. The a priori constitutes our ability
to transcend a posteriori experiences. which are the reality of ~everyday
experiences in the world. The a priori aspect of our knowledge is not
constituted by a posteriori reality. )

We can only experience what we do because we always see out world in the light of a transcendental a
priori. Rabner presupposes within human nature the a priori grasp of
being itself within which metaphysical objects can be known. He
seeks to demonstrate that this human a priori brings about a person's
fundamental experience of God.

Rahner insists on the transcendental nature of human existence
while always keeping the historicity of finite existence in mind. In his
conception, the human being is historical precisely as a transcendent
subject. Asking what existence is in itself, he argues that while
human experience may give answers, it cannot by itself make human
existence intelligible. Finite human beings are present to themselves as
a question and as such open to endless possibilities. The moment we
become aware of our finitude, we have already surpassed it. We
become aware of God as the Infinite Horizon of our consciousness. By
starting with what Weger calls .. modem man's actual experiences,"
Rahner' s methodology breaks with traditional Catholic theology. He
makes anthropology the beginning of his theology.

However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. If it makes you happy and gives your life meaning, fine — TogetherTurtle

have no issue in general with your point - but language like this is pejorative and IMO should be avoided.

have no issue in general with your point - but language like this is pejorative and IMO should be avoided — Rank Amateur

Criticism is absolutely necessary for open discourse. Criticism doesn’t have to always be positive in nature to be useful either. I do my best to be kind but if I happen to be rude i have faith that others can take the little disrespect I dish out. If they can’t handle that I don’t consider them to be fit for debate in the first place.

He examines the human experience of knowledge as the
experience of absolute and limitless transcendence. — Rank Amateur

This strikes me as very odd to jump to right after "knowledge is possible." I'm curious why he'd see the human experience of knowledge as experience of "absolute and limitless transcendence"--how would someone arrive at that sort of notion? But I suppose I'd have to delve into Rahner and search for if he gives any "ontogenetic" clues as to how he wound up there.

However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. — TogetherTurtle

Good post, thanks.

To me, it's a fairy tale that any of us know what is or isn't a fairy tale, in regards to issues the scale of the God theory.

The God idea is a collection of theories about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, the ultimate big picture question.

Human beings are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Expecting something as small as humans to understand something as large as the nature of everything is like expecting a squirrel to understand the Internet, in my typoholic opinion.

To me, the useful question is, what is our emotional relationship with God or reality, or whatever one prefers to call this place we find ourselves in. This is something we can do something about.

All that said, I plead guilty to forgetting that many forum members may be in their teens or twenties, and thus it's not reasonable to expect them to already have understandings which have taken others of us a lifetime to come to.

yea - agree not sure the concept summarizes very well. And I find it a very difficult and slow read. But i will take a pass at it.

by " absolute and limitless transcendence " he is IMO referring to this part:

"For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. "

Where he believes we have a " a priori" transcendental knowledge that there is some undefined yet very real horizon of "infinite knowledge". We can not define it or even understand it - but we all have an innate knowledge that it is there -

Not sure that helps much - probably do to my inability to communicate it well

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that while religion attempts to explain phenomenon, science seeks to understand and control them. This leads to a mastery of nature and benefit to the general populace. — TogetherTurtle

It leads to a mastery of nature, but not a mastery of the human condition. Thus for example, we are brilliant enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, while at the same time being insane and stupid enough to actually do so.

The "benefit to the general populace" continues only until the point at which science hands us one or more enormous powers which we can't successfully manage.

The very common notion that science is leading us step by step towards an ever better future is 19th century thinking in my view.

It leads to a mastery of nature, but not a mastery of the human condition. Thus for example, we are brilliant enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, while at the same time being insane and stupid enough to actually do so. — Jake

And why can’t we change ourselves to use technology more safely? Cybernetics to enhance physical strength and memory are advancing all the time. We can change our brains to not feel the anger needed to launch a nuke. We are nature ourselves, therefore mastery of nature is mastery of ourselves.

The very common notion that science is leading us step by step towards an ever better future is 19th century thinking in my view. — Jake

IMO the application of science - Technology - is driven by inherently human drives - mostly power and money - but occasionally and to a lesser degree - altruism. Technology, as the application of science, can not escape the human condition with all the good and bad that that entails.

To me, it's a fairy tale that any of us know what is or isn't a fairy tale, in regards to issues the scale of the God theory.

The God idea is a collection of theories about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, the ultimate big picture question.

Human beings are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Expecting something as small as humans to understand something as large as the nature of everything is like expecting a squirrel to understand the Internet, in my typoholic opinion. — Jake

Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge. The universe is big but it’s almost entirely made up of the same stuff. If there is something beyond the horizon that is entirely different, we will probably see it again. We know about a lot of the things we can see and have explained them.

You assume that a piece of the puzzle can’t understand the rest of the puzzle. That is wrong.

As for your comment on age. In your view, time is everything. Sure, a 15 year old is more ignorant than a 30 year old on average, but what of the 45 year old? Ultimately, we are all infants compared to the age of the observable universe. If your logic held true, not even the old wise man I assume you are wouldn’t even be close to knowing that he doesn’t know. And you know that you don’t know, don’t you?

Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge. — TogetherTurtle

What is your reasonable argument that you can have any idea at all where we as human beings stand on such a thing as a scale of knowledge - with zero knowledge on one end - and all the possible knowledge on the other ? Seems an unsupportable statement to me.

I don’t know where we are, but I do know we’re on the right track. No one knows where knowledge will end but we do know that we have some. We should use it.

agree - but can you reconcile your answer above, with the point you made to ?

By saying this:

Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge

It seems you have made some assumption of where we are on such a scale. Your posts 2 posts appear in opposition to me.

We occupy a particular place, where many who previously have a long history of following certain religions are no longer doing it. We aren't in an easy position to differentiate our own constructs and ideologies from those we can sustain once those religious beliefs and completely 'flushed' from society. That being said, there doesn't really seem to be any reason besides earthly desires for money, power, comfort, and so on that anyone would have to make an extremely small or minuscule addition to any field of inquiry, despite the fact that they continue to do so for the time being.

If man has only what's set before him by natural probabilities, then he doesn't really need what you're calling the 'a priori.' This seems to me by nature non-useful for practical gain by that we can't use it for reliable explanations or predictions in the real world (like the paying/building example). By claiming that G-d does not exist for reasons like 'human suffering' the only sound argument seems to be a rejection of everything not related to immediate existence, or else some type of arbitrary decision to believe or not without reasoning. One in this position would have to accept a certain incapacity of believing in escape from their immediate reality by justification, otherwise they'd be admitting some chance that G-d could exist.

I never said I knew where we were. His argument was that we were near the bottom on A physical scale. I proposed that we were not on such a scale. I apologize if that was confusing. Live and learn I suppose.

no worries -

And why can’t we change ourselves to use technology more safely? Cybernetics to enhance physical strength and memory are advancing all the time. We can change our brains to not feel the anger needed to launch a nuke. — TogetherTurtle

Let's start with something simpler first. Let's change our brains so that we aren't incurably bored by the discussion of the most pressing threat to everything humanity has built over the last 500 years. Once that's done, the rest of your proposal will become more credible.

Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge. — TogetherTurtle

My mistake is in the persistent assumption that discussing such issues will accomplish anything at all. Seriously, not being sarcastic. THAT is my logical flaw, which I freely admit to.

What I've come to realize (ok, so it took a long time) is that our relationship with knowledge is beyond the reach of logic. That relationship will be not be edited by reason, but by pain.

But, I'm an incurable typoholic logic nerd, so I keep doing the only thing I know how to do, until the pain of too much time online stops this irrational behavior.

I don’t know where we are, but I do know we’re on the right track. — TogetherTurtle

This thread may help:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion

IMO the application of science - Technology - is driven by inherently human drives - mostly power and money - but occasionally and to a lesser degree - altruism. Technology, as the application of science, can not escape the human condition with all the good and bad that that entails. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's it. Wise insightful comment, as usual from you.

With all its SO MANY flaws, this is the genius of religion, the realization that the nature of the human condition is central, fundamental.

The other angle we might focus on is the issue of scale.

So long as knowledge and power are limited, of relatively small scale, as has been true throughout human history until very recently...

Then we can afford to make mistakes, learn from them, and then try again, continually building upon what's come before. This is what I call "19th century thinking", and it was valid in the 19th century and earlier, a very long time.

When the power grows to a scale which threatens civilization itself an entirely new equation is born. With powers of such awesome scale, a single failure a single time of a single such power can bring down the entire system, rendering all the many other positive accomplishments irrelevant.

The one great value of nuclear weapons is that they are incredibly simple, a box that goes boom. Thus, they should illustrate this concept to anyone over the age of 10. But sadly, that rarely happens, such is the human condition and the awesome power of wishful thinking.

So my friends, it's on to pain. Sooner or later some city in the world will vanish in an instant, and perhaps then our thinking will enter the 21st century. Not that this worked the last time of course...

Let's start with something simpler first. Let's change our brains so that we aren't incurably bored by the discussion of the most pressing threat to everything humanity has built over the last 500 years. Once that's done, the rest of your proposal will become more credible. — Jake

Are you bored of that? I’m not.

My mistake is in the persistent assumption that discussing such issues will accomplish anything at all. Seriously, not being sarcastic. THAT is my logical flaw, which I freely admit to. — Jake

Perhaps you should make a good point before you start preaching about your crusade to convert heathens.

And go easy on rank ameteur. While being hostile can sometimes get a point across is does make people dislike you. That isn’t good for productive discourse. Of course you misunderstand logical thinking anyway, don’t you? The proof comes first, then belief. That is what you can’t get past. There’s no reason for anyone to believe in your god other than indoctrination and emotional weakness and you seem to have no counter to that.

This thread may help: — Jake

Ah, a good visit back to the antinatislt type argument where any negativity invalidates all positivity.

You forgot about nuclear power. You forgot about technology letting us colonize the stars, making nuclear weapons ending civilization a thing of the past (we’re entering the beginning phases of that by the way). You forgot about mutually assured destruction. You forgot about the innumerable failsafes nuclear powers have in place to stop their countdowns. You forgot about nuclear bunkers filled with technology to rebuild the future. You forgot about the versitality of mankind, essentially. You forgot a lot.

You say that more is better doesn’t fit us anymore, but why? For food it never made sense, as you seem to also imply. Poisonous mushrooms have always killed us. I wouldn’t like more of those. It’s about type of food/knowledge, not amount. Even then, a nuclear weapon is a useful tool in defense in the case that we encounter hostile aliens or we create a planet wide plague we can’t cure on a colony in the future. Of course, that’s all speculation, but it it doesn’t take away from my original point. Technology is all about how you use it. A nuclear war could destroy my entire planet but a system of nuclear power plants could give electricity to the world.

I don’t think any planet destroying tech is worth stopping any and all scientific progress so we can go back to worshiping a god you can’t prove is real and hopping he pitys us enough to let our crops grow.

The notion that atheists don't believe in things which they have no proof of is true of only a portion of atheists. While some atheists believe that atheism is the only logical position, many atheists are not following atheism for better reasons than Christians follow Christianity. Born into atheist parents, with atheist friends and it's just as natural for them to be atheist as a Christian would be Christian given their parents, friends and community all being Christian.

Many atheists are just as prone to fantasy as religious folk but make an exception on this one issue, they are still liable to believe in ghosts, spiritual nonsense, bad science and whatever else.

I think many atheists give themselves too much credit, I'm an atheist but I don't feel that I would trust an atheist to be more independent, wiser or fairer than a Christian at all. There's a huge difference between choosing not to become a Christian and choosing to no longer be a Christian and I don't think it's as easy to blame people for not choosing the latter as many of the people who belong to the former group believe.

The notion that atheists don't believe in things which they have no proof of is true of only a portion of atheists. — Judaka

It's nonsense, as no one has proof of any empirical claims.

not sure it was you point, but people believe things all the time without empirical proof - sometimes despite empirical proof

We believe the guy driving the other car will stop at the light
We believe our spouse will love us forever
We believe the airplane is well made and well maintained
and on and on

and while we may have good reason to believe such things, there is also some pretty good empirical evidence that they are not always true. Yet we believe them anyway.

Yes, that and every other empirical claim. It's a basic tenet of science methodology, for example, that empirical claims are not provable. They're at best provisionally verifiable.

Whether one chooses to be or not as a product of their will/upbringing is not relevant. My criticisms are not of the individual but of the discourse. It to me is not wholly negative to look for truths that pertain to the purely physical world. I’m constantly amazed at what is possible to produce, but it does appear to be of a decided lack of intangibility, inspiration, or spirituality. Whether the individual has willfully subscribe to true atheism or not, it’s influence appears to be causal, the suredness of which is under debate. When one is brought up Christian, though never having subscribed do they not still embody aspects of the will of that mechanism through their attitudes and tendencies?

Expecting something as small as humans to understand something as large as the nature of everything is like expecting a squirrel to understand the Internet, in my typoholic opinion. — Jake

That doesn’t take into account the possibility of revealed truth: that God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. So for the religiously orthodox, it’s not a guessing game or ungrounded speculation, but reflection on the meaning of historical events that were animated by the Holy Spirit.

Interesting snippet on Rahner. You might find David Bentley Hart’s 2014 book worthwhile - there’s a review here.

A general observation on the idea of ‘understanding everything’ - the understanding of ‘God’ as ‘ground of being’ or ‘first cause’ is not necessarily a matter of sythesizing vast amounts of empirical knowledge to arrive at a model of the whole. Physics and cosmology has a number of huge crises on its hands in the attempt to arrive at such an understanding on the basis of discoveries made through empirical means.

God as ‘source of being’ is not depicted or understood as an ‘ultimate understanding of everything that is’ in the scientific sense. If such states of mystical intuition are real at all - of course, many will deny that - then they’re more like insights into a different order of being than they are models acquired through accumulation of empirical facts. If you study philosophical theology and ancient philosophy there are many indications of this.