:up:

What I find intriguing is that polytheism with a pantheon of quarrelsome gods seems indistinguishable from atheism. In both cases we'll get the same results - wars, disease, disasters, etc. things I expect should be usual occurrences if there's, there has to be, "trouble in paradise" or if the population of heaven were zero.

What is ruled out or is highly improbable is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god [ref: Epicruean dilemma]. There's and was and probably will be too much bloodshed that makes such a god an impossibility - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing god just wouldn't jibe with the reality as it was/is/probably will be. All life is just too "short, brutish, and nasty" to be the handiwork of god thus conceived of.

Come to think of it, Buddha's weltanschauung wouldn't have been able to accommodate a single divine being as the be-all and end-all of goodness because, it seems quite obvious on hindsight, Buddhism's central tenet is that life is suffering; how then can there exist an all-good god and even if such a god exists, he must surely be powerless to come to our aid or both [ref:Epicurean dilemma].

What I find intriguing is that polytheism with a pantheon of quarrelsome gods seems indistinguishable from atheism. — TheMadFool

It is not nearly so desolate and barren as atheism.

It is not nearly so desolate and barren as atheism. — Wayfarer

Some would probably think differently. Would you feel your life were enriched if you came to know that, as someone, I can't recall who, said:

We're to the goods as flies to wanton boys; they kill us for sport — Unknown

?

I don’t mean I believe in the Greek gods. What I mean is, that imaginative realm is far richer than the picture in which human life is simply the outcome of the random collocations of atoms.

I don’t mean I believe in the Greek gods. What I mean is, that imaginative realm is far richer than the picture in which human life is simply the outcome of the random collocations of atoms — Wayfarer

I don't want to contradict you but isn't that like saying "I don't mean that I want god to exist but I find that life without god rings hollow" A distinction without a difference! The alternative to "...human life is empty..." in our case is a pantheon of mutually hostile gods.

You can see it like that if you want.

You can see it like that if you want. — Wayfarer

What do you recommend for a person down on his luck?

The ‘mutually hostile gods’ can just as easily be seen as our warring passions, and Christ as their transcendence.

The ‘mutually hostile gods’ can just as easily be seen as our warring passions. — Wayfarer

So, it's all in my head...and heart...then?

I am certainly in favour of the experiential domain. I didn't know about Simone Weil's teenage experience, probably because until you pointed her out to me, I was not really familiar with her. She definitely seems to be your spiritual mentor. Mine is Carl Jung as I discovered him when I was a teenager and he definitely had an inner struggle in encountering the lived experience of the 'divine'. This is most evident in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.'

I am certainly in favour of exploring the transcendent and that also includes the existence of the diabolical, often called the devil. Perhaps the more one searches for God, one is brought to face the devil, or inner demons, too. The main difference of where I come from to most religious people is that I don't really frame my experience in one clear box. I do believe that the questions and areas of exploration of religion are of central importance though. Probably, the people who do partake within a specific religion rather than go outside it have an easier path. The individual quests can be hazardous.

I do think that the Catholic religion is a very powerful and it is like a world in its own right. There is immense power from the symbolism and many find it to be so comforting. However, when you are living in it can be overwhelming and full of contradictions. I was brought up in a church and a school in which the clashes between the adherence to the church and adherence to the values of modern culture were celebrated. Part of the problem is where 'sex' fits into the picture and also the unspoken undercurrent of 'hell'. These factors brought conflict for me and for many others raised in this tradition.

I think that you are definitely right to say that I read the Bible as if it is a work of literature rather than in the way it was understood originally. However, that is not the way I began reading it.
As a teenager I used to read it in a really literal manner, apart from the 'Book of Genesis', because I was familiar with Darwin. I used to really agonise over passages and worry how to interpret 'The Book of Revelation'. The whole Judaea Christian tradition has a strong belief in the idea of a personal relationship with God, and the Bible is read in that context.

I was brought up in Catholicism, but went to Christian Union. Here, I encountered real difficulty because many people there seemed to think that the reading I was doing, including most of the philosophy and the work of Carl Jung were the work of the devil. I ended up spending a whole day in bed, feeling so confused and depressed. So, perhaps this is why I ended up coming to the approach of being an outsider, looking in on the various religious traditions.

I've just been reading some Maslow and he presents a really nice theory of the need for the idea of God. Maslow distinguishes between D-motivations and B-motivations, that is, motivations that are powered by deficiencies (hunger, insecurity) and those that are higher and constructive, "being-motivations," growth, creativity, love. B-motivations in turn tie in with his theory of peak experiences, in which cognition of reality is achieved in its most fundamental sense. Everything is perceived "idiographically" as the most perfect exemplar of its own class. Maslow suggests that we have a fundamental desire to be perceived in this way, in our own inherent perfection. And that God is a projection of this need, the being which is able to perceive us as we most truly and perfectly are.

In regards to that important book on religion by James, it is the edited transcript from his Gifford Lectures. Many of these have, over the years, been published. This includes lectures by Carl Sagan, Werner Heisenberg, among many others. The Gifford Lectures are on natural theology.

https://www.giffordlectures.org/

I think the mystery of existence necessarily points to something beyond our everyday experience. That is, recognizing the existence of God is the rational inference from our being here, in my opinion.

Part of the problem is where 'sex' fits into the picture and also the unspoken undercurrent of 'hell'. — Jack Cummins

you think that's unique to Catholicism? ;-)

I do think that the Eastern thinkers have so much to offer. I do believe that earliest Christianity may have been more attuned to the way of perceiving of the East, but I am drawing upon the wisdom of some of the the Gnostic gospels, which were cast out and buried and found in Nag Hamadi.

What I did find in mainstream Christianity is that everything was taken on such a literal level and I am not sure that events such as the transfiguration or ascension, among other aspects can be read like a textbook. I believe that the whole Cartesian-Newtownian mechanistic model led to the underlying wisdom becoming distorted.

I think that the many contradictions may have given rise for the need for nihilism. However, this can just be a blind avenue as the word 'nihilism' itself implies. That is probably why I think that it may be important for an integration of aspects of diverse traditions and I think that quite a lot of individuals are going in this direction in their thinking.

You say that you were ranting and that's interesting because it seems that's what people who adhere to authoritarian religions seem to do. One of the problems which I see from the whole way that the Judaeo-Christian image of God is the way this translates into practice. The idea of omniscience and wrathful God goes hand in hand with such leadership and it is hard to see whether man is creating an anthropomorphic image of God, or whether the image of God is creating a certain ideal of human nature.

Of course, there is a big contrast between the God of the NewTestament, in Christ, with Jahweh of the Old Testament. It does seem that Jesus was emphasising the first two commandments and emphasising the importance of morality based on loving one's neighbour. However, how much of the image of God in history of Christendom was biased on this is questionable in the way of the Crusades and fighting forces for the mission of bringing the Christian message across the globe. Generally, I think that the whole tension between the God of the Old Testament and Christ has been an underlying tension. There is also the tension between the prospect of heaven and hell. Certainly, I found difficulty feeling these tensions when I have been in church, and while many find comfort I felt oppressed and depressed on many occasions.

I was commenting on praxis question about the saying ‘chop wood, draw water’. As a bald statement, it means nothing much. Many of those kinds of aphorisms were taken by the popular Zen literature of the 60’s and 70’s and entered popular discourse. But outside the cultural context in which they were meaningful, they can easily be nonsensical.

In the context of Zen pedagogy, it has a specific meaning about the appropriate attitude to take towards Zen practice, i.e. not ‘idolising’ the idea of enlightenment but treating everyday activities as an expression of bodhi-mind. So the ‘context’ is not only the cultural context which makes such phrases meaningful, but also the context of the monastic life. — Wayfarer

So only after enlightenment is chopping wood an carrying water an expression of bodhi-mind? Sounds more than a little idolizing to me.

I've just been reading some Maslow and he presents a really nice theory of the need for the idea of God. Maslow distinguishes between D-motivations and B-motivations, that is, motivations that are powered by deficiencies (hunger, insecurity) and those that are higher and constructive, "being-motivations," growth, creativity, love. B-motivations in turn tie in with his theory of peak experiences, in which cognition of reality is achieved in its most fundamental sense. Everything is perceived "idiographically" as the most perfect exemplar of its own class. Maslow suggests that we have a fundamental desire to be perceived in this way, in our own inherent perfection. And that God is a projection of this need, the being which is able to perceive us as we most truly and perfectly are. — Pantagruel

I am not sure I completely agree with Maslow but I would like to read his explanation of the need for God. Is there a specific book title I should look for? For me, a concept of God helps us have a broader point of view than the lone individual, a much higher stand for humanity and what we can be, than if we have no concept of God. For me, God is also logos and the Tao, the way and our understanding of it.

Jack Cummins — Jack Cummins

I love agreement and I am glad you are accepting of Eastern philosophy. I have read, at one time Catholicism and Buddhism were so close they almost blended. I absolutely think knowing Eastern philosophy improves our understanding of Jesus. Jesus being a mythical character such as other mythical characters that carry Greek thought (logos). Bahia' is a blend of all religions. A high point in Catholicism is when it turned to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers to justify the power and authority of the Church, but this did not pull Europe away from the superstition that came talk of Satan and demons. Superstitious notions that got worse with translating the Bible into languages common to Europeans and Protestantism.

If Christianity saw the Bible as an important book of mythology and interpreted it abstractly instead of literally, I would find the religion much improved. I am quite sure Jews never intended for their stories to be taken literally. I am also quite sure at least 5 Bible stories are Sumerian. Abraham originating in Ur a former Sumerian city. And much of the New Testament seems to blend Sumerian, Persian, Egyptian, and Greek thought. Can we come to peace with a better understanding of this blending?

Supposedly, chopping wood and carrying water is entirely exempt of suffering. Is that your experience??? — praxis

I am not a Zen teacher so I have no "credentials" to be explaining this kind of thing, but let me tell you this much. The reason Zen is so confusing (intellectually) is because it is not an intellectual practice. Everything you realize is through your meditation practice. So, essentially, there is only one lesson in Zen, meditate.

The intellectual part of the practice is telling you to do this in a thousand different ways. There is no other message. Zen is simply every day life. Nothing more, nothing special. It is viewing life with clarity which gives rise to wisdom. That's all. Chopping wood, carry water is everyday life, nothing more.

I think many people have missed Maslow's whole emphasis on peak experiences, in focusing on his hierarchy of needs. When I have been on modules of psychology courses I have found that his ideas are often represented as the importance of the lower needs being met as the main thing. I remember being in a class and speaking about the peak experiences and self actualization and the tutor looked puzzled. I certainly don't think that she had read Maslow's writing.

I think that Roper's model of nursing has done disservice to Maslow's psychology because it has used it as a model for focusing on the activities of daily living. In mental health nursing, I have seen it being used as a model for planning care. The sort of way in which it seems to be applied to the top of the hierarchy needs is making patients aware of the chaplaincy services for various cultural groups. Of course, I am not saying that staff are able to look at issues such as peak experiences. However, I feel that staff in psychiatric care, including psychologists often don't seem aware of this dimensions to Maslow's theory.

I believe that the search for peak experiences underpins the quest for religious experience and knowledge. This is probably true of most religions traditions but probably many who go through the motions of attending church services and rituals probably don't really explore this dimension.

Supposedly, chopping wood and carrying water is entirely exempt of suffering. Is that your experience???
— praxis

I am not a Zen teacher so I have no "credentials" to be explaining this kind of thing — synthesis

I hope you’re not suggesting that only a teacher (religious authority) can speak for your own experience.

Zen is simply every day life. Nothing more, nothing special. It is viewing life with clarity which gives rise to wisdom. That's all. Chopping wood, carry water is everyday life, nothing more. — synthesis

A nice simple balanced life. :love:

What struck me most was the notion that the manifestations of our higher motivations, our higher selves, can only emerge from a milieu in which the lower "deficiency" motivations are adequately met. It just fits so well with the concept and practice of stoicism. People can be more or less well-adjusted and, accordingly, they can be more or less trapped by the relative satisfaction of their deficiency needs. That is, based on the relative "healthfulness" of their environment, people will to a certain extent develop (micro)pathologies which keep them in a cycle of deficiency-motivation (catering to lower needs). I think this describes one of the pitfalls of modern culture well - it caters to these lower needs in a cycle of neverending non-satisfaction.

But the whole idea of stoicism is that one consciously trains oneself to learn to master and control exactly what constitutes satisfaction of these lower motivations. So an accomplished stoic can lower the threshold of Being-motivations, overcoming the effects of psychopathologies (whatever they are, the key point is, it is the dominance of d-motivations that constitute the driving problem of the pathologies) and open the door to the maximization of Being-motivations, to self-actualization. It is a practical model. It answers the needs for which we otherwise look to religion.

Yes, it does seem that there does appear to be some higher source behind the scenes of the laws of the universe, some mysterious factor that gives rise to the laws of nature and ignites the spark of consciousness. Many have called this God, or the Tao.

That is possibly separate from many of aspects of exoteric religions. However, many have argued clearly for and against belief in God, and I inclined to think that some of these arguments are so bound up in logistics. I think that we can appreciate the mysterious from a religious or scientific perspective and I wonder if it really matters how we label this.

Supposedly, chopping wood and carrying water is entirely exempt of suffering. Is that your experience???
— praxis

I am not a Zen teacher so I have no "credentials" to be explaining this kind of thing
— synthesis

I hope you’re not suggesting that only a teacher (religious authority) can speak for your own experience. — praxis

In Zen, there is "understanding," and there is "UNDERSTANDING." It is often advised to allow those with the later "certified" understanding to do the teaching. IOW, a Zen master is one who has had the teaching passed to them by another master. I have not been through this process. It doesn't mean I can not share my experience, only that if you are really interested in Zen, you should seek a teacher.

Zen is simply every day life. Nothing more, nothing special. It is viewing life with clarity which gives rise to wisdom. That's all. Chopping wood, carry water is everyday life, nothing more.
— synthesis

A nice simple balanced life. :love: — praxis

Perhaps, but first it is about confronting your stuff, working through it, and then ...

The place you want to get to is where you become ok with whatever presents. Bad comes, ok. Good comes, ok. Let each go. It is attaching to either that produces the suffering in life.

Life is very difficult and full of suffering. Zen is not a way to rid yourself of the difficulty, only the suffering.

I Quote: "Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an UNSEEN ORDER, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto."

The search for An Unseen Order is currently very widespread and very powerful in the world including in thousands of universities.

Take a good look at the words : "AN UNSEEN ORDER." To me those words very accurately describe Science in its most generalized sense.

Even more precisely they also describe Philosophy and Philosophers
including this very Forum

But, a caveat. Also I deny that a Concept of a God with magical powers comes even close to describing that Unseen Order. In fact it even obstructs the search for an unseen order. Once it even attempted to obstruct Me personally from my personal search for an seen order. I could describe that event with an anecdote.

The belief in magic in any form except for that of a stage magician is ultimately childish. And if you remove childish magic from a concept of a God what is left of that God? Nothing.

I think the mystery of existence necessarily points to something beyond our everyday experience. That is, recognizing the existence of God is the rational inference from our being here, in my opinion. — Photios

This point is so interesting. I respect your opinion of proof rational existence when you believe in God as something that powerful which reminds you are “here” and then, gives answers to our perpetual question and mystery of existing.
Nevertheless, there is a debate here because Descartes purposed the idea of cogito ergo sum. If I am aware, I exist as a human because it makes me feel “alive” of myself. So in this statement sometimes you do not even need a subterfuge to proof you are here or your existence itself.

Well this opens of course another debate about existentialism which can leads us in a tangent about the original debate or maybe like a circle it drives us to the starting point.

Come to think of it, Buddha's weltanschauung wouldn't have been able to accommodate a single divine being as the be-all and end-all of goodness because, it seems quite obvious on hindsight, Buddhism's central tenet is that life is suffering; how then can there exist an all-good god and even if such a god exists, he must surely be powerless to come to our aid or both [ref:Epicurean dilemma]. — TheMadFool

Keep in mind that The Buddha developed his teachings because he realized that only the truly exceptional could realize the truth, i.e., attain clarity, immediately. So the religion was an intellectual path pointing to the practice and the goal of realization.

Although I am anything but a Buddhist scholar, suffering and its cause is the primary teaching, as to provide motivation for those to practice (meditate) and overcome.

As an aside, some of the most serious mediators are Christian mystics, so the two can be quite compatible. God, like any other idea, takes no precedence.

Bad comes, ok. Good comes, ok. Let each go. — synthesis

So are you saying that this is your experience and the benefit of "going for it"? If your child or loved one got diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example, you'd be okay with it and not suffer at all because of it?