Even if I might question a particular wording of yours, such as your statement that Man needs G-d "absolutely" (and please feel free to exand on that) — 0 thru 9

I believe man is insecure from the moment of birth - to the moment of death. We walk with it everyday. It is a disability, but if you are aware of it - it can be an asset too. It is just the design of the beast.

you seem to keep your statements open and flexible, imho. This to me is the welcome opposite of dogmatism, and to some it may seem watered-down or wavering. — 0 thru 9

I am just trying to be honest with myself - and - I do not always find it easy to do. I do not want to claim more intellectual territory than I can logically hold onto.

If you look at the cave painting of half human - half animal - I would say this is abstract. There is a 40,000 year old sculpture in mammoth ivory, 6 feet tall, with a lion head and human body. — Thinker

Of course. The beasts were the first gods. We spent like a million years following around predators and scavenging what they left behind.

I agree that no one knows what God is like. Characterizations of God are made on the basis of being metaphorical evocations, not of being literal descriptions. I would say.

Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions.

I agree that no one knows what God is like. Characterizations of God are made on the basis of being metaphorical evocations, not of being literal descriptions. I would say.

Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions. — John

Yes, i would certainly agree with this. It is the whole "literal historical fact vs poetic deeper truth" conundrum that we all know so well. A fervent fan of Star Wars would look at me most puzzledly if i breathlessly informed them that their favorite movies in fact never historically happened and most certainly contains several elements that are physically impossible or plain illogical. Never even counting JarJar. They might take offense at my attempts to convert and baptize them as a new follower of Star Trek, which according to my passionate evangelical view, is at least theoretically possible. ;) Maybe a dose of Joseph Campbell's work would be sufficient to bring down the fever of literalism, while still treasuring the core of meaning.

Goofy example, and of course most religions are arguably (and hopefully) more nuanced than popular science fiction, and are based at least somewhat in historical time and fact. But the relationship between literal fact and spiritual meaning is roughly analogous to the relationship between a coffee pot and the coffee. The magic we seek is in the drink, as interesting as the details of the brewing process may be. I suspect the early defining history of the Christian Councils still affects us, both for good and for ill. A process of defining the young religion was perhaps inevitable, controversial as it remains. In transforming from the ruthless Roman Empire to the "Holy Roman Empire", one could expect some compromises to be made in determining what the officially sanctioned Christianity consisted of. It seems that the image of a shining immortal Apollo-like Christ was more palatable than one of a sermonizing proto-hippie healer of souls and bodies. Though the Emperor Constantine was most tolerant of different religions, not just of his adopted Christianity. (But i'm no historian.)

Found a few similar threads with some interesting posts, for those who may be interested.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1242/do-you-want-god-to-exist/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/336/page/p1#OP

Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions. — John

It is important to understand what we are dealing with in relation to bibles. They are the cultural and spiritual expressions of our ancestors. They speak to the truth as they understood it in their time. It is a bridge for us today to see what they were thinking. Humans are a fragile group clinging to our speck of dust in the vastness of space and time. Of course we need explanations to give us a sense of who we are. It is the job of philosophers today to interpret the past and combine it with what we know now; in order to create a picture of what tomorrow will be.

Who are the leaders of civilization? The answer is artists. Why because artists have the courage and vision to see what tomorrow will be. Artists see what is and what can be. It is a symbolic work and also an abstraction. A philosopher is an artist. A philosopher deals in the art of ideas – the basis of all art. It is important for ourselves to see the universe and explain it; but more importantly it is essential for civilization. Civilization depends upon philosophers for the road map of tomorrow.

I think Jesus was a genius. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment – he said:



Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”



If you look at this statement it reveals a fundamental truth to me – in one concept. Love God – who is God? God is everything. Love your neighbor who is part of God and realize you are part of God too. The one concept is love everything because it is all God. This concept is the golden rule. End of story – I do not need to know anything else to live my life. Simple – follow the golden rule. What else do I need to know in any bible – nothing – absolutely nothing? Follow the principle of KISS – keep it simple stupid.

It is getting away from the principle of KISS that is getting us into trouble - now. Do you realize that we are in a crisis today that is unprecedented in human history? We are in an ideological battle that has never been as consequential as it is today. Yesterday in the US there were "March Against Sharia" rallies in 20 cities. This is a fight against the growing influence of Islam. Do you realize that Islam represents 25% of all human beings and growing? There were counter protests that were actually larger than the original. The following picture tells a story of more than a thousand words:



This picture shows the true face of Islam today. In the center is a woman holding a sign which says “My Sharia knows no hate”. Is this a true statement? No, Islam is exceedingly opposed to other religions. The woman is wearing a head scarf. What does this mean? It means men decide how women dress. Why? – Because women are considered sexual objects. Why? – Because Islam is equally a political movement as much as it is a religion. Controlling women sexually is why Islam is so successful and growing. The thing in this picture which is most disturbing is the other signs in support of this counter protest. The other Christians, Buddhists and/or whomever holding signs of support don’t realize they are cutting their own throats. Islam is here to take over – and – they are doing a good job.

The problem with Islam is Muhammad. Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer, slave dealer, illiterate psychopathic and morally bankrupt prophet with a sword? Muhammad is touted as the ideal man. The fact is he is quite the opposite.

It is our job, as philosopher, to bring the truth to light. We have a responsibility to civilization. When something is not right; we need to stand up and say so. We need to give an honest, clear vision of what is happening. Islam is taking over the entire world – this is not a joke – it is a fact. Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid in missing this point.

Wow. I don't say this lightly, but... WTF. Sorry to say to lost me when you started in on Islam. I understand the words you are using, but it comes across as angry insulting gibberish. A Muslim wouId consider a good deal of what you wrote vile blasphemy, not that you would care. In fact, those paragraphs seem to be a 180* turn with what you were saying in the first part concerning love, the Golden Rule, etc., which just makes it more bizarre. I don't even want to quote you because it seems so unnecessarily vicious, as well as being waaaaaay off-topic. When the discussion went off-topic before about the nature of time, I didn't mind because it was interesting at least. If this were another thread, I'd just ignore it. This is not "my" thread, but I started it so i hope you understand i feel somewhat responsible for it. I do not want to debate you on this matter. Please take this discussion to the Shoutbox if you want and see how it flies there. Start another thread, or find one of the several concerning Islam. But please not here. Good day.

Found a few similar threads with some interesting posts, for those who may be interested.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1242/do-you-want-god-to-exist/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/336/page/p1#OP — 0 thru 9

So - you want to talk about these concepts of God - but not about Islam? Very interesting and open minded of you.

If you would like to somehow relate Islam to the topic at hand, that would be most welcome and could lead to a fascinating discussion. The topic of this particular thread is "A Case for Ignosticism". Sound good? Thanks!!! (L) (L) (L)

If you would like to somehow relate Islam to the topic at hand, that would be most welcome and could lead to a fascinating discussion. The topic of this particular thread is "A Case for Ignosticism". Sound good? Thanks!!! (L) (L) (L) — 0 thru 9

Definition according to Google:


“Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.”


The key words here are theological concept – clear definition – falsifiable. God is the theological concept. The tricky part is the clear definition. We were given many ideas that people related as a type of definition like - Time Without Change – changelessness - still mind - Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existentialist - uncarved block - Star Wars – anthropomorphized - scriptural passages – and a few others. There are pros and cons against all of them – so they meet the criteria of – falsifiable. The ignostic thesis is very strong in that it admonishes us to be careful in defining God. I think this is pointed out very well in another definition from Mr. Google:


“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.”


What I like about this definition of Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea – “assumes too much”. We do assume too much – all of us – both for and against the concept of God. What I think Ignosticism really says is that we are ignorant. So, what do we do – just go home and shut up? Well, I am already home and I don’t want to shut up. I want to struggle and try and know myself and others as well.

It is through talking with others that we can draw a picture of what we think. You, 0 thru 9, referred us to 2 threads that are great in talking about God. What I keep hearing in all the threads (including this one) is concepts like – communities – psychology – politics – ethics – morality – theology, etc. All these ideas play into our understanding (or not) of God. It is not a simple – single issue.

When we talk about biblical scripture it rings a bell for most people. Tempers can get hot on both sides of the aisle. I think we have seen evidence of that in this thread and others. For me biblical scripture is not the way I define God. I think Ignosticism agrees with me because it doesn’t or does meet the test of - falsifiable. However, great and worthy insight can be gained from the bible (Matthew 22:36-40).

The bibles of Islam speak volumes about God and falsifiable in relation to our discussion. We cannot take God and religion out of the cultural and political milieu in which it has developed. If we are really going to parse, understand Ignosticism in relation to God. We must be willing to go where the logic leads us. This is an interesting link which speaks to my point:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistan-man-given-death-penalty-infor-blaspheming-social-media-n770721

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation of your thinking process, much appreciated. Didn't mean to jump the gun, and get too sensitive. Sorry if the links i posted were distracting or gave a wrong impression. I think we can move ahead with this topic you have added much to. Your post just kind of surprised me is all, based on your previous posts. Everyone's entitled to their thoughts and opinion though. I'm not a moderator and don't want to be one, even though they make big money. ;)

Beyond this, I'm not going to bother responding at all to such unsubstantiated alarmist rubbish. Yeah, keep on keepin' it simplistic, stupid! :-}

I like Ignosticism because I think it demands more rigor in trying to establish ones views. It is kind of like a court that says – guilty until proven innocent. Or - If you can’t put up – shut up. It’s hard for all of us “theists” to substantial God. Not an easy fellow to snuggle up to. It is much more difficult for theists to prove God – if – you are going to use any bible verse. The reason is because all bibles are so poorly written and contradictory.

When ones faith is called on the carpet people become defensive and many times hostile. I do understand why – things that we hold dear are called into question. Not an easy thing. However, we must have courage and try and prove our point. Not everyone has courage. Look above in this thread and you can see a few instances.

It is the whole "literal historical fact vs poetic deeper truth" conundrum that we all know so well. — 0 thru 9

Yes, the thing is that for many who call themselves 'Christian' the belief that Jesus was the unique Son of God is central, and this would seem to necessarily distinguish Christianity from all other religions. Can Jesus' divinity be considered to be a "literal historical fact", though? What could that mean? That it was a fact that He was resurrected? Would that necessarily entail divinity?

On the other side, the idea of Jesus' divinity as mystic or poetic truth can be understood to symbolize the divinity of humanity. In this view we are all sons and daughters of God, we are God-as-Son, one part of the Trinity.

Yes, the thing is that for many who call themselves 'Christian' the belief that Jesus was the unique Son of God is central, and this would seem to necessarily distinguish Christianity form all other religions. Can Jesus' divinity be considered to be a "literal historical fact", though? What could that mean? That it was a fact that He was resurrected?

On the other side, the idea of Jesus' divinity as mystic or poetic truth can be understood to symbolize the divinity of humanity. In this view we are all sons and daughters of God, we are God-as-Son, one part of the Trinity. — John

I believe that Jesus was a son of God – so am I a son of God. Neither of us is God in totality – we are men. We are parts of God – we don’t define creation – we are mostly defined by it - all human beings – past and present. I think Jesus was a great man – a genius, but most of all I think he was a man. I think a lot of what was said about him was fabrication, after the fact, in order to deify him. I do not think he would approve.

You're entitled to those opinions; though many Christians would not share them. However, Muslims would agree, they honour Jesus as a great prophet, but consider attribution of divinity to him to be blasphemous, so you are in fine company. >:O

You're entitled to those opinions; though many Christians would not share them. However, Muslims would agree, they honour Jesus as a great prophet, but consider attribution of divinity to him to be blasphemous, so you are in fine company. — John

Most Christians and Muslims are just sheep. They don’t know what they think – they wait to be told what to think. The reason is because most people are intellectual cowards. A sad state of affairs – unfortunately – one we continue to live with. The upshot of this circumstance is that Islam is very proactive in increasing its reach and dominion. It will not end well for any of us.

Doctrinal orthodoxies are built up over very long periods and under the influence of many great minds. Of course there is no guarantee that political influences are absent in any orthodoxy. Most adherents of a religion simply believe the orthodoxy of that religion; that is why they are called 'adherents'.

Sometimes it may be a matter of people being too stupid, lazy or afraid to think for themselves, but when you consider what degree of consensus has actually been gained by more than two millennia of speculative reasoning by the greatest, boldest minds, you can hardly blame many intelligent people for settling for received wisdom. People nowadays do that as much with science as they do with religion.

So, basically I think your attitude is an unwarranted, simplistic generalization, that probably arises more out of your own fears than it does out of any nuanced rational inquiry.

Doctrinal orthodoxies are built up over very long periods and under the influence of many great minds. Of course there is no guarantee that political influences are absent in any orthodoxy. Most adherents of a religion simply believe the orthodoxy of that religion; that is why they are called' adherents'.

Sometimes it may be a matter of people being too stupid, lazy or afraid to think for themselves, but when you consider what consensus has been reached by more than two millennia of speculative reasoning by the greatest, boldest minds, you can hardly blame many intelligent people for settling for received wisdom. People nowadays do that as much with science as they do with religion.

So, basically I think your attitude is an unwarranted, simplistic generalization, that probably arises more out of your own fears than it does out of any nuanced rational inquiry. — John

I do not think the Christian church has had the greatest minds. As a matter of fact the “church” has had the greatest negative effect on science, philosophy, education, social development, cosmology, art, music and on and on. The church is made up of intellectual bullies. The church oppresses the best minds throughout history. Even today stem cell research is hindered in the US because of the church. No abortion, no contraception. Let’s talk about the churches ideas on evolution. We are still living under the Scopes Monkey trials. I think somebodies view is simplistic.

The mystics of every religious tradition, and some of no tradition whatsoever, have inspired me beyond words. Perhaps it is just a romantic notion, but as individual as are, and as strikingly different their beliefs, there is a common streak that seems to run through them. They seem to lead with their heart, which inspires the mind and strengthens the body. Thus they find much common ground. The Sufis, with their sublimely beautiful music, poetry, and dancing, have given the world much. May we all dance again together.

The Via Negativa, also called Aphatic theology, seems not entirely dissimilar from Ignosticism. Plotinus, St. John of the Cross, and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing expressed this position. From Wikipedia:

Via negativa or via negationis (Latin), "negative way" or "by way of denial".[1] The negative way forms a pair together with the kataphatic or positive way. According to Deirdre Carabine,

Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only.[web 2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

And from the Tao Te Ching:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

The mystics of every religious tradition, and some of no tradition whatsoever, have inspired me beyond words. — 0 thru 9

I agree and they still inspire us Like krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. However, the Holy Roman Inquisition lasted 1200 years and killed over 100 million people. Many in the most horrible way.

the Holy Roman Inquisition lasted 1200 years and killed over 100 million people. Many in the most horrible way. — Thinker

Where would we be now if we did not have the church? What advancement would we have made without it? Great institution and now we can look forward to Sharia law!

Alrighty, then...done and dusted! :)

Alrighty, then...done and dusted! — John

The problem I see is an overwhelming apathy. People do not look around and if they do – they do not care. It’s the idea that – my side of the world is not on fire. It is the philosopher’s job to stand up and be counted. It is our job to have courage – like Socrates. If we do not, we will all be lost and our side of the world will be on fire too.

Most Christians and Muslims are just sheep. They don’t know what they think – they wait to be told what to think. The reason is because most people are intellectual cowards. — Thinker

I think this concept of sheep is misguided. It's such a common notion, but it's not grounded in reality. Imagine a world full of philosophers. It would be a world of total disagreement and intellectual chaos (just take the disagreement on this forum and magnify it to the size of the world population). The assumption here seems to be, classically, that if only the world weren't sheep and understood "the truth" (my worldview), things would be better off.

I think this concept of sheep is misguided. It's such a common notion, but it's not grounded in reality. Imagine a world full of philosophers. It would be a world of total disagreement and intellectual chaos (just take the disagreement on this forum and magnify it to the size of the world population). The assumption here seems to be, classically, that if only the world weren't sheep and understood "the truth" (my worldview), things would be better off. — Noble Dust

I don’t think we are in danger of a philosopher uprising. As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. What we are in danger of is less and less courage in society. People in the world, especially the US, have become so fat - literally and spiritually – they only see their own hedonistic needs and desires. That’s why we have Trump! The intellectually rigorous mind has always been a rare thing. Unfortunately, it will always be uncommon. Just because one deals in philosophy, does not necessarily mean one has courage. Many times it is the most elegant and suave thinkers who are spineless. I see a lot of sophist around here. Hedonism and apathy work hand in hand – don’t kid yourself – have courage.

If the third world is on fire, and ours soon will be, it has nothing to do with religion and could not be cured by philosophy. It is due to economic greed, exploitation and resource depletion and degradation, and of course, burning fossil fuels. Islam itself is mostly against globalization and the erosion of their traditional cultures and exploitation of the resources that goes with it.

As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. — Thinker

I morn the decline of the humanities as well.

What we are in danger of is less and less courage in society. — Thinker

At the risk of sounding too philosophical, courage is contextual. If you're not raised in a context where courage is required or exemplified, you won't have much courage. If you are, you will. So, "the greatest generation" lived in the reality of WWII. They had courage. But because of the context. If we live in a cowardly society, it's due largely to our context, and our context is due largely to the previous generations that have handed us the culture we've inherited. We shape it and morph it ourselves, but we do so within our context. I hate how liberal that sounds (I'm fairly apolitical), but I don't know how else to phrase it.

People in the world, especially the US, have become so fat - literally and spiritually – they only see their own hedonistic needs and desires. — Thinker

And who's fault is this? You seem to suggest that it's the fault of those people. Is the uneducated McDonalds employee who eats a lot of that food and becomes fat (literally) and has no given source of spiritual sustenance (thus becoming spiritually fat) responsible? They're not responsible for their situation. As "enlightened" intellectuals, we like to say that all men have autonomy and can change their situation. But how true is that, on an every day scale? It's true on a philosophical scale, on an academic scale, but it's not true for humanity as a whole. Academic concepts trickle down into the lowest common denominator of culture at a slow pace that manages to rob the concepts of their content. Autonomy means nothing to the minimum-wage worker, and this is not the fault of the worker; in fact, there's no "fault" involved because there's no particular blame to lay; there's just two practically unconnected worlds; the academic arm-chair world, and the everyday minimum wage world. The arm-chair world preaches to the choir and makes admonishments about the minimum-wage world, and the minimum-wage world remains clueless because no real action occurs for their benefit. Autonomy requires education, it requires enlightenment (interpret that word however you want). And if we're talking metaphors (I have a tendency to be anal about metaphors), America isn't spiritually fat; we're spiritually malnourished.

The intellectually rigorous mind has always been a rare thing. Unfortunately, it will always be uncommon. — Thinker

Again, this goes back to my comments about sheep. "Unfortunately"? Again you're implying that the world needs to be more intellectual. I disagree. The rare jewel of the intellectual mind bears itself out; the value of that mind is self-evident. It's value is to give, not to control. Like the Tao, it relinquishes control. Therein lies it's "power". True intellectual power is always self-abrogating. Anything else is a masquerade of power and charisma over others.

I'm unsure how your response is a response to my comments. That said, the world "being on fire" certainly does and would/will have religious influences.

As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. — Thinker

The decline of philosophy, though, has more to do with philosophy itself. Disciplines run their course. Philology is no longer a discipline. Philosophy is a fading discipline. This has less to do with the world going to shit, and more to do with the changing landscape of human consciousness, regardless of whether or not you and I particularly like it.