I still haven't finished forcing myself to believe in God anyway. — javi2541997

I've read through much of this thread, and it occurs to me that you are putting terms into play that are through and through ambiguous at best, and cry out for clarification. How can you talk about believing in God when the term is so bloated with historical and metaphysical extravagance?

Ask first, what is the essence of religion? How does a term like 'god' have any justification at all? I hold that it does, but you have track it down like anything else to discover what the essence of religion is. Looking for a religious connection without understanding what religious really is at all is going to end in disappointment.

Just to repeat what I just said, it looks like you are looking for religion in all the wrong places. You must begin and end with the world. The trouble with this lies with the assumptions about the world that inquiry hasn't even touched for most, assumptions that make faith look absurd. Kierkegaard was right about many things, as was Wittgenstein, but I argue they failed to understand religious metaphysics.

I was thinking of any creed in that a story is given to explain what is happening. How that story plays a part in any account is very various. Those various variations are not just playing out possible meanings within a framework but trying to look at explanation as explanation. That aspect plays an important role in many very different religious interpretations. Therefore, I question the acceptance of the 'religious' as a category that is self-explanatory. It never shows up alone.

Unamuno is interesting
— Paine

It is another important thinker regarding this issue, but Spanish philosophers are hardly known by people overall. It cheered me up you actually brought him to this topic. :smile: — javi2541997

I find Ortega y Gasset an important counterpoint to Unamuno. A struggle to understand experience.

As an "American", Octavio Paz hits me hard with many of the same questions.

Transcendental ethics would posit that moral truths are not contingent upon individual beliefs, cultural norms, or empirical facts, but rather have a universal and objective reality that transcends human understanding. Any way we can demonstrate that this is the case? — Tom Storm

Isn't Wittgenstein's answer that it can only be shown, not argued about?

I'm curious as to your thoughts on Peck's view. — wonderer1

Thanks for asking! I find it difficult to map what I said against M Scott Peck's criteria and am a bit puzzled as to what you're asking me.

Armstrong was an advocate of scientific materialism (see Count Timothy's post above on 'the scientism problem'). There are many science writers, and many fields of science, that are not materialist in orientation. I don't see his kind of philosophy as at all well-informed about science so much as expressing a longing for scientific certainty in an intrinsically uncertain subject area. He takes the universality of physics as paradigmatic for knowledge generally.

As for epiphanies, in my experience they were vivid, spontaneous, instantaneous, utterly convincing, and impossible to communicate.

Isn't Wittgenstein's answer that it can only be shown, not argued about? — Wayfarer

W does not put it in those terms. What is shown is separated from what is explained. Is that the last word of what can be explained? Seems like a weird place to stop.

Isn't Wittgenstein's answer that it can only be shown, not argued about? — Wayfarer

Can it even be shown?

Isn't that what the story of Jesus' life and resurrection was supposed to convey?

In September 1914, Wittgenstein, off duty, visited the town of Tarnow, then in Austrian Galicia, now in southern Poland, where he went into a small shop that seemed to sell nothing but picture postcards. However, as Bertrand Russell later wrote in a letter, Wittgenstein “found that it contained just one book: [of] Tolstoy on the Gospels. He bought it merely because there was no other. He read it and re-read it, and thenceforth had it always with him, under fire and at all times.” No wonder, then, that Wittgenstein became known to his fellow soldiers as ‘the one with the Gospels’. Tolstoy’s book, however, is a single Gospel: hence its name: The Gospel in Brief. It is, as Tolstoy himself says in his Preface, “a fusion of the four Gospels into one.” Tolstoy had distilled the four biblical accounts of Christ’s life and teaching into a compelling story. Wittgenstein was so profoundly moved by it that he doubted whether the actual Gospels could possibly be better than Tolstoy’s synthesis. “If you are not acquainted with it,” he told his friend Ludwig von Ficker, “then you cannot imagine what effect it can have on a person.” It implanted a Christian faith in Wittgenstein. Before going on night-duty at the observation post, he wrote: “Perhaps the nearness of death will bring me the light of life. May God enlighten me. Through God I will become a man. God be with me. Amen.” — PhilosophyNow

Seems an odd quote, as the later Wittgenstein never preached religion, but the article from which it was taken was originally published by the British Wittgenstein Association. But it provides a bit more of a gist later in the article:

“There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.”

In other words, there is a categorically different kind of truth from that which we can state in empirically or logically verifiable propositions. These different truths fall on the other side of the demarcation line of the principle of verification.

Wittgenstein’s intention in asserting this is precisely to protect matters of value from being disparaged or debunked by scientifically-minded people such as the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle. He put his view beyond doubt in this sequence of paragraphs:

“6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value – and if there were, it would be of no value. If there is value which is of value, it must lie outside of all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental. It must lie outside the world.”

In other words, all worldly actions and events are contingent (‘accidental’), but matters of value are necessarily so, for they are ‘higher’ or too important to be accidental, and so must be outside the world of empirical propositions:

“6.42 Hence also there can be no ethical propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.

6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed. Ethics is transcendental.”

Point well taken about argument under his terms. But it is presented as a limit to explanation rather than a resolution.

There is a "transcedent" Good, but it isn't a sort of spirit realm sitting to the side of the realm of the senses. The question of knowing what is truly good is not absolute then, particularly in later Platonists. One can know and be led by the good to relative degrees, and be more or less self-determining. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thank you for you considered response. While I am mildly interested in why humans find notions of transcendence to be a useful frame, it doesn't work for me.

Now, what all of this has to do with the Forms and their supposedly greater reality than our sense experience is that it’s by virtue of its pursuit of knowledge of what’s really good, that the rational part of the soul distinguishes itself from the soul’s appetites and anger and so forth. The Form of the Good is the embodiment of what’s really good. So pursuing knowledge of the Form of the Good is what enables the rational part of the soul to govern us, and thus makes us fully present, fully real, as ourselves. In this way, the Form of the Good is a precondition of our being fully real, as ourselves.

I find this framing purposeless. It appears that we are treating 'good' as something concrete, when it is merely an adjective applied conditionally. How would one make the case that a concept such as good is anything more than a sign we apply to things we approve of (a construction of our practices, language and norms) and that this approval is perspectival?

I guess all who want to be more critical, and dubious about the set of norms, tend to be against the Church. — javi2541997

And, sometimes, the church is against members who deviate too far from the tenets of the faith.

These days, people are usually not thrown out of main stream churches for disagreements over theology. Back in the 1980s, two theologians studied what active church members in Minnesota actually claim to believe. The results were sometimes very surprising. About 7% of active church participants did not believe in the resurrection, for instance. Were the study, Faith and Ferment, repeated today, it is likely that the results would show decline in belief in basic tenets, like the resurrection,

And, as it happens, nobody is going to get drummed out of a mainline church for not believing this or that tenet.

In the same way, mainline churches are more accepting of homosexuality than they used to be. They may not approve, but they won't stone their gay members. They just won't marry or ordain them (which is the situation in the Methodist Church. The Methodists are splitting the denomination over the issue of homosexuality, letting the least tolerant congregations leave (there is a substantial monetary penalty for leaving, however).

Conservative churches (like Southern Baptists, tend not to be as tolerant as Lutherans or Anglicans. African churches tend to be more conservative than North American congregations.

I am not even baptised. — javi2541997

Do you think you would benefit by being baptized? In mainline theology, Baptism provides for the erasure of original sin, something cooked up by the early church. Baptism doesn't make you a church member, it makes you part of the body of Christ. It's all very mystical, but you do get wet.

The main problem I have with "spirituality" among the people I have talked with who claim to be "spiritual rather than religious" is that when pressed for details, they are unable to explain -- even generally - what spirituality means to them. I think what a lot of them are doing is "dodging". They don't want to say they are atheists, which has a bitter flavor to them, so they just say they are "spiritual".

There was a popular comedy show in Minneapolis a few decades back titled "Being Atheist Means Never Having to Say You're Lutheran". The title might have been the best part of the show, for all I know. Minnesota is the land of Lutherans.

Seems an odd quote, as the later Wittgenstein never preached religion, but the article from which it was taken was originally published by the British Wittgenstein Association. — Wayfarer

Wittgenstein was an prodigious eccentric who took up and abandoned projects, who knows why he thought the way he did?

There are a few ways to interpret (or make use of) this quote. One is to side with Richard Rorty and maintain that ethics are contingent. The end. But we can use the word transcendental also to refer to the symbolic and metaphorical. We might find some comfort in referring to their transcendental value in a poetic sense. Human beings do inhabit an imaginative, conceptual world where we push around abstracts (e.g., beauty, truth, goodness) in the hope of managing our environment. Our imaginations are key to our identity.

it is clear that ethics cannot be expressed. Ethics is transcendental.”

Either way, how does it help us to promote the notion of ethics as transcendental?

I hold that it does, but you have track it down like anything else to discover what the essence of religion is. — Astrophel

And what is the essence of religion, which I assume you have tracked down?

You must begin and end with the world. — Astrophel

I totally agree. This world is all we know, and all we can know, however much we rattle on about God, heaven, hell, etc.

Kierkegaard was right about many things, as was Wittgenstein, but I argue they failed to understand religious metaphysics. — Astrophel

You must be setting a pretty high bar, then. Do you have any examples of those you think might have?

Spirituality is still tangled with religion to me. I can't explain or understand it without any connection with religious creeds. — javi2541997

More accurately you appear haunted by the religion of your upbringing and culture. It's not as if you are concerned about the spiritual truths found in Islam or Jainism. Seems to me that the position you are in is fairly common - how to be good without religious interpreters telling you what is good. Graham Greene (for instance) wrote entire books about the complex relationship between Catholicism, faith, morality and individual conscience.

And what is the essence of religion, which I assume you have tracked down? — BC

It's complicated. In short, religion is reducible to the indeterminacy of our ethics and aesthetics. Note how Wittgenstein put these on his list of unmentionables. He knew the reason one could not speak of these is because they have a dimension to their existence which has no place in the facts or state of affairs of the world, and are hence unspeakable. It is not that he wanted to draw the line so as to preserve the dignity of logic. He rather wanted to preserve the profundity of the world, not to have it trivialized by some reduction to mere fact.

But this is just grazes the issue. One has to inquire about the foundational indeterminacy of our existence to discover the essence of religion.

You must be setting a pretty high bar, then. Do you have any examples of those you think might have? — Wayfarer

Yes, I am aware this sounds high minded, but there is nothing to stop one from second guessing philosophers. Everyone does this all the time. Why Witt? Referring to the Tractatus: I find no limits to what can be said at all in the structural features language. Language is entirely open to possibilities. the limitations that do exist have to do with the mundane interpretations we are locked into when we see these as absolutes. Kierkegaard wrote about ethics a lot, in Fear and Trembling and many other places, but one is struck by his model for surpassing ethics with faith, Abraham, who was ready to put the sacrificial knife into Isaac just like that! K argues that such faith is impossible for him, but defensible.at a level beyond his own faith. I argue that K's thinking about ethics fails to understand the metaethical grounding that stands apart from mere principled thinking. I argue that our ethics is grounded in the absolute, and is already part and parcel of divinity. As Witt himself put it (in Culture and Value), the good is divinity

:up:

I wonder to what extent Kierkegaard or Dostoviesky inspired you ... — javi2541997

Not at all. I read their writings much later.

The code of conduct is not universally applied.

No doubt. My claim, however, is that, applied or not, 'naturalistic morality' is always applicable wherever and whenever there is needless suffering.

What we think, in the Western world, as norms and values can be very different in the East. The basic notion of how to act accordingly to ethical principles is still blurred.

Reducing suffering is like reducing illness: though the local customs of morality (or public health) vary, the problem confronted is the same for every member of the human species. How can it not be?

:clap: :smirk:

I find Ortega y Gasset an important counterpoint to Unamuno. A struggle to understand experience.

As an "American", Octavio Paz hits me hard with many of the same questions. — Paine

:up: :up: Oh yes (decades ago for me, especially Paz).

Do you feel the same? — javi2541997

I don't because, in the following sense, I'm neither "spiritual" nor "religious":

"Spiritual" means to me haunted by ghosts (and "religious" belonging to a spiritual community). Th[ere] may be proof of feeling haunted, [but] not "proof of ghosts" (i.e. disembodied entities). — 180 Proof

And, sometimes, the church is against members who deviate too far from the tenets of the faith. — BC

Why do they do this? It is one of the main things I have never understood about the Church. I must admit that it is a low democratic institution. The people there are not open to receive not only criticism but a different interpretation of the Bible, even acting with good faith. As I pointed out in the intro of the thread, Kazantzakis was persecuted by the Greek Orthodox Church for many reasons, and they tried to excommunicate him... crazy.

About 7% of active church participants did not believe in the resurrection, for instance. Were the study, Faith and Ferment, repeated today, it is likely that the results would show decline in belief in basic tenets, like the resurrection, — BC

It is fairly understandable. In my humble opinion, here is when the creed fails to be believable. They try to convince people with fantasies and ideas which were less likely to happen in real life. Furthermore, in those religious institutions, I think it worthwhile studying the teachings in a personal way. I mean, it is obvious that the Gospels were twisted by the apostles, and they wrote (in a metaphorical manner) how to supposedly act in a Christian way. But it is amazing how the Bible is actually a text full of controversy. In another thread, some users claimed that it promotes slavery, etc. I think the best way to understand this sacred book is on my own.

Do you think you would benefit by being baptized? In mainline theology, Baptism provides for the erasure of original sin, something cooked up by the early church. Baptism doesn't make you a church member, it makes you part of the body of Christ. It's all very mystical, but you do get wet. — BC

This is a good question, indeed. Honestly, I never thought of the consequences of not being baptised, and the 'benefits' of who actually is. I know that baptism doesn't make me a member of the Church. What I attempted to explain is that my familiar context is zero religious. I have never been taught to read the Bible, catechism, go to the Church, etc. Even the weddings were at the Town Hall or judge!
What I know is that baptism is something that a person could end up losing... because the creed reserves the right to excommunicate fellows...

I know I sound ambiguous in this thread, or even contradictory. But that's why I started it. To find other ideas, clarification, and the opinion of the rest of the members.

It's not as if you are concerned about the spiritual truths found in Islam or Jainism. Seems to me that the position you are in is fairly common - how to be good without religious interpreters telling you what is good. — Tom Storm

Exactly, this is my approach, Tom.

Graham Green (for instance) wrote entire books about the complex relationship between Catholicism, faith, morality and individual conscience. — Tom Storm

Thanks for the recommendation! :smile:

I don't think Greene will provide you with succour, just stating that he is there waiting for you. Note also that Shūsaku Endō the Japanese (and Catholic) novelist was often described as the Japanese Graham Greene. If Catholicism and personal ethics is important to you Greene's The Power and the Glory may be of interest.

Why do they do this? — javi2541997

In sum, 'churches' – organized/official cults – are confidence games (i.e. pyramid schemes) and 'heretics' make the grift harder to keep going and harder to keep the suckers in the game. Like any other racket, customers (victims) straying from the authorized script(ure) is bad for business. IMO, the more 'missionary' and corrupt a religion is, the less tolerant of 'heresy' it becomes. Read histories of (e.g.) Catholicism and Islam.

It seems to me that religion often results in a watering down (or obfuscation) of the original teachings of the sage, therefore I have found very little use for it.

If I want to know about Christianity, I want to know what Christ - the sage - had to say. His followers I'm not so interested in.

Sometimes within a religion new people arise who might rightfully be called a sage in their own right, but sages are rare, 'once-in-a-century' type people.

Religion poses a big problem of whose thoughts and additions on the original source material one ought to take seriously, not in the least because the original material often is already of a profound nature and easily misunderstood.

My response to that has been to return to the source material, at which point, what is the point of religion?

My response to that has been to return to the source material, at which point, what is the point of religion? — Tzeentch

:up:

Shūsaku Endō — Tom Storm

Excellent novelist, indeed. I have a novel by him. It is called 'Scandal' and it is about a Catholic Japanese who suffers because of social context and the repeated sins he committed in the book. By the way, there is a good criticism by Endo in the sense that there is a lot of hypocrisy amongst Japanese citizens and the traditional Japanese values, etc.

If Catholicism and personal ethics is important to you Greene's The Power and the Glory may be of interest. — Tom Storm

It seems interesting. I think I should buy it in English rather than looking for a proper translation.

I agree. It is true that the Church maintains a complex hierarchical organisation, non-democratic, and corrupted. Yet, as I said previously, I am not very interested in the role of the Church. If I wanted to get deep into it, I would be disappointed. This is why I struggle with religious faith. It seems to me that 'Christian Ethics and Values' (or whatever we can call it) is kidnapped by the Church, and if someone is interested in how it works, he needs to be part of the creed. Hmm... not my cup of tea indeed. I fully dislike how spirituality depends on them and their 'lectures'.

If I want to know about Christianity, I want to know what Christ - the sage - had to say. His followers I'm not so interested in. — Tzeentch

Very good point, Tzeentch. But, sadly, the teachings, values and ethics of Jesus only appear in the Gospels, which were twisted and even invented by the apostles...

One of the early spiritual books I read that impressed me was The Supreme Identity, by Alan Watts. It is an exploration of the relationship between the individual life and the ultimate nature of being, through the perspective of Eastern philosophy particularly Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, but also with references to Christian mysticism.

Watts discusses the notion of identity in a spiritual context, proposing that the true nature of being is not the sense we have of ourselves as a separated ego. Awakening to this fundamental unity, or "supreme identity," reveals that our customary and ingrained sense of division between self and world, self and other, is an illusory state that inevitably brings conflict (the meaning of 'advaita' is 'not divided' or 'non-dual').

That book provided insights into how those teachings can be relevant and transformative in contemporary culture. While It is true that in the years since I read it, I found out that Watts by no means exemplified the kind of life that he was so adept at explaining, nevertheless the idea of 'the supreme identity' really struck me. What is important about it, is that our normal sense of ourselves is based on a false sense of identity - that in reality, we are of a completely different order to what we normally take ourselves to be. And I've come to realise that this is what philosophical spirituality is always trying to convey, but that it's a very difficult thing to convey and to understand. It involves a kind of dying - 'dying to the known' as one of the Eastern teachers put it. (And as it is Easter time, it is probably appropriate to mention that that is also the esoteric meaning of the Cross.)

Hey, thanks Wafarer, for your book recommendation.

And I've come to realise that this is what philosophical spirituality is always trying to convey, but that it's a very difficult thing to convey and to understand — Wayfarer

Indeed. This was the main point of starting this thread. I knew I would receive substantial and helpful answers, and that's exactly what happened with the exchanges with the fellows.

It is an exploration of the relationship between the individual life and the ultimate nature of being, through the perspective of Eastern philosophy particularly Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, but also with references to Christian mysticism. — Wayfarer

Before diving into this complexity, I think I should start to understand the basic teachings of Buddhism and Eastern philosophy, but obviously by keeping in mind Christian mysticism. I am aware this could take years. It is a path I am ready to try. I was always an infantile atheist, and I never respected those ideas and beliefs. Now, everything has turned different. I want to be more open-minded on this matter.

Alan Watts’ books are not a bad starting point. He had his flaws but his prose is excellent and he’s adept at explaining esoteric ideas if you’re looking for introductory books.