OK. But I interpreted "useless" to mean having no function or value. And "solace or salvation" seems to be the ultimate value for believers. So, the function of Faith is to get us to where our treasure is laid-up*1.
However, if this world of moth & rust & thieves is all we have to look forward to, then investing in "pie-in-the-sky" heaven would be a "white elephant" of no practical value. :smile: — Gnomon
A big commitment that 52 hours of lectures, I will look for a summary but thanksThe series I mentioned was a set of 52 lectures by Canadian professor of cognitive science, John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer
If one believes in the Abrahamic God one cannot say one believes in an unknowable divinity, bec an unknowable divinity. — Janus
What reason would we have to believe in a deity if not believing in revelation? Sure, first cause and all that but that doesn't necessarily entail divinity let alone personal divinity.
Anyway this is somewhat tangential to the point I had been making which had more to do with motivation than justification. — Janus
Which seems to raise the question what is "real".If 'divinity' is real, why believe in it (e.g. mother, gravity & numbers are real)?
Or if (we) believe in it, why also need 'divinity' to (seem) real? — 180 Proof
Again, I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. I'm just trying to understand what you mean, behind what you say : the implications. 180proof does indeed make philosophical dialog into a "battle" between opposing worldviews. {see PS below} But, I'm actually interested in your perspective on the God question. That's why I ask "why" questions. If you don't like to label your personal philosophy with conventional terms, a longer, detailed post might suffice to present a "philosophical defense"*1 of a specific position. So far, I haven't been able to get a fix on your "position".You are difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to keep turning it into battles you think you’re having with people, instead of actually reading what I’m saying. None of the points you raise apply to my position. — Tom Storm
Just as toddlers "find meaning" in (naming, talking to) stuffed animals – magical thinking.It is in such beliefs (or faith) that we find meaning? — prothero
Your questions don't "upset" anyone, sir, they are often just vacuous questions or even ludicrously uninformed, and yet condescending (i.e. defensive). You're just not a serious and conspicuously lack intellectual integrity. I challenge you (like this) when I'm bored, Gnomon, knowing you're too insecure to respond directly to challenge me in kind, and so I can keep attention on your woo-of-the-gaps clowning (e.g. hiding behing poor old Whitehead's skirts). You don't "upset" anyone here on TPF (get over yourself!), I suspect many of us on here are even mildly amused by your uninformed bloviating. :smirk:I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. — Gnomon
Fwiw (not that you'll intelligibly respond), I'm quite partial to both Epicurean and Spinozist "metaphysical arguments" FOR "God". I'm also "convinced" by arguments AGAINST "God" by such contemporary philosophers as Rebecca Goldstein, Victor Stenger, André Comte-Sponville, Theodore Drange, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen & J.L. Schellenberg to name a few.Historically, the "God" question has both pro & con Metaphysical arguments*4. Do you find any of them convincing?
Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace.You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace. — Janus
That is exactly the kind of natural Revelation that turned me away from Atheism toward Deism. The "self organizing processes" of Nature are what led A.N. Whitehead to write his magnum opus of Process and Reality. I was somewhat surprised to learn that someone of his intellectual stature had reached the same conclusion as had, not from religious revelations but from pragmatic godless scientific exploration of natural processes. How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? That "striving against entropy" is what Schrodinger called "Negentropy" (free energy) and what I call "Enformy"*1 (causal en-form-action). :smile:For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero
I.e. yinyang of the eternal Dao... reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature ... The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero
Is that what really happened, sir? How do you (we) scientifically know this?How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? — Gnomon
If 'divinity' is real, why believe in it (e.g. mother, gravity & numbers are real)?
Or if (we) believe in it, why also need 'divinity' to (seem) real? — 180 Proof
Quite, and a good way of seeing this is that there is no difference between the aspirant before realisation and after realisation.So belief or faith is required for the aspirant, because in the absence of the insight which is the actual fruition of that discipline, one only has the faith that it is, in fact, a real possibility. In this Buddhist sutta, the disciple Sariputta says that 'Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction' that nibbana ('gaining a footing in the deathless') is real - whereas those (such as himself) who have 'seen, known, penetrated' etc, would not have to take it on conviction, rather, they would know it directly.
I haven't read anything by Vervaeke, but I Googled and found this summary of his worldview*1. His notion to "untangle the sacred from the supernatural" makes sense to me. Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural, I don't see any reason to worship such an abstract concept. My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura with accomodations for 21st century cosmology and 5th century BC philosophy.John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer
Okay, but then you contradict your "Transcendent" claim with this Anti-Transcendent (i.e. pure immanence) claim:Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural — Gnomon
Actually reading Spinoza's work itself rather than just skimming a wiki article might help you to stop repeating more nonsense like this, sir.My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura ...
"What do you find intriguing" is a serious question to determine where you are coming from. "To provide a larger context" is just one possible response. The "doggy ideal" of food in the bowl is an example of basic Physicalism, unencumbered by abstract ideas. "What does he know" is just a repeat of a question in your OP.What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't? — Gnomon
I’m trying to read this charitably. Is condescension something you tend to fall back on when challenged? What exactly were you trying to express here? — Tom Storm
How would you describe that tradition : Orthodox Christianity? — Gnomon
For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero
You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace.
— Janus
Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.