Hi Vince,

It's not my purpose to debate physics, for I'm clearly not qualified to do so. My point is only that space can not be clearly said to exist or not exist. It's reasonable to say space exists, but then it's also reasonable to say that space has none of the properties we typically use to define existence.

What I'm attempting to point out is that while the God debate typically assumes existence is a simple yes/no question, the existence of the overwhelming majority of reality (space) does not appear to be at all a simple yes/no question.

The larger point is that if it's true that the yes/no question at the heart of the God debate is inherently flawed then all the competing answers being argued about may be essentially meaningless, that is, a complete waste of time.

Personally, I find this a very interesting possibility. Those on all sides of the issue who have married their personal identity to one of the competing answers may not feel the same way.

Here's another often unexamined assumption at the heart of the God debate, and another example of the attempt to impose human scale concepts upon all of reality.

Theists usually define God as being some kind of super intelligence, whereas atheists are more likely to perceive reality as being a function of the random collision of mechanical forces, that is, not intelligent. Is the heart of reality intelligent? Or not intelligent? While competing answers to this question battle each other for centuries, the quality of the question itself is most often ignored.

Our understanding of intelligence arises from our experience at human scale, and it is a useful concept within that realm. As example, if one is comparing humans and donkeys our concept of intelligence can be a relevant guide in such a comparison.

We should however keep in mind that everything we know about intelligence has been developed on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, in one of what may be many universes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Mgqyj0fa4

That is, our concept of intelligence arises from an indescribably small sample of reality. And yet, in the God debate this human scale concept of intelligence is so often casually assumed without questioning to be relevant to competing proposals about the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Asking whether reality is intelligent may be no more useful than asking whether reality wears sneakers, whether reality brushes it teeth, whether reality types on forums etc. That is, any attempt to impose human scale concepts upon all of reality may be so inherently flawed as to doom any further discussion from the start.

So what we can observe again is that an unwillingness to inspect and challenge the quality of the question being asked can so easily lead to enormous effort being invested in a centuries long competing answers contest which is reasonably labeled essentially meaningless.

Here's another example of how assumptions which are practical, useful and essentially true at human scale can fall apart when we shift the focus to the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of the God debate.

For some background let's refer to another science documentary from Nova, from the same Fabric Of The Cosmos series referenced in the opening post. This show is called the Illusion Of Time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qu9XaF2K10

This is a great documentary well worth watching in full, but for the purposes of this post I'll refer to only one of the concepts presented, the fact that time runs at different speeds in different situations. I chose variable time speed to focus on here because this seems to have been proven, whereas some of the other fascinating concepts about time presented in the documentary seem to be only interesting theories.

It's been proven that time runs at different rates depending on the observer's relationship to large masses such as planets, and the observer's movement through space. So for example time runs at a different rate at the top of a mountain than it does at sea level. In fact, this time speed difference has to be programmed in to GPS satellites in order for them to generate accurate location data.

At human scale variable time speed can typically be safely ignored because the time speed difference between the top of a mountain and sea level is measured in billionths of a second, a number of little practical value in our everyday lives. However, as the GPS satellite example illustrates as we move on to larger scales variable time speed becomes an ever larger factor.

At human scale we experience time as a reliable fixed measure, which is reasonable and practical because at human scale that's very close to the case. But what science is teaching us is that what seems an obvious given in our everyday human scale experience can not be automatically assumed to be binding on everything everywhere.

Variable time speed seems relevant to the God debate because it further illustrates a pattern of assumptions that often attempt to impose facts that are reasonable at human scale on to the immeasurably larger scale addressed by God theories.

What makes you think I haven't already done this. — Isaac

Show us, link to the thread where you challenge the qualifications of human reason for the largest of questions. You can't. Because you never did any such thing, and probably never even considered it was necessary until this thread.

I'm sorry guys, but you're all frauds, so I'm bailing. You win. Adios.

You haven’t shown anyone reasoning or making the claim that reason is useful for everything. — praxis

God is typically a proposal about the most fundamental nature of all reality. The proposal has the biggest scope of any proposal.

What's happening here is that all of you are atheist ideologists who perceive the threat to the glorious self flattering personal image you have created out of atheism, and so you are engaging the usual atheist dodges.

None of you have even attempted to prove the qualifications of the methodology which your entire perspective depends upon, because you know you can't. So rather than simply admit that (as most theists would honestly do) you're trying to flood the zone with as much pointless clutter as you can, hoping to bore me away, so you can get back to your fantasy superiority.

It's worked.

Your comparison of reason and religious textbooks, as to which has authority to speak on a subject is nonsensical, its not a question that can be answered, only one whose incoherence can be discussed. — Isaac

When religious people seek answers, they turn to their holy book.

When atheist people seek answers, they turn to reason.

Each party references something which they believe will deliver useful information.

If I have to explain that, if I have to explain it 99 times, then I'm essentially in the same position as when a Jehovah's Witness knocks on my door. Engagement is pointless.

No, failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason is irrational — praxis

Yes, ok, and that's what atheists are doing. They're experiencing a failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason. That is, they are assuming, without proof, that logic and reason have infinite ability, are able to meaningfully analyze anything in all of reality.

It's an unwarranted leap from...

Reason is useful for very many things.

to...

Reason is useful for everything.

Theists often do the very same thing. They see the wisdom of some holy book teachings regarding human scale issues such as love, and then leap from that to the conclusion that therefore the holy book is qualified to provide answers to the very largest of questions.

If one can escape the ego fueled ideology, it's not that hard to see that human beings are very very very small creatures in a very very very big reality, and it's not that sensible to automatically assume that such a tiny creature would be able to grasp EVERYTHING. This is especially true when we observe that this tiny creature has thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, hardly evidence of advanced reasoning powers.

Yes, both 'meaninful' and 'credible' are are assessment within logic and reason. What faculty would you use otherwise to determine what a text is even saying? How would you even understand the meaning of a sentence, let alone a proposition, if you suspend logic and reason. I think you are confusing logic and reason with empirical science and you're confusing 'source' with 'authority'. — Isaac

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again as a reminder.

Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject? — Jake

Empirical science is certainly not the only means, nor the only source from which to obtain meaningful propositions, but it is the closest we have to an 'authority'. — Isaac

Being the best does not automatically equal being qualified. The smartest squirrel ever born won't be able to understand the Internet. A twelve year old will be better at math than a 4 year old, but neither will be able to do particle physics.

An authority needs to have some justifiable claim to support its rejection of other propositions. Empirical science has such a claim (propositions it rejects are those which do not produce predictable results for a wide proportion of the population). — Isaac

You still are not challenging your chosen authority, but are instead focusing exclusively on defending it's superiority, just as all ideologists do. A person of reason would challenge all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Please Note: You believe in human reason. Ok, that's great. I'm just calling upon you to do human reason. Instead of ideology.

Religious texts have no such justification and therefore no justified claim to authority. — Isaac

You have no proven authority which can be used to dismiss the proposed authority of religious texts, at least in regards to the largest of questions. Smaller claims made by religions may be able to be debunked if there is real world data available to analyze.

Logic and reason are not 'authorities' they are habits of thinking and they cannot be suspended whilst maintaining even the very basic intellectual faculties such as reading. — Isaac

This does not automatically equal human logic and reason being qualified to generate meaningful statements on some particular question.

Again, please observe how even the most respected commentators in the God debate typically don't even question the "exists or not" paradigm which the God debate is built upon. It's entirely possible that the question itself is so flawed (ignoring the nature of reality) that any argument for or against in response to such a question is rendered meaningless. Such a possibility at least merits investigation, but pretty much nobody ever bothers. This is the system you are basing atheism upon.

On cannot even comprehend what is written in the Bible without logic and reason. — Isaac

This does not automatically equal logic and reason being capable of generating meaningful statements about the most fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of most god claims.

That doesn't prove whether thay should (which is the debate we're having), only that they don't. — Isaac

They should only if they wish to be people of reason. If they prefer instead to be ideologists the burden is lifted, and they may proceed as they wish.

If you wish, this exchange, which I thank you for, might provide you with some insight in to theism. Observe how determined you are to hang on to your chosen authority. That's not a theist thing, but a human thing. We want to know things, we really want to know. Or at least we want to have some methodology which offers some hope of knowing. This desire is very understandable, but does not automatically equal having such a methodology.

To me, just one view, the only way to rescue the God debate from being an endlessly repetitive merry-go-round to nowhere is to face the fact that when it comes to the largest of questions we simply don't know, and we simply have no proven methodology which can credibly fix that lack of knowing. Or to put it simply, we are ignorant.

It seems to me the centuries long God debate has delivered useful information, but we don't like what has been revealed, so we're ignoring it, pushing what the evidence is telling us away, sweeping it under the nearest rug.

We have every right to do this. But the price tag is the surrender of reason, and to ride eternally on the merry-go-round to nowhere.

What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac

I can offer real world documented evidence that atheists rarely (if ever) are willing to examine and challenge their chosen authority in the same way that they challenge theist authorities. Don't take my word for it, try and find a thread on any philosophy forum where such an examination is happening at all, let alone to the degree theist authorities are challenged.

Just read the thread above. Lots of different folks logic dancing their favorite God debate perspective, with no attempt at all to demonstrate that something as small as human logic can meaningfully address the very largest of questions about the most fundamental nature of reality (scope of God claims).

Just read the thread above. Lots of different folks assuming that the only possible answers are exist or not-exist, even though a casual observation of reality reveals that most of reality does not fit within that simplistic paradigm.

I've proven my perspective using real world evidence that is readily available to all. Atheist ideologues can't do that. That's the difference.

It seems the Brits have gone completely nuts. I'm sure glad that could never happen in America.

Like everything else about humans, anger arises out of the nature of thought. Thus, we should probably be somewhat skeptical of anybody's plan for getting rid of anger. Manage, yes. Get rid of, doubt it.

Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. — Isaac

Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject?

Put another way, are you saying that a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a semi-suicidal species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, is capable of generating meaningful credible statements on any subject anywhere in all of reality, a realm we can't yet define in even the most basic manner?

That asked, let's continue and be more specific to the subject at hand.

The question of the God debate is, does a god exist? The question presumes there are two possible answers, existence and non-existence.

Now let's observe reality. The vast overwhelming majority of reality at every scale is space. And yet space has none of the properties which we use to define existence. The point here is, it appears that almost all of reality does not fit neatly in to either the exist or not-exist categories.

Now let's observe God debaters. We can see that pretty close to every god debater who has ever opined on the subject, no matter how much education, intelligence or advanced degrees they may haven, has typically assumed without questioning that the only two possible answers to the God question are exist or not-exist.

Let's observe how philosophers great and small for 500 years have been eager to challenge the competing answers, but pretty much nobody has been interested in challenging the validity of the God debate question.

My point here is that even if we could somehow prove reason is qualified to deliver meaningful statements on the largest of questions, and few are willing to even try, there isn't a lot of evidence that human beings are capable of reason, at least on this subject.

Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. The Bible is a book. — Isaac

Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology.

Everybody is entitled to their preferred ideology, no complaint there. But nobody is entitled to label their ideology as reason so long as they are unwilling to apply reason's processes in an even handed manner to all sides of a question.

Do you believe it reasonable to question the qualifications of holy books in regards to the largest of questions?

If you answer yes, then why are you resisting performing the same operation on other chosen authorities?

That's all there is to this.

This is an inevitable result of trying to do philosophy for a living, ie. to earn money. The untold story is all the professional philosophers who will tailor their writings to the academic group consensus to avoid a similar fate. There is a serious lack of clarity regarding the difference between philosophy, and the philosophy business.

The point is you are using logic and reason right now to make this argument, so, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reason have authority to speak to this kind of investigation. — Isaac

I addressed this. I am examining the evidence, and coming to the correct conclusion that atheists in general typically never bother to even try to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority in regards to the largest of questions. I have clearly proven that logic and reason are qualified to address the topic I am addressing.

I haven't proven, nor tried to prove, that logic and reason are qualified to address anything and everything. That is, I am not a person of faith in regards to reason. I accept reason's ability where I see evidence of success, and decline to accept where I see no evidence of such a success.

All I'm doing is applying the very same challenge to reason as atheists apply to holy books. The very same exact thing. The problem is that such an intellectually honest process does not deliver the answer than many atheists wish to hear, and so the process is rejected, ie. ideology.

At some point, logic and reason are simply presumed. — Isaac

That is true, that is what's happening. Atheists typically have a faith based relationship with reason that they are often unwilling to examine, because to do so would lead to a collapse of their perspective. If they were truly people of reason, a collapse of one perspective would be good news, because such a collapse would help advance the investigation. But, at least on forums, they are typically not people of reason, but ideologists who have built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, and so that perspective must be defended to the death. :-)

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything, in spite of the earnest efforts of millions of intelligent people over a period of at least 500 years. We have data on this that we can examine. As example, the God debate threads on philosophy forums go on and on and on and on for years making the same old points over and over again precisely because nobody can prove anything, and thus the issue is never resolved.

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side can prove the qualification of their chosen authority, and thus the God debate collapses, leaving us with nothing.

My point is that we CAN use reason to then explore our relationship with this nothing, with this state of ignorance. The investigation can continue, but only when we realize and accept what the evidence the God debate has revealed. We are ignorant, in regards to questions of this scale. So long as we insist on pursuing fantasy knowings, we will remain stuck on a children's merry-go-round to nowhere.

Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? — Isaac

Logic is clearly qualified to state that someone has made no attempt to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority.

Please observe how you ignored this...

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake

That's because if you were to admit that this is a valid statement, you would then be required to apply the same process to other chosen authorities. This process is called intellectual honesty.

Reason is clearly proven useful for very many things. As example, we have many millions of cases of reason being used to successfully construct buildings. We have data, a documented record of success.

What members are typically doing is making an unwarranted leap from "reason is useful for many things" to "reason is useful for EVERYTHING", even in those cases where there is no data to support such a claim.

This is the equivalent of a theist saying "holy books are useful for providing comfort and meaning (proven fact) therefore holy books are qualified to provide credible answers to the largest of questions (wild speculation).

Many members don't yet understand that being loyal to logic only when it takes you where you want to do is not reason, but instead ideology.

You should know the rules and play by them. — S

You should prove that the rules you're referencing are binding upon the very largest and most fundamental of questions. There's simply no good reason for any reader to accept such an assumption on faith as you are doing.

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.

If someone were to apply logic calculations to a topic it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that human reason is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.

Exact same challenge, applied equally to all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Like a Jehovah's Witness, you expect everyone to first blindly accept the qualifications of your chosen authority as a matter of unexamined faith just as you do, and then you proceed from there with your arguments.

As with a Jehovah's Witness, there's simply no point in listening to anything you have to say until you first prove that your chosen authority is qualified to make credible comments on the issues under discussion.

All the clever little arguments you clog thread after thread with, all entirely meaningless waste of space, until you first prove that the authority those arguments is built upon is qualified to speak to the questions you are addressing.

Meaningless waste of space, just as it would be if a Jehovah's Witness entered the thread and began chanting memorized slogans based upon an unproven authority.

Meaningless waste of space.

99% ego, 1% useful content.

Start your own thread on the subject.

Say something interesting, without making any reference to anybody else.

Or shut the fuck up.

Meaning that you're only interested in an unquestioning audience and you don't want anyone to debunk your goofy ideas. I think we all get that. — praxis

No Praxis, you don't get anything. I DO NOT want an unquestioning audience. I thrive on challenge, I really do. I just don't find it interesting to be challenged by folks who aren't actually interested in the topic.

Ok, enough about this.

I know this is likely to be outside your scope of interest, so sorry to mention it again, but I can't resist.

The DMT documentary I mentioned earlier was fascinating to me because the participants in the study reported compelling experience of another level of reality, or so it seemed to them. According to them this other level of reality they experienced felt more real than our everyday lives.

And while I wouldn't want to push the comparison too far, much of what they described seemed to sync with Catholic teachings, at least in a general manner. As example, some participants reported experience of an overpowering presence of love that saturated this realm they were exploring. Also a good deal of discussion of ego death.

Most people probably feel that this is just a drug induced hallucination and thus should be dismissed, and that may indeed be an appropriate conclusion. I don't claim to know.

However, we might consider this. You get up in the morning, have that first cup of coffee, sit down at the computer, and your ideas begin flowing effortlessly on to the forum. Are your ideas automatically wrong or fantasy because they are being fueled by caffeine?

It seems at least possible to me that such drugs open channels in the human brain that aren't typically accessible to us, and that to some degree these channels are perceiving something that is actually there.

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently. — praxis

I'm here to explain my goofy notions with folks who are actually interested in the topics being discussed.

To debunk this, start your own thread where you explore such topics in some depth without reference to me or anybody else. If we remove me and all other male egos are you still interested? Probably not, but prove me wrong if you can.

No real issue with all that - may argue some there is some balance point between experience, refection, and attempts at understanding. — Rank Amateur

Ok, sure. I'm just trying to adjust that balance a bit, and likely overstating the case in the process.

Here is the point I was trying to make, in relation to Rahner's preapprehension. That the reason or source of this desire is the inherent feeling there is something there in all of us. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I hear you. I'm not sure I'd go as far as "all of us" but then there are many levels of such things, and not everybody is going to hear and recognize within themselves the preapprehension you're referring to.

It seems possible to get at least part of the way there using only reason.

It seems every level of existence is largely unaware of the levels above it. As example, a rock knows nothing about plants, plants know little to nothing about animals, and most animals know nothing about humans. Within the animal kingdom most animals are expert within their niche but largely ignorant of anything outside of that limited sphere.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that humans too are in this position in regards to some level above us. Examples to illustrate might be the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms which have always been there right in front of our face but not perceived until quite recently.

To speculate further, there are always rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve in every field. Einstein in science, Mozart in music etc. It seems reasonable to me that there may be rare individuals that are able to get some glimpse of some higher level of existence. And then they try to share what they've seen, but it's so far out of the average person's experience that the explanation turns in to a circus.

So perhaps a few of us have intense preapprehension, while for the rest of us it's pretty dull or entirely hidden from our conscious mind.

As you know, what tends to interest me is exploring such topics in a manner which transcends the religious and secular categories. To my biased read anyway, the above could be either religious or secular, as preferred by each reader.

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis

You're not the kind of poster who has much interest in investigations. You wish to play the male ego competition gotcha Great Debunker game. Ok, play it, go for it. With someone else, as I'm not here to jerk you off.

f, you believe as I do, that some inherent search for meaning and purpose is part of the human condition. — Rank Amateur

This seems true, but that doesn't automatically equal it being wise. Instead of debating competing meanings we might look more closely at what meaning is.

Meaning, any meaning, is a story, an abstraction, a collection of symbols in our heads. Symbols of any kind are like a street sign which points to something, but is not that something. The word "Jake" is just a word, and not the person it points to.

Symbols, any symbols, are human inventions. They are something very small created by a very small creature. Reality is something very very large, created by perhaps a god, or perhaps billions of years of randomly colliding mechanical forces, or something else. In any case, whatever the source, reality is a phenomena far larger, more complex, and incredible than anything human beings can create. Human symbols are very small potatoes in comparison to the reality they point to.

So while it is true that we often seek meaning and explanations, perhaps we choose poorly.

I'm sitting on a beach watching a sunset. Where should my focus be? On the sunset? Or on my ideas about sunsets? Should I choose to focus on reality, or symbols which point to reality? Should I choose direct experience of that which is real, or settle for a 2nd hand extremely watered down and highly imperfect experience of what is real?

If we were friends, where should my focus be? On your photo on Facebook? Or on you the living breathing person? Should I choose the real, or the symbolic?

Do you want to have sex with a photo on the Internet, or with the person depicted in the photo? Which will you choose, the real, or the symbolic?

I would contend that there is no story about reality that anyone will ever create that is a fraction as interesting as reality itself. So why settle for second best?

Meaning does have a strong appeal, that's true. For one thing, meaning is very easily hijacked by our egos, as we see daily here on the forum. Meaning provides a comforting illusion of knowing which some of us find irresistible.

Focusing on reality requires a process of surrender. Focusing intently on observation of reality requires a surrender of me, me, me and all my little thoughts, thoughts, thoughts. We typically don't really want to surrender, and even if we do a lifetime habit of chronic overthinking requires work, patience, and good luck to overcome.

So yes, we very often seek meaning. That doesn't necessarily mean that seeking meaning is the best choice we can make.

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be? — praxis

I'm suggesting that 1) unity is the fact of reality, and 2) aligning ourselves with reality to the degree that is possible is inherently rational.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. If I'm wrong about that and you do really wish to investigate such topics the best move would likely be to conduct your own investigation. Instead of waiting for me to type something so you can tell me why it's wrong, dig in to it yourself. Or not, as you prefer.

Imagine I have a heart attack today and never return to the forum. Will you still be digging in to this topic on your own? If not, then digging in to it with me is unlikely to accomplish much.

We can only discuss the concept of unity in language. — praxis

Right. And all language is thought. And all thought operates by division. Thus, all discussions are polluted by a built-in bias for division.

Yes, I am choosing to read your posts — S

So stop, and all your problems are solved.

Then there's your stated opinion I don't care about, namely that, for you, the experience matters, but the explanation doesn't. Well, if you don't care about the explanation, which is a very unphilosophical attitude, then don't bother me with your opinion, just keep quiet about it or go bother someone else. — S

Nobody is bothering you. Nobody can bother you in this medium. You're CHOOSING to read my posts. If you'd like to make another choice that would be entirely fine with me.

I think Rahner would quite agree with all of that. — Rank Amateur

But, but, but if Rahner is going to keep agreeing with me, how will I write my glorious sermons???? :smile:

It might be fair to say that everything we do is in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness (and in flight of pain or despair). — VagabondSpectre

Yes. And the source of these pursuits is the perception that reality is divided between "me" and "everything else".

Religion is definitely not for me (and it doesn't seem to for you either) but we ought remember that our worldview might not be beneficial to everyone (in theory and in practice) — VagabondSpectre

Yes, agreed. In my experience this worldview is not accessible to most people, and thus not useful.

Some people just don't work without what we perceive as grand superstitions. — VagabondSpectre

It's a complex picture. God claims may be superstitions, but love is not, and the two are often woven tightly together.

Frankly, I am not sure I understand your thesis. — Frank Apisa

We are made of thought. Thought operates by a process of division. All else flows from that.

That said, corrupt as most of all religions seem to be, some religious moral tenets are actually quite truthy from any reasonable perspective. — VagabondSpectre

They are "truthy" (great word invention :smile: ) to the degree they comment usefully on the reality of the human condition.

Imho, advice like "treat others as they want to be treated' is not advice about what we should do for somebody else, but instead advice regarding what we can do for ourselves.

As example, we are made of thought, and thought operates by a process of division, thus we feel separate, alone, and isolated, which generates fear and all the rest that flows from fear.

When Jesus advises us to love I hear him suggesting we try to surrender the walls of the fantasy prison cell thought has erected. Die to the illusion of separation, and be reborn in the reality of unity with all things, including other people in this case.

This is revolutionary advice which can be quite difficult to implement because from our place inside the little fantasy prison cell we are afraid to surrender "me" and instead are typically instead attempting to make "me" as big as possible in reaction to the perception that we are very small, separate and vulnerable etc.

Many people come to religion in crisis when they've spent their lives earnestly trying to make "me" as big as possible and then discovered much to their horror that it doesn't accomplish the desired goal.

Clearly, you are conceiving a separation. In addition to that, you're holding on to the idea that you aren't separate. — praxis

Yes, good point. It's impossible to really discuss unity in language, because language is built of thought, and thought is built of division. Thus, any collection of words we might use pushes us immediately back in to the illusion of separation. This is a key weakness of this medium, and I don't have a solution for it other than to recognize this weakness and try to take vacations from it as needed.

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm??? — praxis

You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume.

ncluding the notion that you're not separate from God or whatever. — praxis

Yes, of course. However, one can develop one's own personal experience which is not dependent on the culture. But explanations of that experience will be incurably linked to that culture. Luckily, explanations can be discarded if desired.

Holding the intellection that the separation is an illusion effectively manages the illusion to some degree? — praxis

I would put it this way. The intellectual understanding is kind of like a highway sign that points to the next town. The sign can serve a practical purpose, but it is not that which it is pointing to. The traveler wishes to get to the town, not stand there staring at the sign.

Are you saying that "the illusion" is for certain...or are you acknowledging that it is a supposition...an untestable hypothesis...a guess, if you will, about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa

I am not a god, if that is what you're asking. :smile: Seriously, of course this is a hopefully engaging theory and not a perfect proven truth.

I wouldn't call it an untestable hypothesis as anyone who is serious enough can test it for themselves by experimenting with managing the volume of thought.

This has already been done many times by many people over many centuries leading to many different flavored explanations. I'm not claiming the wording I choose is somehow superior to anyone else's explanations, it's just the best I can personally do at the moment. My hope is that my choice of words might occasionally succeed at engaging some number of readers who can't connect with other explanations of these phenomena, such as for example, those of a religious flavor. Whether that ever works is debatable, but this is what I know how to do, so I do it.

Getting back on point, I wouldn't suggest anyone simply accept what I'm saying. Even if one did agree completely, that would just be another pile of thought. Instead, if one is interested in any of this conduct your investigation, have your own experience, and if like me you simply have to explain what you find, explain it however you can.

In my view, the rational approach to this is to focus mostly on the experience itself. As example, if one is hungry the rational approach is to eat the food on the table. Explaining the food might come later, if ever.

this is very much in line with what Rahner would call - "Anonymous Christianity"
worth looking into if you are interested. — Rank Amateur

I am looking in to it already, through my mentor Father RankAmateur. He's doing a good job.

I think Rahner would say the reason for the continual God debate, and the part of the human condition that seems to make us seek meaning - both stem from this pre apprehension. Without being to identify or even understand what it is, we are all aware something is there. — Rank Amateur

If God is in all things etc, then the "something" that is there is right in front of our faces in every moment of our lives, and not something hidden. And not something separate.

If we don't see this real thing it's probably because we aren't really observing reality at all, but instead our thoughts about reality. We seek meaning, to identify and understand. These things are abstractions, symbols, inventions of the human mind. The symbols aren't wrong or evil etc, they're just a very small affair. And because they are products of thought they impose a pattern of fantasy division on everything they touch, no matter which collection of symbols we prefer.

To the limited degree there is a solution it may be in "dying to be reborn". That is, setting aside an obsession with the little cardboard symbols of our own invention to focus instead on the infinitely larger reality/god/nature, whatever word one prefers.

As I think you will grasp, this is an essentially a-philosophical way of looking at this because it proposes that thought is not the path to direct experience of reality/god/nature, but rather a primary obstacle to that experience. Thinking about these things is much like spending one's time looking at the photos of one's friends on Facebook, instead of hanging out with those friends in real life. That is, choosing the symbolic over the real.

Fake Father Jake suggests that if WHATEVER IT IS is indeed real, we'd be wise to look for it in the real world instead of the symbolic realm. The practical question would seem to be, how to look?

If you can translate any of this in to Rahner-ism, please do.

So if we didn't FEEL separate it wouldn't matter if we perceived a separation, right? — praxis

But we do feel separate, so I'm not sure of the point of this question.

Or are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)? — praxis

From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. At the psychological level, almost everything we're thinking, feeling and saying is just content that is absorbed from our cultural surroundings and then regurgitated with our names attached.

As I understand it, the illusion that we are separate is part of the life/death cycle, giving us the will to live etc. It's not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it's just the nature of reality, like it or not.

The illusion that we are separate does lead to a great deal of suffering however, so it might be wise for us to try to learn how to manage that illusion to some degree.

thought you might find this quote but Rahner interesting. — Rank Amateur

I do, I do! Thanks for that.

Hence the existentiell question for the knower is this: Which does he [or she] love more, the small island of his[/her] so-called knowledge or the sea of infinite mystery? " — Rank Amateur

For one thing, it's interesting to me to find myself channeling Catholicism theologians I've never heard of and know nothing about from the perspective of not having been to Mass in 50 years. Genetics?

In any case, let's translate this out of religious language for the benefit of those who don't operate on those channels.

The vast overwhelming majority of reality at every scale is space, a "sea of infinite mystery" which is all pervasive. So for an atheist whose methodology revolves around observation of reality, that is what reality really is, space, nothing, the void. Space is a really big deal.

The truly rational act for the atheist is not so much how one might define reality, but rather what one's relationship with reality is. Emotional relationship. That's where human beings primarily live. As example, philosophy forums are supposed to be about razor sharp reason etc, but as we all know they are actually primarily about the male ego, ie. emotions.

What the God debate should have taught us is that we are fundamentally ignorant, and all our opinions on such matters are basically a thin wallpaper veneer attempting to hide that ignorance, mostly from ourselves. This vast sea of our ignorance aligns with the nature of reality. Our internal knowings are mostly nothing, a void, just as the external reality is.

A serious hard nosed realist will squarely face that both internally and externally reality is primarily nothing. A practical hard nosed realist will then move on to developing their relationship with the nothing, because that's basically all we can control.

Philosophy can talk about all this at a safe distance. But we can't really explore the nothing with philosophy because philosophy, like thought itself, is all about the creation of conceptual somethings.

And a warning I can't do this without getting pretty religious. Not evangelising here just answering a question. — Rank Amateur

Speaking for myself, I'm not at all concerned about getting pretty religious or evangelizing. Everybody on the forum is evangelizing all the time, me included.

Firstly, there is an inherent problem in any discussion like this. In some way we need to anthropomorphize God to try to understand. This is necessary to some degree but always in error. — Rank Amateur

Ok, agreed.

In my view all of your options are true. Catholicism allows for many interpretations of this, and many are needed to accommodate the various receivers of the message. A 12 year old boy, an un educated working man in Nigeria, a poor woman in South America a high school graduate in Vermont, a phd physicist, me, a bishop, the pope, and a Jesuit theologian. All have a different level of how to interpret abstraction. Some may need a more anthropomorphic God than others. — Rank Amateur

Yes, more agreement. And may I say, very well put. I like this vision of Catholicism, a "radio station" transmitting on many different frequencies at once.

And there is often some disagreement among factions. I think Karl Rahner was a brilliant man, and I relate well to his theology, some in the church thought he was near heretical. He didn't even like the word God very much, he like Mystery better. — Rank Amateur

Yes, this is what happens within all ideologies and philosophies, the inevitable emergence of competing internal subdivisions. To me, this is a huge clue that the divisions and resulting conflicts are not a property of any particular philosophy, but rather a property of that which all philosophies are made of. I will admit however that I appear to be utterly inept at interesting anyone else in such an idea.

And if one pays attention one can develop a greater awareness of His presence. We develop this through discernment, where we pay attention to our feelings and emotions and discern if our choices are ordered or not. If we are authentically ourselves, and honest in our evaluations we can feel God's presents in this process. — Rank Amateur

I seem to be on an agreement rampage this morning, cuz here I go again. :smile:

I'm very much interested in this sentence...

And if one pays attention one can develop a greater awareness of His presence. — Rank Amateur

Paying attention and developing a greater awareness seems very important. What interests me as a wanna be writer and imitation theologian is developing this concept outside of the context of religion. Not because religion is wrong or bad etc, but because as you said above in regards to Catholic descriptions of God, different folks can hear on different channels. For some religion can be a great aid, for others it triggers a distracting allergy.

What many people have learned, myself included, is that one can deliberately develop an ever deeper relationship with nature/reality outside of any religious context. It's just like developing a relationship with a person, one has to put in the time and open oneself emotionally to the relationship.

To me, it seem far less important what one labels WHATEVER IT IS than whether one is developing that relationship. It's not the explanations that matter, but the experience.

If we can stop focusing so much on the explanations and shift some focus to the experience itself we create a more universal conversation because then everybody can define WHATEVER IT IS in whatever manner one can relate to, just as you described above in regards to a range of Catholic explanations of God.

So if one simply can't bear the idea of labeling WHATEVER IT IS with religious terminology, fine, great, let that go, get over it, move on to....

The experience.

However it must be admitted that such a way of looking at these things has never had wide acceptance so this too is a narrow channel capable of serving a limited number of people.

A tenet of Ignatian spirituality is to see God in all things. — Rank Amateur

Perhaps you could expand on this aspect of Catholic philosophy? It's interesting to me that Catholic doctrine (if i understand it) claims that God is ever present in everything everywhere and that "God is in all things" but God is still seen as something separate. I'm not arguing the point so much as I am interested in exploring that last step to... God IS everything.

From my perspective there is a single unified reality. Some people call this God, some call it nature or reality, and from my perspective this competitive naming process is of little importance. Space serves as a good example of a single unified reality for those who are allergic to religious language.

From my perspective what some call God is not something separate from us, and it only appears that way because we are observing reality through a mechanism which operates by a process of conceptual division. It's not that we are separate from (enter your preferred term here) it's that we FEEL separate. That feeling is an illusion generated by thought, by the way it works.

And so when we create names, labels, ideologies, religions, philosophies, explanations, and my posts too, what we're actually doing is fueling the mechanism which is the source of the illusion.

Philosophy is like a bunch of hungry people standing around a table full of food arguing over what to name the food instead of sitting down to eat the food. On the surface the competing arguments may sound rational, but the process itself is not.

no just don't want to waste time with you. — Rank Amateur

How dare you be rational on a philosophy forum. How Dare You!!! You sure won't find me pulling any stunts like that mister.