Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste. — Noblosh

Yes, I agree on the dubiousness, fundamentalism, and evangelism present in this thread. But maybe the moderators are choosing to be like NBA officials in the playoffs, and letting the players battle it out. If then, so be it. ;)

Sigh? That's a cogent argument? Furthermore, I disagree. The behavior of priests is much more a measure of the health and value of a religion than what happened more than a thousand years ago. Beyond that, you are being disingenuous. Muhammad is your straw man. If you thought Islam was a religion that shared values and dogma with yours, you wouldn't have brought up Mohammad's behavior. You only bring it up for rhetorical purposes - to try to convince people when your other arguments can't.

It doesn't matter what Mohammad did 14 centuries ago. It matters what Islam does now. — T Clark

Amen, brother! (Y)

And further, for those others obsessed with such matters, there is significant doubt whether the girl in question was really pre-pubescent. She may have been 15 or 16. And those were different times and a different place. He had six wives for example, and was esteemed by most contemporaries. For whatever that is worth.

And before someone else tells me the obvious... Terrorism is wrong, and should be stopped and punished. There is no doubt the severity of our current situation. I honestly share the concern. Terrorists are murderers, NOT brave and dutiful soldiers. And they should be treated as criminals. No matter if they happen to be Muslim, Christian, atheist, or a government official.

Of all the movies i have enjoyed over and over, Spartacus resides at the very top. Just a profound film, with brilliant acting and lots of twists and thrills thrown in. Maybe not absolutely historically accurate (the real Spartacus had learned his tactics as a Roman soldier), but any additions and liberties make it even better. As far as its philosophical themes, it is a little difficult to pin down what they are exactly. The ideas are subtle, but strong. Maybe a combination of Stoicism (which was current during the time period) and Existentialism. Spartacus's dialogue with an agent offering them an escape from Italy:
Tigranes Levantus: If you looked into a magic crystal, you saw your army destroyed and yourself dead. If you saw that in the future, as I'm sure you're seeing it now, would you continue to fight?
Spartacus: Yes.
Tigranes Levantus: Knowing that you must lose?
Spartacus: Knowing we can. All men lose when they die and all men die. But a slave and a free man lose different things.
Tigranes Levantus: They both lose life.
Spartacus: When a free man dies, he loses the pleasure of life. A slave loses his pain. Death is the only freedom a slave knows. That's why he's not afraid of it. That's why we'll win.

Also, an element of ethics runs through the film, inevitably focusing on slavery. One cannot help but feel the injustice. We are there as the slave Spartacus hauls rocks, and in gladiator school where he is forced to fight to the death. It is his foe in that match, Draba, who refused to kill the fallen Spartacus, and rather attacks the larger and Roman foe Crassus. In so doing, loses his life. But he planted the seeds of rebellion, which soon begins and doesn't end for nearly a year of slave victories. And the final scene, Spartacus being crucified with his wife Virinia and son at his feet, cannot help but recall Jesus on the cross. "Was he a god?!?" Laurence Olivier's Crassus mockingly asked Virinia at one point.
"No" she said. "But on the day he died, thousands would have gladly died in his place." True enough, his comrades all forfeited freedom and proclaimed "I'm Spartacus!"

Thanks. Good stuff! (Y)

Yes! Yes, my brethren and sisterern believers in our most solemn Krusade! The time draws nigh to use our most holey and scared defence! Yes, I could only be referring to this, the One and Only:


From the holy Book of Armaments, Chapter 2:
And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.

Yes, amen! And strength to the Writeous. And chronic diarrhoea to those who shall quarrelth with them, disputing their Glorious Mandate.

Thanks very much for your reply and suggestions! Was not familiar with Chesterton's novel, but i will try to get ahold of it and give it a go. Seems intriguing. Love Notes From Underground. It seems like the Shakespearen comedy version of the main character of the tragic Crime and Punishment. The same ideas are there though, and the same exploration of a sensitive young intellectual's inner polemicist, if not extremist. Had read enough of C.S. Lewis to be not very hungry for more. But your description of his last novel makes it seem interesting and worth investigation. Profound quote there about questions and the battle of words. Could be a personal motto concerning internet posting! :D . And similarly, thanks for the TS Eliot poem. Maybe if some philosophy were written in poetic form, perhaps it would be both broader, and paradoxically, in sharper focus. Just speculating.

Thanks again! Share more if you can. :)

Just a couple to start with...
Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. The premier step by step case study of a righteous soul slipping into self-righteousness then degrading into madness, finally becoming a murderer. In today's world, he would have been a terrorist. But after much torment, he confesses all and becomes a human again in a Siberian prison camp with the help of Sonya, perhaps the purest prostitute ever. Read it in high school and it set me off into Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus, which were all most helpful and inspiring despite their somber natures.

The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. Like Dostoevsky's novel, this is a class in ethics in reverse- what not to do, despite it seeming so right, so controllable. The drinks are flowing almost as quick as the dialogue Wilde gives Dorian's hero, Lord Henry. The slide from innocent Adonis to vile Lucifer is slow but irreversible. He is the eternally young proto-vampire, prowling London's dark streets looking for victims similar to Jack the Ripper, who was at-large shortly before this was written. But there will be no redemption like Rodon Raskolnikov's for Mr. Gray. Only a spiral of murders, culminating in his own, by his favorite person- himself. A chillingly beautiful work of great depths.

...what came first the chicken or the egg and of course the egg evolved... — The outlaw Josey Wales

Chicken or the egg? Neither. It was the fish! :D

Imagine yourself entering a room and finding it clean, well arranged and tidy. You're then asked to infer something from this information. What will be your thoughts? I wouldn't be wrong in saying the first thing to cross your mind would be someone has been in this room, cleaned and put it in order. This is the most likely inference and anyone who disagrees is probably mad or a fool or both (like me). This is a rational inference. Humans (generally) like to order things and so the ordered state of the room serves as good evidence of the existence of a person (a conscious agency).

No problems? Ok.

The argument from design for the existence of god is simply another instance of the above argument. There's order in the universe. Conscious agencies are known to create order. So, the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency - God. Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?

Comments please. — TheMadFool

Thanks for posting this. The thing that seems to jump out at me is that the only question (besides "No problems?") is the somewhat problematicly worded "Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?" If the sentence before that one were adjusted to become the main question it would be more neutral, more scientific so to speak, imho. But ok. Before taking the question as is, i wish to ask how you are defining "atheist"? Because to me there is a significant difference between one who states categorically that the existence of a deity is impossible and one who is saying the matter has not been satisfactorily proven, at least to them. And the word "atheist" seems to play a factor in the way the question is presented.

About your question, as it is worded... So why might this argument be difficult for "atheists" to swallow? Please excuse me if i go beyond the posed logic exercise for a moment to examine some perhaps obvious givens that might be relevant. Both atheists and Theists are human, of course. And so share many more similarities than differences. In fact, there appears to be infinite shades of belief and interpretations. And someone can change belief multiple times. And being human, one is composed of more than a reason-processing intellect. That might be a factor in someone's belief or nonbelief, but not necessarily the only or even the strongest one.

Psycho-spiritual feelings and life experiences count for much. Negative experiences with organized religions would be a strong candidate for belief being "hard to swallow". They might feel as though they have swallowed too much already, and anything else would trigger nausea and be regurgitated. If someone's associations with belief/faith/deity are hypocrisy, politics, quarreling and violence, thought control, repression, etc., that would obviously have a large effect. Then even the appearance of an incredibly intricate order in the world may not be enough to get them to accept this premise's conclusion. I believe it is a not uncommon experience to be filled with hope, wonder, awe, faith, and/or belief at certain moments. Even if it is a vague oceanic or mysterious feeling. Like looking at the stars when far from the city's light pollution, a sunrise at the beach, or peering through a microscope at the tiny elements of the world. Or less warm and fuzzy moments, like near-death experiences or being in battle.

By God I mean a conscious agency; included in this definition is the idea of a creator. I don't want to discuss any other attribute of God. Perhaps this definition will diminish the value of my argument but I still want your views on it. — TheMadFool

I understand any reluctance to going off-topic about the nature of the Creator. But this rather specific working definition seems to make the "playing field" under discussion even smaller and tilted to one side. It seems to lean perhaps unnecessarily to a monotheistic* Judeo-Christian Deity. And as such, might appear to be somewhat anthropomorphic, but that may be by association with the overall Christian tradition including theology, art, method of praying, etc. To paraphrase from The Wizard of Oz, "Play no attention to anything EXCEPT that Man behind the curtain!" :) But that aside, intelligent design, if not yet proven, has to me not been disproven either. What has been proven to me is that the critical point is how one can best live in accord with "What Is" whatever it is, along with the rest of humanity, nature, and oneself. As oblivious or cliched as that may be.

One more question. Is the OP an adaptation of something that you have rephrased? Or is this scenario totally your invention? Not meant as a criticism either way, as i think it is a worthwhile exercise, imho. Just curious if there was a differently worded version. Thanks!

*concerning monotheism, if i may quote an excerpt from Daniel Quinn's The Story of B, a novel dramatizing such themes as evolution and design of the world and life, its past and possible future, and humanity's role in that. I hope it to be relevant here:

Regarding the number of the gods

“Someone inevitably asks why I speak of gods rather than one God, as if I simply hadn’t been informed on this matter and was speaking in error, and I ask them how they happen to know the number of the gods. Sometimes I’m told this is just something ‘everyone’ knows, the way everyone knows there are twenty-four hours in a day. Sometimes I’m told God must be one, because this seems to us the most ‘enlightened’ number for God to be—as if the facts don’t count in this particular case. This is like reasoning that the earth must be the center of the universe, because no other place makes as much sense. Most often, of course, I’m told this is an undoubtable number, since it’s the number given in monotheistic scriptures. Needless to say, I have a rather different take on the whole matter.
“The number of the gods is written nowhere in the universe, Jared, so there’s really no way to decide whether that number is zero (as atheists believe) or one (as monotheists believe) or many (as polytheists believe). The matter is one of complete indifference to me. “I don’t care whether the number of the gods is one, zero, or nine billion. If it turned out that the number of the gods is zero, this wouldn’t cause me to alter a single syllable of what I’ve said to you.”
She seemed to want a reaction to this, so I said okay.
“To speak of gods instead of God has this additional advantage, that I’m spared the embarrassing necessity of forever playing stupid gender games with them. I never have to decide between he and she, him and her. For me, they’re just they and them!”
“A not inconsiderable advantage,” I observed.
She picked up the plastic comb and ran a thumbnail down its teeth. “Is it one thing or many?”
“You mean the comb? I don’t know. Depends on how you look at it.”
“This comb is the number of the gods, Jared. Not something to be added to our work of bricolage, but rather something to be discussed and dismissed.” She tossed the comb over her shoulder and out of sight.”

Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “The Story of B.” Bantam Books, 2010-01-13. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

(Edit- if this post had a function, it has served it)
Thank you. Peace and blessings to you and all, without exception.

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.

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. ;)

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)

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

To be a little more objective (for lack of a better word) in such described situations of disagreement, one might find it helpful to remember the subtle but definite difference between "being" and "doing", between "is" and "acts". I would agree with the metaphysical tenet that saying "I am (...)" is an extremely powerful statement, one that in fact has much influence in defining and determining the actuality of what one becomes. This is affected by how often it is repeated and how much intent is invested. (btw, just to be clear... repeatedly and passionately saying "I am Spiderman" will more likely make someone a bit neurotic rather than giving them superpowers. But odds are it will have a definite effect.) Likewise, the statement "You are (...)" has much weight. Who doesn't at least slightly cringe when someone wishes to define us, proclaiming boldly "In my opinion, I honestly think that you are ... "? Even if it is a compliment or praise, odds are the experience is awkward or uncomfortable.

Contrast this with a "doing" point of view. Then for example, saying "I think Bert is stupid" becomes something along the lines of "I think Bert acted stupidly in that case". Okay, the second example doesn't exactly roll off the tongue as easily as the first. And in the heat of emotion, it may seem kind of wishy-washy to speak like that. But it is an important distinction, imho. For instance, i would admit to doing many stupid or bad actions, but would not say that i was stupid or bad, even at the time in question. Another example is the phrase ad hominem, which usually refers to verbal or written personal attacks. But criticizing, insulting, attacking someone's words as opposed to their person, appears to be allowed by free speech by stopping short of libel. At least as far as I understand the terms in question. This is speaking very generally, of course. Each situation will have its particularities. But hopefully this is a helpful distinction, and is one useful not only in disagreements.

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.)

I think I posed this question the wrong way. It should be two separate questions. Does man need God? Does God need man? The answer to the first question is – absolutely. The answer to the second question is – maybe. Let’s assume for a moment that God created man as a kind of experiment. It wants to see if we can evolve into something worthy. It sets the stage, primes the pump and off we go into the wild blue yonder. Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. Do you think this scientist has just one experiment - us? Like Carl Sagan said – billions and billions – seems more like it. How important does that make us to God?

I do not think it is realistic or honest for humans to define God. I think we can speculate – hypothesize – imagine – but in the final analysis – we do not know. I think God is beyond our ken. I cannot take any religious bibles seriously. I find them insulting, disingenuous, fallacious and most importantly coercive. — Thinker

Hello. :) Thank you very much for your numerous contributions. I think you get the central idea of the original post, and your replies reflect that. Even though my OP may be perhaps a somewhat clumsy attempt to make sense of the sheer ocean of the words written about "ultimate realities", so to speak. I would think that most have their own methodology in doing so. Atheists might just toss everything that mentions a Divine source into the trash, or attack it relentlessly. A firm Catholic believer might read and accept only Church-approved doctrine. Others may be more eclectic, which is quite common owing to the "world at your fingertips" nature of the internet.

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), 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. I would counter by suggesting that although humans often seek certain knowledge, "Dogma" of most varieties generally attracts the emotionally wounded, the less intellectually curious, and perhaps the careerist looking for converts/customers. And that is the brighter side of Dogma. During periods of upheaval (like now) it can become reactionary, simplistic, violent, and abandoning of any openness it previously had. That much seems clear. No openness at all equals no growth. No growth equals stagnation, which leads to decay and dissolution. Perhaps beliefs and ideas have a "circle of life" similar to living organisms, and have periods of growth, propagation, and eventual decline. That remains to be demonstrated. But who wants to build their house under an enormous rotting tree? It makes a house built on sand look like beachfront property.

Also... the 81 short chapters of the Tao Te Ching are to me at least an almost boundless written expression and/or equivalent of the Taijitu, known as the symbol of the yin and the yang. To paraphrase the saying about chess- an hour to read, a lifetime to master and ponder.

From my very limited understanding of Taoism... i would say that goodness arises when the energies are in harmony, at least from a human perspective. Evil (so to speak) would be an imbalance. And they used many methods and means to think of and rebalance energy, such as the Five Elements, Feng Shui, Qigong, TCM, and many more, at various stages of history. But one could say that outside of the human realm (if that could be imagined) there is no imbalance really, only the temporary appearance of imbalance.

Again, my two cents in a very small nutshell! Thanks for your questions and replies. :)

↪0 thru 9 We can define and discuss the divine with precision as long as two conditions are met:

First that we are defining the real gods of our own creation (which are all the real gods there are) and
second, that we are informed and think carefully about these gods

Such gods that we did not make up, can not see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or know anything about--those gods are entirely beyond our reach.

You want the Aged Patriarch? Hairy thunderer? Cosmic muffin? Take your pick -- but make it consistent.

The reason the real, made up gods can be discussed and understood is that they are our own creation, and the reason we need to be informed and think carefully is that our made up gods have significant flaws. For instance, a god described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is not really understandable. We made it up, but we can't understand our own creation. The god that is all good but allows evil to occur is another problematic matter. Why would an all good god allow truly appalling evil to exist? That is just another example of how we have not worked through the logic of our own creation. What happened to god when he became incarnate in Jesus? Did he leave heaven? Did some of him leave heaven? Did he stay in heaven? But then, how could he be Jesus here and god in heaven at the same time?

These problems can be resolved to our satisfaction if we have the nerve to stand up and say, "This doesn't make sense!" Clarify god as you wish, then prepare to be crucified.

As for the other gods -- the ones we know nothing about and didn't create -- I agree with you 100%. There is nothing we can say about them because we know nothing about them. — Bitter Crank

Thanks BC for the insights. That added much to the discussion. (Y) Who said "G-d created Man in His image. Man returned the favor."? I googled it to no clear answer. Maybe Twain, GB Shaw, or possibly Rousseau, who lived first. Anyway, i get what you are saying about defining things are are totally beyond our reach, and i agree. It is not necessarily foolish, evil, wrong, misguided etc. to try. But one best not fool themself.

One can imagine prehistoric people's conception of what the moon was. What was probably more critical and important to our ancestors was something along the lines of "what does Miss Moon (or whatever name they had for it!) mean. What is she saying? Why isn't she so large and bright tonight? Probably they completely anthropomorphized the moon and projected their thoughts onto it. But if such practices balanced their lives and culture, then who could object? (In this imagined scenario where I'm projecting my thoughts!). There is truth vs untruth, fact vs fiction. But there is also "what works" vs "what doesn't work". The Taoist ideas of the uncarved block signifying pure potential may be relevant. What can we make of our block? One would be thought quite dull if they said a piece of wood can only be that, or a violin is no different than a block of wood. (btw, fwiw: That is the origin of the term "blockhead". I read it on Wackypedia! ;) or maybe not.)

The "dots" in the Yin/Yang symbol, to me, represent the interbeing and interpenetration of both halves.
They are not enemies or even in competition with each other. The darkest night can have a bright moon. The brighter the sunlight, the darker the shade. It is said that a person can become enlightened by meditating upon the Yin/Yang symbol, fwiw.

As a general comment, I had been quite attracted to ignosticism for a long time because it almost perfectly summed up my irritation with arguments for and against the existence of God, especially those found on the Internet. Despite my profound disagreement with his politics, I found myself in agreement with Chomsky when he says "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Schopenhauer says something similar in his later manuscripts: "As soon as anyone speaks of God, I do not know what he is talking about" (italics his).

Speaking anecdotally, I find that most people tend to employ the word God, whether in ordinary conversation or even in an academic setting, as if it were utterly translucent in meaning. If one were to ask the average person today to define the word "God," certain patterns to their answers might emerge, but one would still be left with as many vague, obscure, and possibly bizarre definitions as there were people whom one asked. As for the patterns that do tend to emerge when people are formally polled, sociologists have summarized them as amounting to a kind of moralistic therapeutic deism, which has very little to do with classical conceptions of God.

I now tend to view ignosticism more as a method than a fixed position with respect to all "God-talk." In other words, it's an invitation to employ and encourage Voltaire's famous dictum to define one's terms before a debate. It might be that some definitions of God are incoherent, but it doesn't follow that because some of them are incoherent, or that because those one has hitherto come across are incoherent, that they are all are incoherent. Moreover, it could be that the charge of incoherency is made to hide an unwillingness or inability to try and understand certain conceptions presented. Difficulty of understanding does not equate to incoherence. Take Schopenhauer on this point, for example. Outside of reading a bit of Augustine and selections from Francisco Suarez, he never made any serious attempt to acquaint himself with the philosopher-theologians associated with classical theism of the ancient and medieval periods. It's one thing to dismiss the muddled beliefs of the masses with respect to God but quite another to ignore how the most philosophically sophisticated theists have conceived of the term, all the while pretending that one's exasperation about the term's apparent meaninglessness applies to all attempts that have been made to explain it.

I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction
— 0 thru 9

I don't find that these terms are any more helpful or less vague than the term God. — Thorongil

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. You covered many aspects that I've been thinking about, but didn't get to in the OP. Such as your approach to ignosticism as a method more than a fixed position. Agree, good point. Because if it were simply another fixed position, it could turn into just be a belief wrestling match with others. A method, a tool of examination, now that is helpful! Just in my own mind, considering this or that belief, some way of even approaching spiritual or religious topics without feeling even more confused. And, as you mentioned, on internet forums it is almost a necessity to explain the terms one uses, and why. I still think attempts to pin down "G-d" are generally counterproductive. But if one can be transparent in their language, realistic in their ambitions, and ready for at least a little skepticism, then perhaps the subject can be carefully broached. Perhaps not unlike the fact that deep sea diving is possible, for example. But only with certain conditions and equipment. All of this is fine-print opinion of course. I definitely would not wish to impinge on someone's right to free speech or religious expression in the least.

About my use of "Divine, Source, etc"- lol! I know! I don't feel comfortable with any of them. I was actually trying to use somewhat vague terms that were still in the ballpark. The word "G-d" to some people might seem referential to a specific religious tradition. Or so it seems to me. Theory is still under construction. What do i know anyway? But one thing i know for sure... the first and second rules of Fight Club are: You Do Not. Talk. About. Fight Club! :D

Now here's a sermon i can't quibble with...

I do too, and I think this is the point of departure for me. I agree that a spiritual experience is a deeply personal matter, and that what you call the "ontological" can get legalistic, or what I would call dogmatic. But I don't think this problem means we can't try to at least describe the divine, if not define. I almost think the emphasis on spiritual experience being subjective and personal can become a way to avoid having debates on spiritual topics that actually interface with those experiences (rather than just analyze them). In other words, it seems to be a common approach of those who haven't had any spiritual experiences; emphasize the personal nature of the experience so as to avoid the topic or tacitly dismiss it. Which is fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but I think insisting on the personal nature of the experience can ultimately lead to an idealism that robs the experience of value. Experiences, even personal ones, have value within a social context. "Keep your religion to yourself", while well intentioned, isn't actually how spiritual experiences play out in real life. It's a pesky fact, but it's true.

In fact, most open discussions I've had with people, on or offline about spiritual experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, and usually leave me more with a feeling of solidarity, rather than disagreement, even if they come from different perspectives of faith, or lack thereof. But these are spiritual discussions, not philosophical ones. It makes me wonder what types of discussions are actually worth having. — Noble Dust

Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. :) I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. And i agree with much of what you say here. Dogmatism as you suggest is a good word to describe the hazard. Certainty is attractive, maybe it is even a human need. I think we need a core belief(s) to build on, or at least to refer to. And i tried to emphasize that i value experiences of a spiritual and/or religious nature. Definitely not intentionally dismissing, denying, or downgrading them. Many people have had enlightenment-type meditation events or near-death experiences. I am in no professional position to judge those, nor do i necessarily agree with those that say that it is all the result of neurotransmitters or something. And like it is suggested in the OP... who am i to say with any certainty that someone's experience either is or is not meaningful, transcendent, supernatural, or even miraculous? Entirely possible, and i'm secretly hoping for it to be true, or at the very least possible. After the experience, what to make of it? Maybe one could visualize a little Zen master saying "you just had a powerful spiritual experience? I believe you. Thank you for telling me. (bows) Best now to continue with your meditation." At least this type of thinking seems to help me integrate the "spiritual realm" with the rest of my life and being. YMMV. The work of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Carolyn Myss, Ken Wilber, Thomas Moore (Care of the Soul), and others, has been most helpful personally. And transpersonally (hee hee).

The problem is that spirit is "living", in the sense that it's closer to the chest than analysis. A spiritual experience is often something that seems to not be bound by linear time, and, by definition then, also extremely fleeting. We would think something that breaks linear time would feel "timeless", which we associate with "eternity", or something being endless, but the reality is that by the very nature of our experience of time, anything that challenges our perception of time (within experience) is by nature something fleeting. This often leads us to question the validity of the experience, especially with skeptics on the right and the left.

So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust

Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain.

In the OP, i made mention that boldly defining the ultimate reality is a risky venture, and could possibly border on irreverence when expressed in religious terms. When expressed in philosophical terms even, it risks miscalculation, exaggeration, and potentially hubris. This could all be unintended. An objective and fair critique by a knowledgeable other may possibly be helpful. They may have relevant insight, or perhaps not. They may be simply trying to "tear down one's playhouse" (so to speak). Or instead, they may be acting like a female bird, pulling and tugging at the nest that the male bird has built. Not in wanton destruction, but to verify its usefulness as a nest. (If that is a relevant metaphor). This being a forum dedicated to philosophy, that is to be expected. Spirituality/religious themes may not be on their "home court", but have something to offer the discussion, imho.

Hoping there is some sense in my 2 cents worth. (Y)

Lol! Yes, there have been a number of recent threads on religious beliefs or the lack thereof. This started as a response to one, but mutated. Maybe it is because of what has going on with world events. Anyway, this point of view has been creeping up on me for a while, and it was helpful to just get it down on paper. And what I wrote in the OP could apply to non-spiritual and purely philosophical experiences, thoughts, and statements. But that could be taken for a given. Philosophy ideally has a rigor, a method of critique that is difficult to apply to spiritual statements. Not that i wish to play at being censor or thought police. Just hope that it could facilitate those type of discussions so they don't end in an impasse. I might edit to make it clearer. Anyway, thanks!

Why is Hume so hot right now?

Cause it's almost summer? Maybe he likes to vacation in tropical locales? Despite being long gone, Hume is fumin'! There's nothing he Kant do. Just surprised Bill Russell and Lou Rawls didn't score higher. :D

I'll agree with the others. Is daytime or night evil? Summer or winter? Male or female? Of course not. I believe it was Zarathustra who by legend came up with the first good/evil duality. Could be wrong. But of course poor mysterious quiet beautiful dark Yin usually gets saddled with the "evil" label, to the detriment of all. To the extent a culture avoids this error, they live in a harmonious balance of the cosmic energies. Or so i most sincerely believe, having unfortunately never seen such a society.

With all due respect... would you two mind taking your verbal wrestling contest elsewhere please? Making this thread sad and depressing to read is unfortunately not an example of "Depression and Philosophy". Thank you.

Thanks very much for your very insightful look into the way current "philosophy" may be unintentionally shooting itself in the foot. Agree that philosophical endeavors are best when in harmony with science, while avoiding evangelical scientism, as you imply. The ivory tower may have an ocean view, but it is a dead end. One wonders if Philosophy has been guided away by the powers-that-be from the more provocative, questioning pursuits that Socrates excelled at, to safer academic topics. Or so one could wonder when in full conspiracy-theory mode. ;)

As for a possible meaning of the future... it seems so mercurial and unformed, like wet cement. I'm still trying to understand my own past, let alone a collective future. Not that it is a fruitless exercise. Though the fruit one finds would be unripened. If one were able to peer above the walls of duality, then past/present/future might not seem so separate.

The conclusion of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael offers a possible hopeful future in which humans allow evolution to continue. But only if "civilized" humans cease their complete conquest of the world, turning everything into human consumables. Wiping out anything and anyone that gets in the way of total domination, and fueling both unlimited population growth and pollution, which is contrary to the Earth's ability to handle. But Quinn says it more elegantly than i could, peering into the prehistoric past as well as our possible future. The future is a seedling or a sprout, which could either be trampled or tended.

Sure the past occurred before present chronologically but my point of view is in the present, in the flow of time, and from that POV what has occurred I call the past, what is yet to occur I call the future. — Cavacava

:D Think i might know what you are getting at here, having had a similar thought before. That time can be thought to flow in two ways. First, is a linear, progressive type. Imagine Past, Present, and Future in a consecutive row. This could be visualized as the years 1920, 2017, 2100, for example. The direction of the flow of time is from left to right. It was the year 1920, 1921... to the present 2017... eventually reaching 2100, assuming humans don't completely screw up the planet. Unless there is a clever dolphin around to read a Timex watch that is still ticking despite everything being flooded.

The second way to view time is a "energy flow" type way, going right to left. Time "flows" from the future to the present to the past, if viewed in a certain way. For example, when you are in a car, and see a billboard in the distance which could represent the future. It is heading towards you, or so it appears because you are heading towards it. When the billboard is next to you, it is in your presence or "present". And when you have sped past it, and can only see it in your rear view mirror, it is in your "past" so to speak.

Either way, time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin', into the future. Where does the time go? Maybe it just goes back to wherever it came from. What this has to do with the OP, i am not sure. Just a minor tangent. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

It is actually telling that you mentioned Thoreau. Well over a decade ago now when I was young... — TimeLine

Wow. Thank you very much for the insightful and helpful post, both personal and transpersonal at the same time. Much there to ponder. It added much to this discussion, and to the forum, imho. Well done. (Y) (L)

This is Jacques Fresco. One of my personal heros. He just died about 10 days ago. At 101 years old. How did he make it to that age? Because he worked. And worked. And used his mind and body, and didn't let them go to waste. — Agustino

Hadn't heard that Jacques had passed. Sad to hear that. Though what more could one ask from him after 101 years? Rest in Peace/Vacation in Paradise!

This is a very clear characterisation that immediately suggests to me a way of understanding depression in terms of an active response to an intolerable and inescapable situation. One creates a dissociated identity as a refuge to preserve oneself from an overwhelming world. 'I' take refuge in the safety of an inner world that cannot be touched by the outer world, only to discover that I have become isolated and cannot in turn touch the world. And from there, one can see at once that there is no help for this dissociated self, either from itself or from the other in the outer world, and the only solution is for it to die.

Fortunately, this psychological death can be accomplished without physical death; indeed physical death does not do it at all. The inner self cannot by any means reach the outer world, but the inner self can end, and then one finds one is already in and part of the outer world. This is a terrifying prospect, to become, as one once was, completely vulnerable to the world, and this terror is what makes it seem impossible. — unenlightened

Yes, amen, and thank you. Same for the poem you posted afterwards. (Y)

Thank you very much. Your complement is appreciated, and your appreciation is complemented! Truly glad you found it helpful. (Y)
Trying to come up with a list of things that helped me either pull out of the depression or stay out of it:

"Good" nutrition (whatever that may be for a particular individual at a given time): Omega-3 fats (instead of trans-fats, which happily are being used less), phyto-chemicals, the essential vitamins and minerals, not too many carbohydrates especially HF corn syrup, fresh fruits/veggies, organic foods whenever possible.

Herbs: straddles the border between food and medicine. This would take some research and experimentation to find what may help you. Like medicines, herbs have an optimal dosage and side effects. But there are many GRAS (generally recognized as safe) herbs that may have a positive effect. Lavender, kava kava, ginseng, valerian, tumeric, rosemary, pau d'arco, and garlic are just a few that i find helpful.

A solid sleep schedule: this one like nutrition is easier said than done, but it has a powerful effect on the mind and body. That effect can either be positive or negative, depending. As mentioned above, melatonin supplements help me though that may not be true for all. Melatonin helped make working at night possible because it helped me sleep during the day. But being mindful of the serotonin/melatonin yin/yang circadian rhythm is crucial. Getting enough sleep for your needs at a given time. Maybe it is 6 hours one day and 9 the next. And for serotonin boosting, getting exposure to bright light or sun upon waking. Exercise boosts serotonin. Coffee helps too, imho.

Vocalizing (for lack of a better word!): Letting the feelings out through sound, basically. Talking it out. Even talking to yourself helps and can be very cathartic, bringing some insight and relief. Probably better to do that where no one else can hear, unless they are understanding of the situation. Engaging in "primal scream" therapy while driving seems a little risky and might lead to road rage. But letting out feelings in the relative privacy of your car is not uncommon. Moaning and groaning in private can be expressive and therapeutic. A sustained moan can sound like Ommmm. Perhaps they are similar, but just different vibrations. I think the voice is our primal "instrument", but other musical devices can express our deepest feelings.

Blessing: bless everybody and everything, continuously under all circumstances. Better yet- bow to all.
This starts with and includes yourself! This doesn't mean one likes, approves of, understands, agrees with, or enjoys everything, of course. That is not possible. Blessing establishes one's kinship with all people, all beings, even all things and conditions. And it opens the heart chakra, allowing the primal energy to flow upward to our mind and spirit. Even a partially closed heart is a gridlock and a bottleneck of static energy.

Other helpful things: yoga (of which hatha yoga is but the tip of the iceberg); the Tao Te Ching, Gospels, or other books of wisdom; binaural sound therapy (two slightly different frequencies listened to in each ear through headphones); drawing, doodling and painting; using a low-voltage zapper (as developed by Hulda Clark and others); exercise, detoxing and sweating; meditation and deep breathing. Sure that there are many others.

Please everyone, let us know what helps you! Thanks very much for reading. (L)

The talk about 'mood' I was quoting from elsewhere, in work by Matthew Ratcliffe, doesn't take things lightly. It's about 'deep mood' which he distinguishes from everyday talk about mood..

Such a 'deep mood' is our very way of being in the world. In this sense I (think I) completely agree with the outlook of Noble Dust. (Philosophically my phrasing comes from Heidegger, but he thought our deep mood was 'angst', an odd formulation) To the clinician a report of 'depression' may be a 'malady', a 'mood disorder', and perhaps they are bound to look at it that way, given that people come to them saying, This is how I am, what can you do for me? - But to the person concerned it may be the way the world is.

Then, for me, it's up to the person concerned whether they address how they're feeling as a 'malady' -because they wish they could feel better about things - or as a 'way the world is'. (The melancholy exception would be if they seem to stop being able to function as a human being, or express suicidal thoughts that another person.)

The value of a cbt-type approach, if the person decides to try out the 'malady' angle, is that cbt is based on a modern-day version of Stoicism which, as I understand it, tries to enable you to cordon off for yourself zones in which you can still enjoy or at least feel rewarded by life, instead of being consumed by the darkness of your feelings about life and the world. I confess I've tried it without success, and the evidence is only of short-term benefit, but it definitely benefits some people. — mcdoodle

Thanks for the reply. (Y) I completely agree with the context in which you used the word "mood". That is the way to give it the gravitas it deserves. Well done! Just wanted to distinguish that from the dismissive attitude of some well-meaning bystander: "oh, you are just in a passing blue mood. No big deal, just push harder. Onward soldier!" Thank you for the eloquent distinction between the two.

Some more random thoughts on this subject...
Calling it a "mood" seems like it is being shrugged off or taken too lightly. I don't get the impression that anyone here is not taking this subject seriously. Not quite sure how to define "depression", but of course it is a life or death issue, or at least can turn into one very quickly. Calling it a "disorder" is fine, though it seems to make it inevitable to see a doctor/take medications (which seems to be a package deal). But if someone is feeling trapped, they probably best seriously consider seeing a professional.

At least, one could have the experience and judge for themselves how helpful it was. I was on a few psych meds long ago. In my case, they didn't seem to be helpful and maybe causing new problems. So i wanted to get off the meds. Fair enough. But being a impulsive teenager at the time, i just went cold turkey and stopped taking everything instantly. For those unfamiliar, that is a very very dangerous thing to do. Luckily, no one was hurt by my reckless if well-intentioned action.

A large aspect of my particular depression was intertwined with a sleep disorder called delayed phase disorder (basically staying up all night, then crashing in the morning). Honestly don't know which came first, the depression or the sleep disorder. Either way, it was a feedback loop. So i tried melatonin as a sleep aid, and very soon the depressive symptoms waned. Now melatonin is a powerful synthetic brain hormone. So it should be taken seriously and carefully, even though it available in the USA over the counter. Serious research on this supplement and how it could interact with medications would be advised. But i just wanted to mention that it made my life bearable again, and eventually even enjoyable. Other things helped too, like eating fresh fruits and vegetables. This is only my experience. Your smilage may vary!

Jobs as paperweights have been automated out of existence. — Bitter Crank

Completely agree with that, with the possible exception of politicians. Until they too are replaced by machines. Oh wait... that sounds even worse, like a Philip K. Dick story. ;)