|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| It is rooted then in vulnerability and impotence? Then an omnipotent god is a compensation and reveals more about our psychology than any ontological reality? |
Kuros Wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think that we can come to other conclusions than simply that. To say that human beings are weak because they feel frail in the full understanding of their mortality would be more than ungenerous. What separates man from the animals is his consciousness of his mortality. |
This explicit awareness of death does make man distinct. This fear in itself gives great insight into the desire that there be a god, but also in every attribute of him.
Take for example omniscience. Our desire for knowledge, for understanding of efficient cause, has a necessary relationship with death and the desire to control both it and the pain and suffering which also implies death.
That we have insufficient control of our environment leads to a desire for control by knowledge. From this emerges--for complex and multiple reasons--an image of an omniscient being who knows in all possible ways: the whys, the hows, and, ultimately, the what fors.
That we are mortal has set us to project tasks in order to eat, survive, etc. We project reasons and goals for the task of survival. This psychological mode of organizing our world has ultimately resulted in a final projection, an ultimate "what for."
But, this is a misapplication of the mode of consciousness.
Yet, the desire to know this categorically unknown and final cause has also been attributed to god. That is, what we wish we could know is given to him as a knower. He knows, has control, and hence alleviates our anxiety of the ultimate unknown: death.
God represents our anxiety, not an ontological reality.
God is our fantasy of ourselves, who we'd have ourselves be, who is at once used as a causal explanation.
That is, he is both the result of our existential ignorance and anxiety- which manifests as desire and fantasy- and also the explanation for that of which he is a consequence: Mortal Being.
I'll come to RTeacher's point when I get a chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| It is rooted then in vulnerability and impotence? Then an omnipotent god is a compensation and reveals more about our psychology than any ontological reality? |
Kuros Wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think that we can come to other conclusions than simply that. To say that human beings are weak because they feel frail in the full understanding of their mortality would be more than ungenerous. What separates man from the animals is his consciousness of his mortality. |
This explicit awareness of death does make man distinct. This fear in itself gives great insight into the desire that there be a god, but also in every attribute of him.
Take for example omniscience. Our desire for knowledge, for understanding of efficient cause, has a necessary relationship with death and the desire to control both it and the pain and suffering which also implies death.
That we have insufficient control of our environment leads to a desire for control by knowledge. From this emerges--for complex and multiple reasons--an image of an omniscient being who knows in all possible ways: the whys, the hows, and, ultimately, the what fors.
That we are mortal has set us to project tasks in order to eat, survive, etc. We project reasons and goals for the task of survival. This psychological mode of organizing our world has ultimately resulted in a final projection, an ultimate "what for." |
Alright, let's hold off on the truth as to whether God actually exists or not. I want to focus on that statement that I have bolded.
A final cause, an ultimate "what for," need only be imagined to be significant. For example, if I designate as my "what for" the responsibility of raising my children to be excellent men and women, then it is thereby my "what for." Although I could fail in this endeavour, there is nobody who could deny that it would be an actual endeavour, unless they could attack its sincerity.
| Nietzsche wrote: |
| There is no moral phenomena; only a moral interpretation of natural phenomena. |
One philosopher whom I would term a reductionist would be Marx. Marx admired Hegel's opus, but thought it would be more accurate to take his Phenomenology of Spirit and 'turn it on its head', and reduce the study of ideological phenomenology to materialist factors. Marx's view was revolutionary: henceforth, in the humanities, only material factors were to be considered as real factors.
But I reject the reductionist view. I am completely comfortable with saying that ideas do move the world; for example, Marx's idea certainly has had an impact.
Alright, now I return to the possible existence of God. God is something beyond material causes, to be sure. He/It is a moral phenomenon, I would say. Therefore, conceiving of a God is a recognition of God's existence. You say that because God is conceived should lead us to doubt His existence. I say that because God is conceived should show that God exists.
| Nieztsche's Zarathustra wrote: |
| God is dead. |
That's a very different statement from saying 'God never existed to begin with.'
Ideas are phantoms. Should we cast them away simply because they are ghosts? Or should we reduce them to neurons firing according to the dictates of DNA strands? I am not a reductionist. And although dissections can be interesting and useful, dissections can only aid in serving the "what for." [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I say that because God is conceived should show that God exists. |
Does that go for dragons too? I'm happy if that goes for dragons too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros Wrote:
| Quote: |
| A final cause, an ultimate "what for," need only be imagined to be significant. |
I could not agree more. That is why this is such an important topic. There is a major causal relationship between the idea of god and the way the world moves.
| Quote: |
| For example, if I designate as my "what for" the responsibility of raising my children to be excellent men and women, then it is thereby my "what for." |
Right. But to expand your final cause as an explanation for categorically different natural phenomenae is an inappropriate extension of an otherwise perfectly sane final cause, you would no doubt agree. Likewise, attributing intention to the fall of an object is likewise absurd.
Did not Aristotle make a similar mistake? Did he not say that objects accelerated as they fell because they were happy to be getting home? Maybe my memory fails me. If so, I would not ascribe a final cause to that phenomenon.
| Quote: |
| Although I could fail in this endeavour, there is nobody who could deny that it would be an actual endeavour, unless they could attack its sincerity. |
It would be actual, and a cause by which you could organize your personal intentions, I agree.
| Quote: |
| . . .only material factors were to be considered as real factors. |
Material is certainly a slippery concept. As Berkeley pointed out, material is only an idea. Still, it is a powerful idea, loaded with connotation, and hence too quickly dismissed. We habitually dismiss it without properly examining it. The movement of history, the construction of many ideas for which people found motivation, can be understood far more clearly by employing the concept.
| Quote: |
| But I reject the reductionist view. I am completely comfortable with saying that ideas do move the world; for example, Marx's idea certainly has had an impact. |
Ideas move the world, but we are motivated by material conditions: ie, the body, the mortal condition. Ideas are a consequence of the primal reality of materiality, just as god is. A thorough examination of what the body is will help us to understand the evolution of god. Out of material conditions has come god.
| Quote: |
| God is something beyond material causes, to be sure. He/It is a moral phenomenon, I would say. |
Morality can make no sense without understanding what the body is, how it is mortal, and the material conditions to which it is subject. Ideas don't kill people, suicide bombers do.
| Quote: |
| Therefore, conceiving of a God is a recognition of God's existence. |
God indeed exists; he is a suicide bomber. 
| Quote: |
| You say that because God is conceived should lead us to doubt His existence. I say that because God is conceived should show that God exists. |
This runs dangerously close to saying that unicorns also exist ontologically.
Secondly, that is a mischaracterization of my position. I say, owing to the material conditions in which the mind evolved, an image emerged with real consequence.
| Quote: |
| Nieztsche's Zarathustra wrote: |
| God is dead. |
That's a very different statement from saying 'God never existed to begin with.' |
Yes. It is a far more dramatic sentence, has more artistic merit, expresses they psychological reality of the age.
| Quote: |
| Ideas are phantoms. Should we cast them away simply because they are ghosts? Or should we reduce them to neurons firing according to the dictates of DNA strands? |
No, we shouldn't. But we shouldn't reduce DNA, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I say that because God is conceived should show that God exists. |
Does that go for dragons too? I'm happy if that goes for dragons too. |
No, it doesn't go for dragons. Unless a dragon is a final cause. Which, as I understand it, a dragon is a mythical being. Therefore, it is not a final cause or a "what for."
| Quote: |
Quote:
For example, if I designate as my "what for" the responsibility of raising my children to be excellent men and women, then it is thereby my "what for."
Right. But to expand your final cause as an explanation for categorically different natural phenomenae is an inappropriate extension of an otherwise perfectly sane final cause, you would no doubt agree. Likewise, attributing intention to the fall of an object is likewise absurd.
Did not Aristotle make a similar mistake? Did he not say that objects accelerated as they fell because they were happy to be getting home? Maybe my memory fails me. If so, I would not ascribe a final cause to that phenomenon. |
The Aristotle example is apples and oranges. According to what you claim Aristotle said (and I don't remember him saying this, which book was it?), he is ascribing a final cause to a natural body. I am ascribing a final cause to a human being's purpose.
I agree that we shouldn't ascribe natural motions to God. We should not say 'God wanted New Orleans to suffer, so he made it so.' This is ignorance. Please note that I am confining this example of conceiving of God to God's existence. I have stated elsewhere that it is impossible to speak of God's characteristics positively. One must be apophatic when relating aspects to God.
| Quote: |
| Ideas don't kill people, suicide bombers do. |
Right. But why do suicide bombers kill people? The scientist answers: because he detonated an explosive device. The theologian answers: because he worshipped his own will as an idol instead of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apophatic reasoning is in accord with Platonic thought, where it is held that we can only say what is not The Good. The "Not Good" are the shadows, but to look directly at the Sun. . .
Still, this assumes it exists in the first place. That I see a shadow does not necessarily imply the Sun. Could be a candle.
But, the Sun can be verified by observation. God cannot. We see only shadows . . . experience love and hate . . . are not good logicians to say that therefore god exists.
Shcool's out. . .gotta run. . . good debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I say that because God is conceived should show that God exists. |
Does that go for dragons too? I'm happy if that goes for dragons too. |
No, it doesn't go for dragons. Unless a dragon is a final cause. Which, as I understand it, a dragon is a mythical being. Therefore, it is not a final cause or a "what for." |
Well if I can't have my dragons I'm off! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
| Um . . . . you have just contradicted yourself (again), by supporting (perhaps inadvertently) that you can either be A.) atheist and not B.) anti-theist, or vice versa. I don't see how I could be wrong when your objections somewhat seems to be supporting my observations. And this is all the explanation I get? |
I didn't contradict myself again because I didn't contradict myself to begin with.
Please express your ideas and objections more lucidly.
| Merkurix wrote: |
This is so not a satisfactory answer to the question I originally asked. You keep saying how I am incorrect, but without explaining the 'how' part. Why? |
Your original assertion about antitheists ("An atheist doesn't believe in God, very simply perhaps because the concept hasn't been satisfactorily proven to him/her through tangible, empirical, and objective means. Period. There is no additional expenditure of energy required to be in this condition. An "anti-theist" on the other hand, it one who like the fervent Bible Christian, expends a considerable amount of time and energy developing, strengthening, educating, and training themselves to continue being atheists") was conjecture, fantasy and an attempt to be derogatory towards anti-theists by making them appear similar to fundamentalists Christians. It was and still is false because I can think of no examples of anti-theists who fit this description.
| Merkurix wrote: |
| You are the only one in the presumably large group of atheist/anti-theist posters who objects to my observation. But because the detail I ask for is "unimportant and benign" can I expect to still get an adequate explanation/rationale why I am still wrong? |
An atheist is one who lacks subscription to theism. An anti-theist is one who opposes theism or theists or both. I am an anti-theist (a fact) and an atheist (your opinion - not mine, since I described phemomena I feel support a conception of theism and am only an atheist with respect to Christians, Jews, Muslims and other theisms, not theism per se necessarily and was careful to make this distinction previously). That you believe me to be an atheist and an anti-theist is neither here nor there, (a) because it has nothing whatsoever in the way of relation, let alone support, for your obsevation about anti-theists (above in red), (b) because it's not at all contradictory.
I oppose theism (as in the theism of the world religions). Intellectually superior arguments for theism, such as those of Berkeley or Einstein, I'm happy to look at and actually support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| merkurix wrote: |
| Um . . . . you have just contradicted yourself (again), by supporting (perhaps inadvertently) that you can either be A.) atheist and not B.) anti-theist, or vice versa. I don't see how I could be wrong when your objections somewhat seems to be supporting my observations. And this is all the explanation I get? |
I didn't contradict myself again because I didn't contradict myself to begin with.
Please express your ideas and objections more lucidly. |
I have been asking the same of you from the minute you said I was wrong.
[quote="Justin Hale"]
| Merkurix wrote: |
| This is so not a satisfactory answer to the question I originally asked. You keep saying how I am incorrect, but without explaining the 'how' part. Why? |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Your original assertion about antitheists ("An atheist doesn't believe in God, very simply perhaps because the concept hasn't been satisfactorily proven to him/her through tangible, empirical, and objective means. Period. There is no additional expenditure of energy required to be in this condition. An "anti-theist" on the other hand, it one who like the fervent Bible Christian, expends a considerable amount of time and energy developing, strengthening, educating, and training themselves to continue being atheists") was conjecture, fantasy and an attempt to be derogatory towards anti-theists by making them appear similar to fundamentalists Christians. |
Now you seem to be getting unnecessarily defensive. I made no attempt to be derogatory toward you per se. You are correct in my assumption that there are atheists who are no different than Christian fundamentalists. There are good Christians. There are Christian nutters who know the KJV Bible by heart and try to self-righteously judge other people by telling them how they will go to Hell in a handbasket. Alternately there are good atheists. And there are atheist nutters who beat Dawkins over people's heads and are sometimes maliciously dismissive of theists. I am not wrong. I absolutely stand by this assertion regardless of what you believe. There are atheists who are similar in their convictions about their beliefs (or non-beliefs) just as Christian fundamentalists are. So your notion that my assertion makes atheists look like fundamentalists is accurate. But this only applies to some atheists. If it seemed like I was generalizing, I didn't mean to paint atheists with a broad brush. You can continue to repeatedly state how wrong I am. But I stand by what I say. You are the only one who objects.
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| It was and still is false because I can think of no examples of anti-theists who fit this description. |
Umm . . . sorry, this is not good enough evidence; I cannot accept this cop-out answer. Just because you can't think of anyone personally who fits this description isn't really going to invalidate my statement. If you need examples, just look at many of the past obnoxious posters from the past and in the evolutions thread. You have obnoxiousness on both sides of the debate though. You will probably disagree though, I am not going to ask why anymore.
| Merkurix wrote: |
| You are the only one in the presumably large group of atheist/anti-theist posters who objects to my observation. But because the detail I ask for is "unimportant and benign" can I expect to still get an adequate explanation/rationale why I am still wrong? |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| An atheist is one who lacks subscription to theism. An anti-theist is one who opposes theism or theists or both. I am an anti-theist (a fact) and an atheist (your opinion - not mine, since I described phemomena I feel support a conception of theism and am only an atheist with respect to Christians, Jews, Muslims and other theisms, not theism per se necessarily and was careful to make this distinction previously). That you believe me to be an atheist and an anti-theist is neither here nor there, (a) because it has nothing whatsoever in the way of relation, let alone support, for your obsevation about anti-theists (above in red), (b) because it's not at all contradictory. |
I never asserted that being atheist or anti-theist was contradictory. You are an anti-theist (a self asserted fact given by you) but an atheist according to my opinion? You've really lost me now. I fear this is turning into a debate, (which I am really trying to avoid; I really need to stay out of these types of threads), so peace out everyone. I'm out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| God is forgiving (#25) |
The only way you could establish this as being a non-mortal quality would be to establish that love is not an emotion.
All emotions are a consequence of the mortal body.
I have tried to think of love as being immortal, as something other than emotion, and I cannot find any reason to believe it is so. Love has everything to do with being mortal. Perhaps it is more beautiful therefore.
To forgive someone authentically must involve love at some level; otherwise, there is some instrumentality involved, some utility. This also leads to mortal qualities.
Since to forgive authentically necessarily involves love, and since love is a consequence of our mortality, to attribute to god forgiveness is to attribute a mortal quality to a so-called immortal being. Therefore, it is a contradiction.
If you choose to quote more doctrine to counter this, please limit the length. I've learned to skip the long passages you paste here. Besides, I'm more interested in what you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that you're making a basic false assumption.
The fundamental property of life is not the mortal body or any material interactions - it's consciousness, which is non-material (and just as immortal as God.)
As individual (jiva) souls, separated parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality, we all possess most of the attributes of God to a minute degree.
Whereas there are limits to our forgiving nature, God manifests the quality of forgiveness unlimitedly.
When Krishna appeared on this planet (some 50 centuries ago) He granted a form of liberation - merging into His divine effulgence - even to demonic mystic yogis who tried to kill Him.
God is interested in reciprocating with each of us eternally on the platform of pure love, but our contaminated consciousness impels us to repose our love on fleeting relations under the bodily concept of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an example of proselytizing from the other side:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/06/04/cathedral.sex/index.html
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- A man and a woman have been charged by police in Italy after they were found having sex in a confessional, it was reported Wednesday.
The Catholic World News said the young man and woman were taken into custody by police in the northern city of Cesena following a telephone complaint from a man attending morning Mass in the city's cathedral.
The pair -- a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher -- defended their conduct saying: "We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple's behavior was blasphemous and offensive, showing "a complete lack of respect" for the sacred and for their Catholic neighbors.
He added that a special Mass, or Mass of Reparation, to restore the cathedral's purity would follow. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RTeacher wrote:
| Quote: |
I think that you're making a basic false assumption.
The fundamental property of life is not the mortal body or any material interactions - it's consciousness, which is non-material (and just as immortal as God.) |
Look at emotions. They can make no sense without the concept of death. All emotions stem from death. The body dies. Emotions are of the body. Love is an emotion. Love is of the body. Love is mortal.
How can it be otherwise?
| Quote: |
| As individual (jiva) souls, separated parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality, we all possess most of the attributes of God to a minute degree. |
This is mere assertion. Why should I believe it? Asserting it does not convince me. Nor am I going to become a monk to affirm that which does not compel me to move.
| Quote: |
| Whereas there are limits to our forgiving nature, God manifests the quality of forgiveness unlimitedly. |
Since love is mortal, forgiveness too. Unlimited love is an absurd concept, can make no sense, is romatic sentiment, is a wish. Sounds nice, but Truth is more important to me than comfort. There is too much pain which ultimately follows from ignorance. Only correct assumptions can give us the correct knowledge by which we may heal the sufferring.
| Quote: |
| When Krishna appeared on this planet (some 50 centuries ago) He granted a form of liberation - merging into His divine effulgence - even to demonic mystic yogis who tried to kill Him. |
Evidence?
| Quote: |
| God is interested in reciprocating with each of us eternally on the platform of pure love, but our contaminated consciousness impels us to repose our love on fleeting relations under the bodily concept of life. |
What can this possibly mean? More fancy. Only if I were to believe, then I'd experience god's love? This is unfalsifiable since you can eternally say, "You only did not believe. Your consciousness is just not pure enough yet." Meanwhile, real people suffer in fact. I haven't time to make my so-called non-material soul pure enough for god's love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Materialistic scientists and speculative impersonalist philosophers can never arrive at conclusive truth regarding total reality.
The architecture of our own reasoning has to be understood properly before we can understand how our knowledge or consciousness is creating or representing the universe to us. According to particular knowledge of the universe, the universe is different for different individuals.
Past civilizations have had different conceptions of the universe.
The universe hasn't essentially changed over all these years, but our knowledge is changing. Previously they understood that God created the universe, now they think that it's an explosion. It is all based upon how we understand things.
What's the proper understanding of ultimate reality? If we understand everything relatively, based on our changing mental speculations, then we can never arrive at perfect truth.
To correct this defect of imperfect knowledge we need to accept the absolute authority of veda that's coming from the infinitely intelligent source of everything.
The Absolute Truth - is completely free from the material defects and limitations that beset even the greatest scientists.
Every human has imperfect senses and the tendency to become illusioned, make mistakes, and cheat.
Krishna's senses are transcendental, and He can expand as innumerable transcendental forms in multiple dimensions simultaneously (while maintaining His original form.)
Real love has no limitation; real beauty is always increasing.
Krishna's loving pleasure pastimes are never-ending, and He displayed them on Earth 5000 years ago in order to attract conditioned souls back to the Spiritual Sky.
Being born in India is considered the highest spiritual birth because Krishna's pastimes are still remembered and celebrated. Knowing them by heart is said (by learned sages) to be a ticket back to the transcendental realm.
Since ancient times, there have always been atheists and impersonalists who have derided the idea of a sentient Absolute Being appearing in human-like form.
Typically, they use flowery language and word jugglery - and in modern times they often seek out wealthy patrons who like to have a trendy guru around - like an exotic pet.
A real guru delivers the original Vedic message coming from the Absolute Person. Since he's not materially motivated, he requires disciples to strictly follow regulative principles, including no intoxicants, meat-eating, illicit sex, or gambling.
That's like a doctor prescribing a restricted diet for a diseased person - along with the proper medicine.
Like the Supreme Lord (that we are each a particle of) our basic nature is to enjoy forever. However, our existence in the material world represents a diseased condition for us in that our spirit-soul is entangled in matter subject to death (and other miserable conditions).
Real love entails giving real liberation from all material inebrieties. Out of love and compassion the Supreme Lord has given the Vedas (and other revealed scriptures) and has sent spiritual emmissaries like Jesus (and many others) to canvas fallen conditioned souls to go back to our real home (that's completely free of birth, death, disease, and old age).
The only medicine (prescribed by spiritual authorities) that's suitably effective for this age of rampant materialism is individual and congregational chanting of transcendental names of God.
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
