So what then? Where do we go from here? It seems the philosopher should make a clear minded decision as to what their priority really is. Is it doing philosophy? Or is it in exploring and perhaps meeting the fundamental human need which is fueling interest in God topics? — Jake

Jake - thanks the thoughts. I think the natural tension between philosophy and theology is a good thing. This tension allows us to continually test where the boundary is. This is good as long as the objective is truth. I just rarely think that is the objective, the objective in most discussions I have been apart of has been winning. The problem isn't good philosophy or good theology, shocker - the problem is people.

Like any good craftsman we need to make sure we are using the right tool for the job.

I understand your point. Maybe my idea can be clearer if I take out God, and use some other faith based claim.

Let's say I make a claim that by faith alone I believe the world is flat. And I go to extraordinary effort to develop some reasoned argument in support of that claim to convince round earthers of their error and convert them to my faith based truth

It is the place of philosophy, and science to point out the error of this faith belief. To show this belief is in fact in conflict with fact and reason.

Yes, but that doesn't work if the person describing the world as flat then says "I don't mean 'world' in the sense you're testing, and I don't mean 'flat' in the sense you're looking at your 'world' to see.

He'd be perfectly entitled to do so, 'world' and 'flat' might mean something quite different in the language game in which he made the claim "the world is flat" to their meaning in the language game of the scientist who reports "the world is round".

If he claims, within the same language game as the scientist is playing "the world is flat" then the scientist could well reply "no, you're misusing the word 'flat' there". But the theist is not making the faith-based claim "God exists" within the same language game as the scientist claims the existence of something. The word 'exist' just doesn't mean the same thing in both games so to treat it as if it does gets us into a mess.

That is the point of philosophy, to dismantle these very confusions.

Jake - thanks the thoughts. — Rank Amateur

And thanks for the thread.

I think the natural tension between philosophy and theology is a good thing. — Rank Amateur

Sure, agreed. But, to be clear, that's not what I'm referring to in my comments. Personally, I'm referring to the tension between experience, and interpretations of experience.

To put it in your language (and with apologies that I've already said this) the Apostle John said "God is love". Love is an experience, not a philosophy or theology about experience. John's statement that love=god is of course a theology, but I forgive him for that sin :smile: because he boiled the theology down to three simple words, at least in this particular case. Three simple words which get directly to the point. If we're going to do theology that seems like a model that has merit.

This tension allows us to continually test where the boundary is. This is good as long as the objective is truth. — Rank Amateur

Ok, but what is truth? Philosophers and theologians typically see "truth" as being ideas about reality, a collection of symbols whose relative merits can be examined. Conversations like this one typically take place within the model which asks, "which collection of symbols are the best?"

From my perspective, all symbols are made of thought, an information medium which operates by a process of division. So if the task at hand is an attempt to somehow transcend the experience of separation which is at the heart of the human experience, to reach for unity with reality and each other, it seems unlikely that a symbol building activity built upon a process of division would be the logical tool to choose.

That is, I'm proposing that no collection of symbols can be "the truth", just as a highway sign isn't the town it is pointing to. If true, then what we're left with is experience.

Speaking to the Catholic perspective, it might be noted that while billions of people will never be able to believe in Jesus no matter how hard they might try, the experience of love is accessible to all human beings in all times and places.

Whether Baptist, Bahá'í, or Baboonism, one can avoid godly discussion with them because you already know that they don't know, can't know, and will never know what they are talking about. — Bitter Crank

Except um, this would also be true of the person (like me for example) claiming that they don't know what they're talking about. If it's true the subject is beyond human ability, that would include all of us, not just "those other people over there".

And so we arrive at not Baboonism, but Bozoism. :smile: Bozoism claims that 1) an overwhelming pile of evidence points to ignorance being our mutually shared condition and 2) mining this abundant asset would be the logical way to proceed.

I did promise myself that I would not get involved in this kind of nonsense, but I just have to ask, what is this method you're referring to for "exploring and perhaps meeting the fundamental human need which is fueling interest in God topics"? — Isaac

For you, and many of our other members, the first step might be this...

Forget about religion. Get over it already and move on. Religion clearly is a tool which doesn't work for many, so if that applies to you, be sensible and put the tool which doesn't work down, and walk away, putting it behind you forever.

PLEASE NOTE: Waving the tool of religion around in the air and claiming it is nonsense is not walking away, it's still being engaged, attached, bound to religion.

I'm being sincere here, not snotty or sarcastic, just to be clear. I'm attempting to escape the typical "our side vs. their side" God debate, because the evidence says to me that's going nowhere.

And so to Rank I would say, if religion is working for you, good, go with that. And to Isaac I'd say, if religion is not working for you, ok no problem, walk away and forget about religion.

Once the ever distracting God debate is swept off the table, perhaps that would be a good time to look at properties of the human condition which give rise to all these topics.

There is literally nothing to say about religion in the language game of a forum like this. — Isaac

Why did religion arise in the first place? That's a discussion about religion which need not either attack or promote religion.

To me, the rational procedure is to identify fundamental human needs and attempt to meet those needs by whatever method works for a person.

Why did religion arise in the first place? — Jake

People are imaginative, curious, intelligent... We like to know what is going on. For the last several hundred years we've been using science (broadly defined) to figure out what is going on. Before we had science (broadly defined) we had myth and mystery -- in other words, religion. Religion was a reasonably capable system to describe at least some of what was going on, in the absence of anything better. Beside religion there was a body of practical knowledge.

We bright, curious, imaginative creatures are also lonely, quite often. We sometimes feel isolated, alone, alienated, cold, wet, and miserable. A warm dry god comes in handy at times like those.

In time, religion became less important as a way of explaining physical reality to prescribing human behavior: what one ought to do, what one should hope for. Religion was capable at directing human affairs, though the priests usually didn't have the stage to themselves. There were also emperors, philosophers, generals, benevolent pisspots, bureaucrats, et al who also wanted stage time to tell us what to do.

Science (broadly defined) doesn't do a very good job of being a warm dry god. More often than not, science is a cold wind that chills us a little deeper. People still turn to their warm dry gods in time of cold, windy, wet despair. Frankly, it makes sense. If one is deep in cold, wet despair, one ought to pull out a warm dry god and wrap one's self up in it.

I think to say "it is likely that he would have reasons for acting that are beyond our ability to understand" destroys the meaning of thinking about his existence and god in general in the first place. As a general statement I would say there is no god but he exists in way. He is the order and the meaning in our universe with no order and no meaning. A religion isnt ment to be proven but the only condition is to believe. I could share tons of personal experiences why believing in god is a good think and i m very sad that I cant but I will also point out to Nietzsche s theory which includes the idea that without religion people fall into extreme ideologies(we can observe it in the current political climate)

In conclusion its impossible to prove gods existence and we should not try it. Besides the harm religion can cause, in the long run it saves many people, we can not judge god and we should not because then we might discover there is no all loving god controlling the universe and we will be forced living in a cruel meaningless universe with no good, no bad.

skeptical theism is not theology, it is a philosophy. It only deals with reason. It is not directly an argument for or against such a thing as God. Although its application can affect such arguments.

All it is saying is, there is no argument based on reason that concludes with; therefore we can say this about the nature of such a thing as God, or what such a thing would do or not do. If one finds this argument compelling, that would say most arguments for or against God that rely on any assumption about the nature of God is unreasonable and should be dismissed from a philosophical point of view.

People are imaginative, curious, intelligent... We like to know what is going on. For the last several hundred years we've been using science (broadly defined) to figure out what is going on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's part of it. Though I must admit I find the comparisons between science and religion which dominate philosophy forums to be overblown. The constant comparison is basically an attempt to declare the acquisition of knowledge to be the "one true way" and then measure everything by that standard.

Imagine that you and I attend the theater together and in the middle of the first act I jump up and yell that this story is totally fictitious and the people on stage aren't real they're just actors!!! Technically, I am correct. But because of my insistence on comparing art to science I've been unable to offer any useful commentary on the value of art.

We sometimes feel isolated, alone, alienated, cold, wet, and miserable. A warm dry god comes in handy at times like those. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and the useful question here is, why do we feel alone? We might shift our focus to trying to better understand the problem which god theories are attempting to address. This seems particularly relevant to those who find they are unable to be involved in religion.

If religion doesn't work for a person I agree they should discard that which isn't working for them. But discarding one possible solution does not in itself solve the problem.

If I'm trying to repair my car and one tool isn't working it makes sense to put that tool down. But the car won't be fixed until I select another tool which does work. Throwing the first tool on the ground in frustration and then ceaselessly yelling at it is not really the most rational way to fix the car.

Science (broadly defined) doesn't do a very good job of being a warm dry god. More often than not, science is a cold wind that chills us a little deeper. — Bitter Crank

Yes, just as religion is lousy science, so far at least science is lousy religion.

All it is saying is, there is no argument based on reason that concludes with; therefore we can say this about the nature of such a thing as God, or what such a thing would do or not do. If one finds this argument compelling, that would say most arguments for or against God that rely on any assumption about the nature of God is unreasonable and should be dismissed from a philosophical point of view. — Rank Amateur

Ok, so once we've dismissed all arguments for or against the existence of God, then what? I agree with your analysis, and would like to see where you envision it leading.

We might recall the Europeans who sailed west hoping to find a shortcut to the Orient. They didn't find what they were seeking, but found something else instead, North America. Instead of saying, "Fuck this, it's not the Orient" and then going home, they explored what they did find and put it to good use.

That's where I see your line of thought leading. We had a huge God debate hoping to find The Answer, but instead discovered a vast realm of ignorance. We don't like what we found, so we keep pretending we found what we were looking for, so the God debate lives on.

Wouldn't be more rational to accept the results of the investigation and then turn our attention to making good use of what's been discovered?

That's where I see your line of thought leading. We had a huge God debate hoping to find The Answer, but instead discovered a vast realm of ignorance. We don't like what we found, so we keep pretending we found what we were looking for, so the God debate lives on. — Jake

Jake - I have seen you make this point, and I have tried to see where you are going with this. Sadly you lose me each time you make the point we should proceed to some other place based on the acknowledgment of what we don't know. Sure this is all my fault

Where I am going with this is just an acknowledgment that most if not all philosophical arguments either for or against God are inherently flawed. So they should stop, and both theists and atheists should acknowledge that each has a position based on faith of some type, and each respect the others right to such beliefs.

Though I must admit I find the comparisons between science and religion which dominate philosophy forums to be overblown. The constant comparison is basically an attempt to declare the acquisition of knowledge to be the "one true way" and then measure everything by that standard. — Jake

That may be, and I can't help that. Religion has never been practical knowledge (except accidentally or peripherally). For most of our history, religion and practical knowledge has been perfectly satisfactory. At the present time, science is clearly a much better form of practical knowledge, and religion does as well now as it ever did at providing a grounding: "This is the human situation"; "this is where you stand in the universe". The details of the universe vary--Buddhism's universe is different than the Abrahamic universe, and there are a several other universes (in terms of different religions).

But because of my insistence on comparing art to science I've been unable to offer any useful commentary on the value of art. — Jake

I get your example. Religion isn't science or practical knowledge or engineering and one should not compare the two -- like in, "Biology has a better account of birds than the New Testament does." I would hope biology has a better account.

Fundamentalists (and pre-enlightenment, maybe pre-renaissance religious) have mucked things up by insisting that Genesis is a practical account of the earth. Genesis is a theogony with the same purpose as Hesiod's theogony. Neither are or were meant to be taken literally. I doubt that ancient Greeks thought that Aphrodite was literally born from the white foam produced by the severed genitals of Uranus (Heaven), after his son Cronus threw them into the sea. The business between Cronus and Uranus was about the unpleasant succession of gods. God, the Garden, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the Tree are clearly, obviously, dead ringers for literary characters who explain how it came to be that life sucks.

There is nothing wrong with loving the story of creation. There is something wrong on the part of religionists to claim it as any sort of stand in or form of science. It isn't. It never was, until reactionary fundamentalists got carried away.

Yes, and the useful question here is, why do we feel alone? We might shift our focus to trying to better understand the problem which god theories are attempting to address. This seems particularly relevant to those who find they are unable to be involved in religion. — Jake

"Why do we feel alone?" he asks. The religious answer is that man is fallen and that fallen man lost the sense of oneness and unity which he enjoyed in the Garden before the fall. It's more theogony: How did we come to be chronically cold, wet, miserable, and lonely? Life did not suck in the Garden of Eden until we screwed up, and life has sucked ever since.

The religious solution to being cold, wet, miserable and lonely is to find reconciliation with God and our fellow cold, wet, miserable and lonely fellows traveling through this world of woe.

The scientific answer is not a lot more comforting: We are beings locked up in our skulls with only second-hand sensory information to rely on. Furthermore we're descended from proto-primates who bequeathed to us certain characteristics (like desires that are difficult to fulfill, competitiveness, vindictiveness, and various other fine traits) that prevent us from achieving satisfaction of our peak Hierarchy of Needs.

The scientific solution to sucky life is to improve social performance. Become more competitive, only with a better arsenal of offensive and defensive skills. Don't just sit there and take being called a diseased pariah. Get up! Assert your worth, your value. Demonstrate your puissance. Don't just sit there being cold, wet, miserable and lonely: Fight for the warm dry blanket and the girl (or boy) wrapped up in it. It's a blanket stealing world, so take it, and if you have gotten tough, strong, and can fight like a MAN you will be successful.

Do you have further questions?

Do you have further questions? — Bitter Crank

How did you get so funny? You’re a character. :)

Skeptical theism, as you've described, is based off ''possibility''. It is possible that God is hyper-intelligent. Given his omni-powers it is wise to consider that we, perhaps, don't understand what He's trying to do.

God works in mysterious ways.

What is calculus to an ant?

What is Mozart to a baboon?

The counter-argument is that even we (humans) can imagine a world of happy vegans in the garden of Eden.

Why not God?

Jake - I have seen you make this point, and I have tried to see where you are going with this. Sadly you lose me each time you make the point we should proceed to some other place based on the acknowledgment of what we don't know. — Rank Amateur

Ok, no problem, I seem to lose everybody, so you are not alone.

Part of the problem is perhaps that I'm trying not to spoon feed ideas but instead lay out the reasoning that leads to those ideas, and hope that some readers might follow the trail themselves.

You have followed the trail in your own way, by suggesting that a next step after recognizing our mutual ignorance would be for both theists and atheists to respect the faith foundation of the other's perspective. I agree with you that a first step in that process would be for atheists to see and acknowledge the faith foundation of their own perspective.

I'm not arguing with your proposal, just trying to chart an alternative course to widen the options. What if someone, theist or atheist, doesn't wish to retreat in to faith? What if they find themselves unable to swallow fantasy knowings of either the theist or atheist flavor? What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason?

Such a person would seem to be like the European explorers who went looking for the Orient and found another continent instead. They don't want to pretend that what they discovered is the Orient. And so they are stuck having to figure out how to make the best of what they did discover.

Theists and atheists are united in the rarely examined assumption that finding The Answer should be the goal of the investigation. What if we did find The Answer, and it is that we are ignorant? What if we are discarding what we've discovered because it's not what we were hoping to find, because the ignorance we discovered doesn't sufficiently flatter us? What if what we did find is actually more valuable and useful than what we were looking for?

To me, this is where the path of reason leads. Instead of retreating in to fantasy and faith, how do we face the fact of our ignorance and make good use of what we've discovered?

Here we are, like it or not, in the midst of a huge mystery. Why be in such a big hurry to pretend otherwise? Why not stick around a bit to explore and enjoy what we've discovered?

Why be in such a big hurry to pretend otherwise? Why not stick around a bit to explore and enjoy what we've discovered? — Jake

Because we don't have that luxury. People who believe in certain religions believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that women should cover their heads, that adulterers should be stoned... Certain atheists believe that these things are not commanded by God and so can be allowed/disallowed according to our personal sensibilities. We have to decide which. Either homosexuality is legal or it isn't, either abortion is allowed or it is not, either adulterers are stoned or they are not. There's no in-between. We have to make these choices as a society and cannot just sit back in our armchairs enjoying how much we don't know what the 'right' answer is.

I know very few 'militant' atheists who rail against groups of housewives having tea with the vicar, or Buddhist monks meditating. What they oppose is a system where a belief leads to a behaviour which they find distasteful. And the same goes for most religious believers who are vocal about their beliefs. It's because they want others to behave differently. And we cannot behave in two ways at once. Ignorant or not a decision has to be made.

"Why do we feel alone?" he asks. The religious answer is that man is fallen and that fallen man lost the sense of oneness and unity which he enjoyed in the Garden before the fall. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and imho, that is a correct answer, but it is phrased in language that is foreign to many in the modern audience. We might attempt an updated translation, something like....

The emergence of thought in human beings caused us to psychologically fall out of reality in to the much smaller symbolic realm between our ears. To use the modern expression, we are "lost in thought".

Science worshipers will declare that thought has proven itself to be very useful, and that is of course correct. What they're not seeing and dealing with however is that this powerful tool comes with a large price tag, the loss of the sense of oneness and unity. And so we see phenomena like this, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, and insane enough to actually do so.

Discarding religion does not on it's own solve this problem.

The religious solution to being cold, wet, miserable and lonely is to find reconciliation with God and our fellow cold, wet, miserable and lonely fellows traveling through this world of woe. — Bitter Crank

Yes, religions often attempt to reestablish the sense of oneness with reality through the creation of a relatable human-like character such as a God. We are of course free to discard this device if it doesn't work for us, but doing so does not solve the problem, but instead presents us with the challenge of finding or inventing some alternative path to the same desired destination, the experience of oneness and unity.

Because we don't have that luxury. People who believe in certain religions believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that women should cover their heads, that adulterers should be stoned... — Isaac

And millions of utterly innocent people were pointlessly slaughtered by explicitly atheist regimes over the last century, a real world fact I see you forgot to mention.

When you're ready to actually walk away from religion perhaps we might talk again. For now, it appears that you're not quite ready to let it go, and I don't know of any useful method of penetrating the distraction that attachment is generating.

And millions of utterly innocent people were pointlessly slaughtered by explicitly atheist regimes over the last century, a real world fact I see you forgot to mention. — Jake

Exactly. And all of those people would have been saved had the regime been a strictly Jaian one. So we have to decide. Its not about religious=bad and atheist=good, it's just a simple fact of living in a society with rules.

Belief (of any sort) leads to behaviours and behaviours (because we live in a society) sometimes have to be judged acceptable or not. That, by necessity entails making a judgement about which belief to go with. The lack of any decent argument to help us decide does not absolve of of the necessity of doing so.

What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason? — Jake

I am not sure this is possible, certainly there is great empirical evidence it is not. We as creatures appear to have a need to understand why we exist, what is our purpose. To paraphrase Thomas Merton, reason is the path to faith, and picks up when reason can say no more.

I believe I have likened your outlined idea absurdism before, and I think it fits. If you have not done it yet, I would highly recommend you read the myth of Sisyphus by Camus. Basically it says we as humans have some need to understand why we exist, this question has no answer, this is absurd. And the best we can do is acknowledge it is absurd, and find meaning inside ourselves and in our own lives. The person who can do this, Camus would call his absurd hero. Others, like myself, who find meaning in other ways, most notably a belief in God, are committing a type of philosophical suicide.
I feel this idea is very close to what you are saying.

not sure I understand your point. Skeptical theists, are theists, they believe in such a thing as God. But this belief has little to do with the philosophy, which is just based on pure application of reason.

It is, at its core, a philosophical challenge to every proposition in every argument that says anything about the nature of such a thing as God, that asks ; what is the reason based justification that you can make any proposition about the nature of God.

What it does in my opinion, and where it adds value, it establishes a border between philosophy and theology. It is telling all who wish to enter into such discussions or thoughts, you have just left the land of reason based positions, and entered into the land of faith based positions, proceed with caution.

you have just left the land of reason based positions, and entered into the land of faith based positions, proceed with caution. — Rank Amateur

I don't think evaluating all ''possible'' options as anti-reason. To the contrary considering God as hyper-intelligent and, therefore, beyond the grasp of the human mind is a reasoned position.

If I could create a universe and populate it with sentient beings and physical laws then my mental prowess must surely exceed the inhabitants of such a universe.

Isn't the relationship between animals and humans similar to that between God and us?

I think skeptical atheism is a reasoned position but of its truth I can't say much.

To repeat myself even us, ''simple'', humans can create a universe without evil. Can't a programmer creat heaven on a computer? Of course it's possible. So, WHY did God create a universe that has suffering in it? That's the question skeptical atheists have to answer.

Free will?

If free will is so important why curtail our options by creating hell and provide incentives like heaven.

Something smells fishy and it's not the fish.

What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason? — Jake

I am not sure this is possible, certainly there is great empirical evidence it is not. — Rank Amateur

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that we are incapable of finding The Answer to the largest of questions, we agree on that.

But we don't have to accept a search for The Answer as being the only valid way of proceeding with the inquiry. We can "remain squarely within the realm of reason" by questioning that assumption. We can observe the evidence that a search by both theists and atheists for An Answer has not worked, in spite of the most earnest efforts of some of our greatest minds on all sides of the question. We can discard what is not working, and try something else. All of this is surely possible within the realm of reason.

We as creatures appear to have a need to understand why we exist, what is our purpose. — Rank Amateur

To quibble a bit, actually most people don't care about any of this at all. You're confusing philosophy nerds like us with normal sane humans. :smile:

That quibble aside, it's surely true that many of us will ask such questions. And it's also true that every one has a right to whatever answers they prefer, which I think is your point regarding mutual respect of faith based beliefs. However, that is the path of faith, not the path of reason. Reason would look more like this...

1) We want credible answers.
2) The evidence suggests that we can't have them.
3) Ok, so why do we want answers?
4) Can we meet that need by some method other than answers?

The point here is that just because the quest for reliable theist or atheist flavored answers has failed we don't have to quit, nor do we have to retreat in to faith and fantasy knowings of whatever flavor. We might choose to do these things, which is fine, but we are not required to do so.

We can instead be loyal to reason by accepting the results of the inquiry we've invested so much work in. We are ignorant.

If one starts with the assumption that the only valid solution is An Answer, then the discovery that we are ignorant is bad news.

But again, we don't have to accept that assumption just because most theists and atheists do so. We are free to discard that assumption. We are free to look upon the ignorance we've discovered as a potential asset which might be put to good use. Again, when the Europeans mistakenly discovered North America, they didn't just quit and go home. They took what they found and put it to good use.

The path of reason. Accept what the evidence tells us, and use that information to continue the inquiry.

Basically it says we as humans have some need to understand why we exist, this question has no answer, this is absurd. — Rank Amateur

Ah, but if we can meet that need by some method other than answers, the absurdity is removed.

I don't think evaluating all ''possible'' options as anti-reason. To the contrary considering God as hyper-intelligent and, therefore, beyond the grasp of the human mind is a reasoned position. — TheMadFool

One can imagine all kinds of things, that does not however raise those ideas to level of supported propositions that are required to be accepted as truth to support a conclusion.

. So, WHY did God create a universe that has suffering in it? That's the question skeptical atheists have to answer. — TheMadFool

Skeptical theists have no need to answer such a question. Quite the contrary, their entire point is we have no supportable argument to say we could or would understand such a thing as the actions of a god.

Just a point of clarification on your abbreviated argument from evil point, it is not that evil exists, it is that morally impermissible evil exits. We all understand there are morally permissible evils. When your 3 year old is screaming they don't want their vacations, that pain is morally permissible. So the argument from evil is really is the evil that exists morally permissible? And the skeptical theists point is we have no position, defendable by reason as true, to say we have the ability to answer this question about such a thing as God.

— Rank Amateur

Ah, but if we can meet that need by some method other than answers, the absurdity is removed. — Jake

Please continue then, such as ......

Just for fun I'll try to phrase this in your kind of language.

What if God has answered the question we've been asking in the God debate?

"What is The Answer??", we cried again and again.

And again and again God answered, "Your ignorance. You can be united with me and with each other in your ignorance."

But we didn't like that answer, so we asked again and again. And again and again came back the ever patient reply, "Your ignorance."

But we said, "No, no, no, stop fooling around God, we know what we want, we want some knowledge!!"

And God sighed, rolled his eyes to himself, and asked us in return...

"Didn't I already address this in the very first book of the Bible?"

I want to understand Jake, and I am sure it due to my ignorance, but to me at least you are just constantly describing a state of affairs, but never put forth a complete and coherent idea of how we are to proceed if we accept your state of affairs. Can you be clearer on what you would have us all actually do.

I want to understand Jake, and I am sure it due to my ignorance, but to me at least you are just constantly describing a state of affairs, but never put forth a complete and coherent idea of how we are to proceed if we accept your state of affairs. Can you be clearer on what you would have us all actually do. — Rank Amateur

I understand what you're saying. What I'm very imperfectly attempting to do is encourage readers to follow the logic trail on their own, thus I'm deliberately not filling in all the blanks. I'm not doing that great of a job of this, and honestly, once one leaves the comfortable familiarity of the God debate one's audience tends to tune out or go bye-bye.

Anyway, on to your request. What I'm suggesting is...

The God debate generates various answers which are then debated. I'm attempting to escape that failed pattern by pointing out that ANY answer that can be offered will just be a symbol, and a mere symbol is not really what we are seeking. The proof of this is that we keep looking, searching, reaching for something, we're still hungry, no matter how many religions and philosophies we invent.

Religion was invented as thought became more dominant in the human experience and thus the intimate primal bond animals and primitive humans had with reality was diluted to the point of being lost. The concept of "getting back to God" was born. This is the Adam and Eve story, we ate the apple of knowledge (ie. thought) thus expelling ourselves from the Garden of Eden. And now we're looking for a way back in. The first book in the Bible, brilliant, just outdated.

Thought operates by a process of division. Understanding this is key.

Thus, to the degree we are thinking, the unity with reality (and each other) that we seek remains out of reach. This is the steep price tag for the awesome powers that thought delivers. We are brilliant, and yet insane.

The great mistake of most religions is in attempting to cure the disease of disunity with thought, that which is the source of the disease. And so for example, we see Christianity make the earnest very well intentioned attempt to create unity through beliefs, while dissolving in to endless internal division within itself.

The mistake is in not realizing that the fundamental human problem does not arise from thought content, and thus can not be solved at that level. The problem arises from the medium itself, as proven by the fact that no thought content ever invented has brought us to the experience of unity which we seek. As evidence we can observe how every ideology ever invented has inevitably fallen victim to internal division and conflict.

From this perspective the God debate is essentially pointless, not only because nothing can be proven, but more so because whatever answer is chosen will still be a product of thought, and thus will still generate the experience of division and not the experience of unity.

So, this is of course way too wordy, evidence of my own poor writing skills. A better suggestion could be for readers to simply ignore all the theory above, get out in to nature somewhere, and learn how to lower the volume of thought. And then you will see for yourselves. Once that which is obscuring the experience of unity is removed, the Garden of Eden which has always been there reappears in our human experience.

I think that this place can be reached via either reason or faith, which is another reason why the God debate is pointless, and why I encourage readers to stay on whatever path they can best relate to.

As example, Catholic doctrine teaches that God is ever present in all times and places. Ok, that's great. Thus, I don't have to struggle to reach God because He's already there, everywhere. All I need to do is turn down the volume of that which is obscuring God from me, the apple of knowledge I ate in the Garden of Eden. But of course at the moment I label that experience "God" I'm back in land of thought and the experience is again reduced to being merely an idea.

We don't really want ideas about unity. We want the experience of unity. We think ideas are the path to the experience, but really they are the obstacle in the path. Thus, ignorance is good.

Whaddya know, the God debate has delivered useful information after all. But of course we're going to ignore it. :smile: And thus the human drama continues.

Hope something in there is useful. Gonna shut up now before I crash the server. :smile: