Ok this is my last contribution to this thread.

You can't logically connect..

(1) The world can't begin without an intelligence

with

(2) the structure of the world suggests an intelligence

They are both different questions. I think the first is more of a science question than the second. To the second I say "the world is what it is"; to the first is say the Confucian Heaven, Platonic form, Heideggarian potentiality, Eleatic one, and so on

And no I don't think etymology is a strict science. I started a thread on it once

There's a kind of special pleading involved in such apologetics. Faced with the fact that scripture clearly distinguishes between the Father and the Son and the especially vague Holy Spirit or Ghost, but committed nonetheless to the claim there is only one God and infuriated when pagans such as Celsus and Porphyry noted this problem, Christians had to come up with an explanation. They resorted to using pagan philosophy to explain how divinely inspired scripture didn't really say what it says.

They were more lawyers than philosophers (Tertullian was a lawyer, in fact). But I still admire an old priest I knew who explained that the Trinity was like a ham sandwich. Two slices of bread and ham there may be, but there's only one sandwich. That says it all.

So is the Holy Spirit and Jesus our father or not? — Gregory

They are not the Father. But they're God, and so is He--according to the explanation given.

They were more lawyers than philosophers (Tertullian was a lawyer, in fact). But I still admire an old priest I knew who explained that the Trinity was like a ham sandwich. Two slices of bread and ham there may be, but there's only one sandwich. That says it all. — Ciceronianus the White

Never heard that one. :lol: :pray:

As evidence we might consider space, that is, the overwhelming vast majority of reality. There are no divisions in space. — Hippyhead

Yes, all is one. Consider the following. Let x^2 mean x squared. Now consider the squares;-
1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16 and so on. This squaring is an abstract, mental concept. Now draw a graph of x squared on a 2 dimensional sheet of paper. The graph will represent precisely the squares of real numbers. But how can this be? How can a mental concept be mapped onto space? The only way this can happen is if there is a natural affinity between mind and space. That is, mind and space must share the same nature. If they did not it would not be possible to map the squares onto a graph. There are many examples of how things on one level of reality can be mapped onto another level of reality. This is because nature is universal. The universe is an image of God's nature and God's nature is expressed on many different levels. But ultimately it is all one thing, as you say.

Point being, our attempts to define God would seem to be in rather substantial conflict with the vast majority of reality. All of our definitions presume that boundaries are real. Are they? — Hippyhead

But humans need simple definitions of God. They may not be ultimate but they are useful.

While the purpose of science is to develop knowledge about reality, I think religion is better described as an effort to develop our relationship with reality. What confuses this issue is that religions often make claims about reality as part of the attempt to manage that relationship. — Hippyhead

Very often people argue about religion in terms of whether the mythology is 'true' or 'false'. That is like arguing whether a painting by Cezanne is 'true' or 'false'. Cezanne's painting is obviously not literally true because he does not represent things literally. Cezanne's truth is on a more subtle level. Likewise, religion is mythological because people need mythology. People need truth in a mythological form because myth is the oldest language of mankind, maybe older even than the spoken word. It is our first language.

Because myth is not literally true does not mean it contains no truth. It is a poetic image of the truth. It is also a practical context in which people can practice their faith. Truth is within religion. The outer myth is only a poetic image. (But religion is more than myth as it also makes direct claims about reality).

A great deal of creativity goes into probing the mechanism of action of a novel cellular protein...exploring the unknown. This is not base or primitive. This is merely a part of a constellation of human interests and activities. — Marco Colombini

Yes I agree but I am talking about science as knowledge not as a creative activity. Scientific and mathematical knowledge is primitive. By primitive I don't mean base or degraded, I mean rudimentary. Questions concerning consciousness go beyond the nuts-and-bolts of materialism.

What, in your understanding, is this motivation? — EnPassant

The motivation is a subconscious drive to prevent psychological pain.

A serious thinker may eventually think their way to the realization that nothing made of thought can ever be the truth. Such a realization has proven itself uncomfortable to many a thinker. — Hippyhead

Here truth can only be posited in the most abstract sense, which renders it useless. The presumption behind the claim is a stacked deck, the thinker doesn't even realize, in the process of thinking thus, he has departed from reality to wander through an abstract aesthetic. No thinker needs to worry about such a formal charge, it is after all, rooted in an unconscious, radical skepticism. This kind of thought is merely playing games with itself and the world. The point of thought is to change the world -- it is not mere aesthetics, to handle it thus is to leave off its power and hope, is to play the game of thought without intelligence.

This is something that I hear a lot. Yet out of personal experience I know a good amount of theists who are well aware of the limits in their knowledge and accept the possibility that they might be wrong. And never fear the outcome. Often I hear the mantra "If I am wrong then at the very least I have lived a happy and meaningful life."

I know you guys were talking about music, religion and consciousness. But since I suppose lots of people also count God within transcendental things I thought it might apply.

The motivation is a subconscious drive to prevent psychological pain. — JerseyFlight

Well, if that is what it is it has not worked very well. The human condition is steeped in pain and religion does not change that. But I am also wary of psychoanalytical definitions of religion. It is too easy to invent these theories and they come in all shapes an colours.

Often I hear the mantra "If I am wrong then at the very least I have lived a happy and meaningful life." — DoppyTheElv

This was C. S. Lewis' last attempt to hold onto his Christianity in the face of the encroaching resistance. He simply resigned himself to pragmatic hedonism, conveniently ignoring the fact that this approach presupposed the total collapse of his Christianity. It is no different for modern Christians. They are all, in reality, simply playing a psychological game with themselves, precisely because they can't face reality. This is quite easy to prove, simply ask a Christian to explain how he views the world in the absence of his ideals. You will be met with a cynical exposition of the supremacy of the negative.

The human condition is steeped in pain and religion does not change that. But I am also wary of psychoanalytical definitions of religion. It is too easy to invent these theories and they come in all shapes an colours. — EnPassant

Please see Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death.

the thinker doesn't even realize, in the process of thinking thus, he has departed from reality to wander through an abstract aesthetic. — JerseyFlight

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. Truth exists in the realm of consciousness. The a/theist's rationalizations are post hoc. The real issue is more subtle.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Here you have not transcended the presupposition of the criteria of radical skepticism. What you say you cannot attain is conditioned by a false idealism. The way around it is simply to identify the error of the formal criteria. It is absolute skepticism posited as an ontological finality and boundary. If you want your thinking to succeed you must learn how to transcend the culture into which it is born.

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death — JerseyFlight

Looked him up on wiki. Honestly, he just takes the "immortality project" and runs with it. It is so easy to do this. You can take some psychoanalytic notion and fit the whole world into it. Like Freud's Oedipus and Electra complexes. You can easily build the whole world around them and make a convincing theory. Here goes-

Psychonalysis is an "immortality project" in the sense that the practitioner wants god like knowledge of all things and pretends to be able to map the human mind; unravel the greatest mysteries of the mind and thereby achieve immortality by way of god-like knowledge.

dp

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Here you have not transcended the presupposition of the criteria of radical skepticism. — JerseyFlight

My statement is slightly tongue-in-cheek. But it has truth in it; the intellect is labyrinthine. So is philosophy.

he just takes — EnPassant

It is so easy — EnPassant

Then clearly you have already violated your original premise regarding truth. Only here the problem is that you have evaded it in the wrong direction. One is free to deceive themselves all they desire, they are not free to deceive others (though this is the way of the world). The bottom line is that you are going to believe what you want to believe, after all, you have already admitted to the futility and bankruptcy of thought. There is little more one can say to divert such conviction.

The bottom line is that you are going to believe what you want to believe — JerseyFlight

I disagree. My beliefs are convictions not the fulfilment of unconscious desires. Of course you can say 'How do you know that if your desires are unconscious?' But you can refute anyone by positing unconscious motivations for what they are saying.

you have already admitted to the futility and bankruptcy of thought. — JerseyFlight

I would not say thought is futile. I'm saying abstract 'rationalizations' cannot answer realities that exist in the realm of consciousness. Religion is about awareness and intuition. Going the intellectual route is a poor choice when it comes to resolving these issues.

I'm a noob with all this so I have a very hard time understanding the expensive words. But I don't see it.
Again, I'm arguing from personal experience so I don't know what that's worth but I don't see the psychological game. I don't think I can either, unless they are really upfront about it! They believe they are right. And that's why, I think, they remain theists. When asked about the negative things in life they react just like anyone else I've asked. They're not happy with it.

I'm with EnPassant when it comes to those psychoanalytic theories. I'm sure they hold merit but I am very wary into accepting it as an all in explanation for such beliefs. And why theists hold them.

I don't see the psychological game. — DoppyTheElv

Then this must be proof that it's not there. After all, if it was there, surely you would be able to detect it? The same is true of all forms of bias --- we are not plagued by them precisely because they are so easy to detect! The sole criteria of its existence must be whether or not I perceive it in my intuition???

What are it's criteria? How do you know?
I stated in my second to last sentence that I agreed that it could make a difference in some theists. So I didn't say it's "proof to the contrary". What I did say is that these psychoanalytic theories get us nowhere. Because I haven't a clue how to notice them and I don't think they play as big as a role in the forming of beliefs as you claim they do.

What I did say is that these psychoanalytic theories get us nowhere. — DoppyTheElv

Then there is not much more to say.

Well if you would want to tell my what the criteria are. Because I really do want to learn if I'm mistaken.
As Enpassant said. These theories could be made for everything how do you know they are true?

Going the intellectual route is a poor choice when it comes to resolving these issues. — EnPassant

But my dear, EnPassant, how ever do you get out of this circle once you enter in?

Because I really do want to learn if I'm mistaken. — DoppyTheElv

If there is no God and the world is violence and chaos. Can you live with this, can you accept it if this is the nature of reality?

I would be forced to accept this yes. A person cannot choose his beliefs, right?
I'm pretty sure anyone would have issues accepting this at first and they ought to learn to live with this.

I'd also like to add that I haven't a clue what I believe. I am 18 and of the idea that I know too little and have read to little to form beliefs as of yet. These religious convictions don't seem to make the suffering and issues of the world disappear either. People still have to live with them?

:up:

I'm pretty sure anyone would have issues accepting this at first and they ought to learn to live with this. — DoppyTheElv

Absolutely. And this is a good reminder of my own position. I was crushed by reality when I finally realized my Christianity was false. But oh how necessary it was to be crushed! :) If you are truly serious about understanding how and why humans manufacture delusion then it will be necessary for you to study psychology. Many many books* have now been written precisely on the topic of denial, self-deception and bias. One I can whole-heartedly recommend is, "The Truth About Denial" by Adrian Bardon, (Oxford 2020)

*Please note: the present body of literature has gone beyond mere speculation. The premises have been verified empirically. Denial, bias, self-deception are things we have seen repeated under controlled conditions.