Are you familiar with the distinction between cataphatic and apophatic theology? — Mariner

No. I suppose that I'll need to study these in order to continue.

Just trying to understand your concept of God, which I find fascinating.

A very short explanation: apophatic theology means "theology of denial". It talks about God by pointing out what God is not. "God is not a creature". "God is spirit" (i.e. God is not a body). "God is three-omni" (which really means "God is not limited in knowledge, spatial location, or moral goodness").

Cataphatic theology talks about God by pointing out similarities between God and creatures (rather than dissimilarities). "God is Father". "God is Lord". "God is Judge". "God is Redeemer". Etc.

Last time I checked the wiki for "apophatic theology" was quite good. Take a look at it.

I’m familiar with the concepts but not the terms, and they are important concepts to me, so thanks for that. In fact, I used these concepts just yesterday in your “What are Gods” topic when I wrote:

... there are gods in Buddhist doctrine but they're regarded as merely other sentient beings and ignorant of their true nature ("not-manifest, not-born, not-made," etc), if I'm not mistaken.

True nature is Cataphatic and not-manifest, not-born, not-made, etc. is apophatic, yes?

If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? And in any case, why do we need another word for Being? (Or existence, if that's what you mean). Why call that "God"? And what about atheists who believe in Being or existence? Don't you think that it's a problem to call "God" something which an atheist can believe in? Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism? — S

What you - not just you - are loosing sight of here is the understanding that there are things, the very knowledge of which are transformative. Meaning that, ‘worldly beings’ [that includes just about everyone] actually don’t know what is real at all, due to inherent un-wisdom. So the point of spiritual discipline is to ‘see things as they truly are’. And this is even preserved in scientific method, with the caveat that modern science is generally limited to what is quantifiable. Whereas, in the traditions of sapiential philosophy, you will encounter an approach which encompasses the domain of quality.

In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. You will find that in Greek, Indian, Chinese and Semitic philosophies. But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. The original discipline was always aimed at ‘meta-noia’ which mean ‘transformation of perception’. And if you understand that, it puts the whole question in a different perspective.

What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. That is obviously a broad historical movement which has had vast consequences that are still all unfolding.

Regarding your question about the meaningful differences - I observed some time back, some debates between two philosophers you might call ‘classical theists’ - namely, Ed Feser [Catholic] and D B Hart [Orthodox] and some of the ID proponents. And both of them were accused of being atheist, or being near to atheist, in some basic way. But it’s precisely because they both understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity. Whereas, they argue, the ID advocates tend to loose sight of that or to depict ‘being’ as ‘a being’ - a super-engineer, in effect, which is pretty much the kind of God that Dawkins vituperates against.

I don’t know if you really responded to S in that, as far as I can tell so far, there’s no meaningful difference between a “transcendent Deity” and, say, the Eastern concept of emptiness. An atheist can believe in emptiness.

Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism? — S

It can be argued that both faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough. Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort.

Wow Wayfarer, great post! :up:

In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. — Wayfarer

Yes, and the real obstruction isn't incorrect thoughts in particular, but the medium of thought itself. The obstruction, a profound bias for division, is built in to the medium so the very act of trying to think one's way past the limitations confines one within those limitations.

As example, let's propose for the moment that nature is a single unified reality, in much the same way the human body is a single unified system. If such a unity exists, that unity is going to be impossible to experience through the lens of a medium whose primary purpose is to break a single unified reality up in to conceptual parts. Thought is simply the wrong tool for that particular job.

But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. — Wayfarer

Yes, thought is such a powerful tool and has brought so many benefits that we moderns are understandably leaping to the unfounded assumption that it is therefore the best tool for every job. And so, as we moderns make thought in to a new kind of "god" we become both ever more powerful, and ever more insane. It's this relationship which will drive our future.

What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. — Wayfarer

Yes, agreed. And there are many good reasons to reject ecclesiastical religion, mass child rape by clerics coming immediately to mind.

The rational act for the atheist is to go ahead and reject ecclesiastical religion, get it over with already, and then keep moving. Don't stop at the rejection and build a little fort, thus replicating some of the worst aspects of religion. Keep on moving past the rejection towards useful questions like.....

How do we construct the most positive possible relationship with this mysterious place we find ourselves in?

How do we so arrange our experience so that a handful of dirt fills us with delight? How do we so arrange our experience so that a sunrise makes us fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the awesome beauty of star emerging over the horizon? How do we so arrange our minds so that the miracle of life is experienced as an ongoing wondrous joyful mystery?

These are extremely practical emotional challenges which few philosophers are brave enough to confront, and so we hide from the challenge in fancy intellectual abstractions.

1) Reject religion, and get it #$%^ over with, and then...

2) Keep moving.

mass child rape by clerics — Jake

Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. [ All of these institutions have covered up paedophile activity in the past, presumably out of guilt/shame. But all have learned now that we expect them to safeguard children, as we all do. ]

Wow Wayfarer, great post! :up: — Jake

:up: [Me too.] :smile:

Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. — Pattern-chaser

Um, not to hijack the thread, but can you list any other organizations who have experienced the mass child rape phenomena to the same degree as the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church became party to the crime when they deployed an ongoing systematic system for hiding the crimes, thus putting more children at risk. The laity became party to the crime when they knowingly kept sending money to those who covered up the crimes.

[Me too.] — Pattern-chaser

Ok then, it's agreed, we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior. :smile:

not to hijack the thread — Jake

:up:

we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior — Jake

Messiah? :lol:

not to hijack the thread — Jake

Well actually, bashing clerics would probably be in the spirit of the intended purpose of this thread. :smile:

Messiah? — Pattern-chaser

Merely Messiah? You apostate blasphemer!!!

He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!

Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort. — Jake

Fort Agnostic, featuring high walls, a lovely moat, and a tall tower upon which to look down on the ignorant masses.

I don't decide upon the meaning of words by looking at how others react to them. — Mariner

I asked you whether you thought that it was a problem. Is that a "no", then? So, you're okay with a position which doesn't really make sense, as it glosses over an important distinction?

Like, I'm a nationalist, but by that I only mean that I like poodles. And when I say poodles, I mean cats. And I don't care how other people react to that, because I decide the meaning of my terms based on whatever I feel like.

Okie dokie. Bit odd though.

Being and existence don't have the same meaning. — Mariner

I thought you'd say that.

In the old forum there was a long thread in which (mainly) I and Banno discussed the meaning of "fact", and how it is not (as I argued) synonym with "truth". That distinction is analogous to the distinction between being and existence. Existence is a subset of being, and facts are a kind of truth, but existence does not exhaust being, and facts do not exhaust truth.

This is a very old distinction, of course, and (e.g.) the Platonic dialogues deal with it in great detail. But if one wants a short and illuminating book about it, it is hard to do better than Aquinas' "Ente et Essentia".

To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example, numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them. — Mariner

That still doesn't give me an actual meaning. Existence is not the same as [???], existence is a subset of [???], but it doesn't exhaust [???]. That doesn't clear much up.

I don't believe that it should require a book. Why can't you just tell me what it means?

Why can't you just tell me what it means? — S

https://www.google.com.br/search?client=opera&q=difference+between+being+and+existence&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

This is the first significant link in that search:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence

It looks credible and balanced. Take it from there.

So, why can't you just tell me what it means? Is it that difficult? Anyway, I'm wary of this "Being" malarky. Can't say I've ever had any need of this obscure concept.

Well, at least you can't complain that I am not using a single meaning for the word "Being". Can you imagine how frustrating would that be?

Meanwhile, a few days ago...

For some weird reason, you seem to have gotten it into your head that I must set a single meaning for the word "dog" and tell you what it is with regards to what I've said. — S

Yes, I remember your confusion. Not a fond memory.

To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example [of the difference in meaning between existence and being], numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them. — Mariner

An atheist can believe in numbers so 'being' in itself isn't a problem. Although, you claimed that God could not be called "a being" among other beings. How do we know that what you're calling God is not a being among other beings of the same kind? One is not the loneliest number because there are other numbers.

We are trying to talk about something of which we don't have any experience. It is necessary to use symbolic language for that. — Mariner

It’s necessary to use language to talk about things regardless if we’ve experienced them ourselves. We can have knowledge of things beyond our experience with language but unless there’s some other realm that we may somehow have access to, everything, including numbers, which you say do not exist as ordinary objects do, is derived from worldly experience.

OK granted with such mute randomness, we finally get an agnostic viewpoint we can all agree on as being agnostic. — BaldMenFighting

You say mute randomness, but I say actually coherent. At least soccer balls are something you can quantify, but that's a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that when you look at all the various gods proposed by the various religions, mute randomness becomes a more apt descriptor of an individual proposed god.

However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard — BaldMenFighting

The existence of debate doesn't necessitate that reasonable evidence has been presented. The agnostic position is that no reasonable evidence has been, or can be presented in the god debate.

There's not even a coin toss regarding the soccer ball. If you flip a coin you will be correct 50% of the time, but that holds for every true or false proposition imaginable (including proposed other gods). This is what makes believing in a particular god seem like a completely random guess.

- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation). — BaldMenFighting

No. You, the theist, believe that God controls everything (or designed it - whatever), I lack those beliefs. I don't have faith in chaos as it were, I just see no reason to assume a hidden guiding hand, like you assume. You do believe in the guiding hand though, and that it has been working since t = 0 (t = 0 is something I'm agnostic about), so of course you view this debate as a this full blown axiomatic urgent issue of ultimate importance. Human sacrifice was viewed by Aztec rulers as an issue of ultimate importance and significance because they believed that the universe could only be sustained through continuing the sacrifice of the gods (a story not dissimilar from Christianity interestingly). They would tell you that the debate about human sacrifice/no human sacrifice is about a fundamental axiom of the universe. When you abstain belief they will demand proof that human sacrifice is not required to sustain the universe, and when you refuse they will call you irrational or fence-sitter.

As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance. — BaldMenFighting

Not all evidence is reasonable or valid. If I told you that because bananas fit inside the human hand nearly perfectly, that it must have been designed by a sentient being to be that way, how would you respond?

If Vlad the Impaler is actually a vampire named Dracula, and we are so far downstream from him, the debate will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.

Why is there no abundance of evidence for or against Dracula God?

I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.

Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible. — BaldMenFighting

Did you know that making assumptions by caving to feelings can lead to a state of wrongness? I want my beliefs to conform to reality, and so I only adopt them when the evidence is sufficient either way.

Whatever happened to objectivity?

Ok then, it's agreed, we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior. :smile: — Jake

Aw shucks, and bollocks.

there are many good reasons to reject ecclesiastical religion, mass child rape by clerics coming immediately to mind. — Jake

It is, of course, abhorrent, but not what I had in mind as the main cause of the perceived conflict between faith (church) and reason (science).

I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. At least that is how it has occurred for very many people. I think this was hugely exacerbated by Protestantism (and especially Calvinism), which made everything hinge on faith and unquestioning submission, as well as by the many bloody religious conflicts in European history. So since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of 'Anything But God' underwriting philosophy; the 'conflict thesis' (conflict between science and religion) comes out of that. But the causes of this attitude are often suppressed or forgotten, resulting in a kind of pathological distrust of anything that sounds religious - in a 'Don't Mention the War' kind of way. The upshot is, that the mention of anything that sounds religious pushes a lot of buttons.

How do we construct the most positive possible relationship with this mysterious place we find ourselves in? — Jake

My personal search was always oriented around the idea of enlightenment, as discussed in the various popular spiritual books that I read in my teens and twenties - which were all the usual sources, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Paramahansa Yogananda, Ramana Maharshi, to name a few. What, I thought, are they talking about? How to understand it? That seemed to me very important. I was dismayed by the fact that so few people seemed to think it important. Anyway, long story short, I enrolled in Comparative Religion at University. I formed the view that the experiential side of spirituality,
the search for enlightenment, which is still preserved in those sources, was lost or suppressed early in the Christian Era. I think it was due to the suppression of gnosticism early in the Christian period; I think that's where the main dynamics were set in motion. (See this page for some useful sources on gnosticism; also this essay.)

But to answer your question - the original impulse behind philosophy as such, was just this kind of quest for individual enlightenment, but through reasoned analysis rather than devotional religion. But the link between 'theoria' and 'praxis' in philosophy has been much better preserved in Buddhism and Hinduism; whereas due to the generally anti-religious disposition of modern philosophy, it is not generally found there at all.

This is the first significant link in that search:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence

It looks credible and balanced. Take it from there. — Mariner

:up:

I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. — Wayfarer

I'm not really arguing with this, but feel the need to remind readers that the role of ideology in religion seems greatly exaggerated on philosophy forums. As example, if we were to attend the typical Christian church and mingle with the crowd the conversations we'd be hearing would likely not be dominated by ideological issues. It's true that SOME religious people are highly ideological, but most are pretty casual about such things, just like most atheists.

So since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of "Anything But God" underwriting philosophy; the 'confict thesis' comes out of that. But the causes of this attitude are often suppressed or forgotten, resulting in a kind of pathological distrust of anything that sounds religious — Wayfarer

We can all agree that there have been many abuses within religion that are fairly rejected, sometimes with enthusiasm. But it's not exactly enlightened for us to forget that within any group of people as large as religion, various abuses will inevitably exist. As example, atheist Marxists spread a whirl wind of mass murder across large segments of the world in the 20th century.

Anyway, long story short, I enrolled in Comparative Religion at University. I formed the view that the experiential side of spirituality, the search for enlightenment, which is still preserved in those sources, was lost or suppressed early in the Christian Era. — Wayfarer

Not arguing with this either, but again, let's keep in mind that philosophers are typically ignoring the experiential side of Christianity to focus almost exclusively on ideology. As example, while there are somewhat of a tsunami of religion threads flooding the forum, pretty much none of them address the experience of love to any serious degree, or any degree at all. It's not reasonable for us to claim an experiential side to Christianity doesn't exist just because we are determined to ignore it.

But to answer your question - the original impulse behind philosophy as such, was just this kind of quest for individual enlightenment, but through reasoned analysis rather than devotional religion — Wayfarer

Ok, sounds good. And so let's keep going with that if you wish. I would argue (perhaps you would as well?) that a reasoned analysis followed far enough will lead to the experience of devotion, or if readers prefer, an enhanced emotional experience of reality.

I think it's perfectly sensible for a person who is allergic to religion to walk away from it. It's less sensible to cling stubbornly to religion so as to have something one can perpetually reject.

In any case, I would argue that both reason and faith, philosophy and religion, can lead to the same kind of important experiences if one walks far enough down one's chosen path. Thus, the rational approach would be to drop the endless debate about these methodologies, pick the one that works the best for us personally, and explore the method we've chosen to the greatest degree we're capable of.

It's not reasonable for us to claim an experiential side to Christianity doesn't exist just because we are determined to ignore it. — Jake

That's not really what I'm saying. What impressed me when I was given the Eastern books that I mentioned - Watts, Suzuki, etc, very popular in the 1960s and 70s - was that there was something in them that simply *wasn't* found in religion, as such. In fact at the time, I didn't think that the kind of enlightenment they wrote about was anything to do with 'religion'. At that stage in life, I thought 'religion' was for squares (although in the years since, I have softened my view).

But I still believe there is a fundamental distinction between the 'believe-and-be-saved' attitude (which is especially characteristic in Protestantism) and the 'experiential realisation' approach which you find in both Eastern and also 'new age' movements. In fact one of the books I perused in my university days, was called 'Against the Modern Gnostics', which was a long polemic by a Protestant academic against the influence of Eastern and 'self-awareness' teachings in modern culture. As far as he was concerned, the dreaded Gnostic movement, which had been defeated back in 100 A.D., was making a comeback. And as far as I was concerned, that was a good thing, and a necessary thing.

since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of 'Anything But God' underwriting philosophy; the 'conflict thesis' (conflict between science and religion) comes out of that. — Wayfarer

“Sapere aude! (Dare to know.) ‘Have the courage to use your own understanding,’ is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.”

So yeah, the fall of ultimate authority is key.

I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. — Wayfarer

Hmm well, if someone was about to jump off a tall building, then I'd try to stop them.