A "holy reason" is a reason with holes in it, as all good reasons should be. ;) — John

Sounds somewhat Harry Potterish...

On a more serious, though no less profound, (and curiously related) note; do you not believe that reverence for things is the highest form of motivation?

Or again, as Leonard Cohen would have it: “There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in”... — John

Motivation for what exactly? First let us eliminate any socio-religious influences and ascertain what motivation itself would be required for. I would not say reverence is the highest, but particularly in matrimony, a deep respect or admiration for a beloved can motivate one to become the best that they can be.

For me personally, I believe that love is the highest form of motivation and certainly the most sustainable and empowering, but how we approach the subject is as problematic as the subject of God because there are a plethora of interpretations that often conflate and confuse; if I say God to a Catholic, they see Jesus, whereas I don't see an image and I see Jesus as just a man. When I say love to a person who follows some New Age worldview, they see obscure, cosmic influences that they need to absorb through mindfulness where as I see it as not as a sentiment but as innate which can be obscured by psychological and environmental influences.

Love has a universality that reverence doesn't, which is why the latter is best suited at describing intimate relationships. This universality - or infinite - is the ultimate, God, and becomes what we strive to attain because we no longer just love one object or objects that have some benefit to us, but all things and thus our approach to the world becomes sustainable and genuine. But this requires discipline and learning because, as I said, it is often obscured by psychological and environmental influences. It is why I mentioned to ND that we need to first attain an authenticity of mind by reaching a state of rational autonomy.

"In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead; in the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead." Erich Fromm

PS I hope I didn't offend any anti-religious cricketers or cricket-hating monks by comparing cricket to religion. — andrewk

Well, you did. :’( Bobby Cliff for life.

If they ask me what I believe, I will tell them that I do not believe we can know anything about God, but that does not mean that I am, therefore, certain that God does not exist. I may tell them that I also don't believe that they have special gifts which enable them to know anything specific and concrete about God. I know from experience, that those sort of statements will likely lead to a prolonged discussion which will not be very productive. — Bitter Crank

I actually think they can be productive depending on the person whom you decide to discuss the topic with. Those statements are sensible, but somehow I feel that there is more and your preference to avoid prolonged and oftentimes ineffectual discussions may be the impetus behind that statement, which interests me to further discussion. So, I agree with what you say, but if I follow no religion and I believe in God, that this certainty is based on faith alone without any symbiotic attachment to overcome the existential angst, what would that make me?

if I follow no religion and I believe in God, that this certainty is based on faith alone without any symbiotic attachment to overcome the existential angst, what would that make me? — TimeLine

This would depend upon how you would define God.

Why?

If you've defined God as such and such, which is the same as, let's say, in Christianity, then why aren't you, then, a practicing Christian?

The miraculous is not necessarily the outlandish. — Wayfarer

Sure, but in the case of the Vatican's so-called miracles, they are never outlandish. They are all easily encompassed within the very wide area of things we do not understand about the human body. How strange of God to always avoid doing a miracle in an area where we understand the body very well - such as an inability to regrow legs.

I think the underlying issue is that we've put all this in a box, marked 'religion', and declared our attitude towards it, and we don't at all want to contemplate the possibility of opening it again. — Wayfarer

I don't know who this 'we' is. Presumably you speak for yourself, but for who else? Not me. The trouble with miracle claims is not that they are in a box marked religion but in a box marked quackery. They belong with the carnival snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century, for the reasons so eloquently described by BC, amongst others. For me, the box marked religion is a 'good' box and deals with spirituality - which may or may not include a sense of the divine, not with rent-seeking petitions to a supernatural mafia boss.

Ding! Not being silent, just in case you thought I had an off switch.

If you've defined God as such and such, which is the same as, let's say, in Christianity, then why aren't you, then, a practicing Christian? — Heister Eggcart

I don't define God and what we attribute to God are properties or representations that attempt to affirm our inferiority and the perfections we should strive towards. For example, the mevlevi strive towards God through love and by eliminating their ego in order to reach 'perfection'.

If I am striving toward moral excellence without necessitating any recognition from a person or community or institution, because of the absence of 'codes' that regulate behaviour, my endeavour can be discredited by the prejudice that no one can can authentically reach this higher state without guidance and the approval by an authority or higher figure. In the end, what you are striving for is others and that is just not good enough for me. It is the same with what you read and accept; should I avoid Heidegger because of his personal choices, or should I accept all of what he writes, rather than just read and appreciate what aspects of his work may be sensible? I have read the New Testament, indeed the Old Testament and the Qur'an, do I need to pick one and adhere to all of it, or should I ignore all three of them? No, there is wisdom and a great many moral suggestions that I appreciate and adhere to, but certainly not all. How I choose to interpret that is mine and mine alone without the influence of a religious institution' interpretation.

If reaching a state of moral perfection is entirely a subjective endeavour, hence why Jesus spoke in parables, then how does practicing a religion influence the independence or autonomy required for one to achieve this?

Ding! Not being silent, just in case you thought I had an off switch. — Bitter Crank

Ah come on, I know you were joking. (L)

the phenomenon of apparent miracles — Wayfarer

I can't stand here at this distance in time and kilometers and say Dr. Duffin (a hematologist) didn't know here ass from her elbow. In the case discussed in Wikipedia, she was asked to examined slides (which she assumed were part of a malpractice suit) from a patient with an aggressive form of leukemia. The woman's blood slides showed she had myeloblastic leukemia, “the most aggressive leukemia known.”

She assumed the patient had died in the intervening 5 years since the slides had been made. But no: the patient had, after a relapse, gone into remission, and had stayed in remission for 5 years.

Is this a miracle? The Vatican thought it was a miracle. But how would one differentiate a spontaneous remission (it happens once in a blue moon) from the intervention of a saint? And for that matter, how would the Vatican know that it was the prospective saint that performed the miracle and not an experienced saint?

You think a regrown leg is outlandish, but are badly deformed and undifferentiated cancer cells that become properly formed and differentiated any less outlandish?

The patient in remission has reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad, for she was whizzing down the chute to the grave, and then she was back home, doing whatever she does. But in 99,999 out of 100,000 cases, the unfortunate patient (with whatever disease they have) lands in the grave right on time, regardless of how many prayers are said.

I just don't believe in the God that periodically hears some prayers and acts, but in most cases does nothing. Rather, I prefer (it takes some effort) to believe in a God who does not intervene, perhaps can not intervene, but shares our suffering. I don't believe in the Grand Reward of Heaven, either, or Hell. God doesn't preside over a paradise spa, and didn't set up torture chambers in the sub-basement of the triple-decker cosmos (heaven up, hell down, us in the middle).

Now, for many people this is as good as no god at all, because they are pretty wedded to hell-fire, fluffy white clouds of heaven, the pearly gates (as revealed in many a New Yorker cartoon) and the bearded god on a throne.

They belong with the carnival snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century, for the reasons so eloquently described by BC, — andrewk

So you would put Catholicism generally in the same box? The literature i mentioned concerned cases that were examined by medical specialists specifically to eliminate fraud and spurious claims. You think they all must be false as a matter of principle?

Is this a miracle? The Vatican thought it was a miracle. But how would one differentiate a spontaneous remission (it happens once in a blue moon) from the intervention of a saint? And for that matter, how would the Vatican know that it was the prospective saint that performed the miracle and not an experienced saint? — Bitter Crank

They do ask those questions. That's why I brought up these cases. And if I or a loved one were diagnosed with cancer (heaven forbid) there is no way I would go out looking for a faith healer. I would rely on medicine.

Ditto. (L) ┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘

There's lots of "evidence" of witchcraft, sorcery and magic from various sources from the end of the middle ages right up until the present where these beliefs still pervade less developed countries in Africa and elsewhere. In these cases, the Catholic church have often been on the "right" side of the equation because they have had an obvious interest in divesting people of traditional paganistic beliefs. Of course, they have also had an interest in replacing this natural thirst for the supernatural with their own version in the form of "miracles". So, I don't see any reason to take these reports seriously. The claim "it's a miracle" is just a stand in for "it's unexplained", and the more scientific ignorance shrinks the more the world of "miracles" does.

You think they all must be false as a matter of principle? — Wayfarer

No, I think they are mistaken because:
(1) the claims are of exactly the kind one would expect if they were mistaken, ie never anything that directly contravenes science, like regrowing a leg; and
(2) they mock and insult all those people that have sincerely prayed for healing and have not received it - not what one would expect from a good God.

This is not a matter of pro vs anti religion. It's a matter of genuine spirituality vs witch-doctory. People who shackle their faith to such claims, rather than to personal spiritual experience, are making a profound mistake.

Yes, they ask those questions, but still -- remission is remission, whether by divine intervention or the inchoate resources of the genome. (Further, while some 16th through 19th century physicians were fairly good observers, it would be asking a lot of these practitioners to differentiate a miracle from a remission or a quiet stage.

Take syphilis: One gets a sore on one's dick, on the roof of one's mouth, or in the vagina and it is a bit uncomfortable. Maybe there are some other troublesome symptoms, Then it goes away and sometimes nothing much happens for many years, at least that one would connect with the original sore. 3 decades later one may go insane from end-stage syphilis. Hepatitis B, on the other hand, can make one extremely ill, then clear up (spontaneously -- there isn't any treatment). Again, liver cancer may be a consequence down the line.

Herpes Zoster -- shingles -- can be excruciatingly painful and look like hell (large areas of skin covered with densely packed little red blisters, like the surface of a raspberry). It can, indeed often does, go into remission, sometimes abruptly. The herpes virus (chickenpox) that caused it in the first place, is still there, and may return. Without a knowledge of viruses (available only after the early 1900s) one would have a hard time explaining this.

Physicians didn't always know the difference between an infection (which they didn't understand until the late 1800s) a cancer (which they still don't understand fully) or something else--like a goiter. Cutting people open to see what was going on was often fatal, and they usually didn't understand what they were looking at, so they guessed. Well, some diseases do go away on their own, and if they were misdiagnosed in 1695, who would know the difference?

(It wasn't until the anatomist John Hunter dissected and studied about 1000 corpses in the late 18th century that some big hunks of the internal anatomy were figured out. Hunter was something of a one-off genius. It was quite a while before another anatomist picked up where he left off.)

So you would put Catholicism generally in the same box? — Wayfarer

Sorry, I just noticed this comment, which is quite distinct to the one to which I just responded. I definitely would not put Catholicism generally in that box. It's the institution that I object to. There are some Catholics that I greatly admire, including their spiritual dimension.

One you would be familiar with, being Australian, is Kristina Kenneally. I was rather anti-her while she was NSW Premier, because of the shadow of implied association with the Terrigal mafia. But I have been enormously impressed by what she has said, written and done since then. She is a devout Catholic and yet one of the most trenchant critics of the institution of the RC church, including, but by no means limited to, its opposition to female empowerment and family planning.

Another is the gay RC priest James Allison. I heard a podcast discussion with him on Encounter on Radio National a few years ago and was mightily impressed by his candour, eloquence and the warmth of his spiritual worldview. What amazes me is that he hasn't been excommunicated or at least defrocked.

Of course, [Catholics] have also had an interest in replacing this natural thirst for the supernatural with their own version in the form of "miracles" — Baden

I think they are mistaken because:
(1) the claims are of exactly the kind one would expect if they were mistaken, ie never anything that directly contravenes science, like regrowing a leg; and
(2) they mock and insult all those people that have sincerely prayed for healing and have not received it - not what one would expect from a good God. — andrewk

The article I referred to is about a medical specialist who was called in to adjudicate whether a particular case could be accounted for scientifically. She explains that up until that case, she had had no particular interest in such matters but then went on to research the issue and ended up writing Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. And the reason I mentioned the article about her work, is that it does contain a great deal of documentary evidence of non-explained phenomena. So it's relatively easy nowadays to dismiss traditional religious beliefs, but these include current cases, and the processes by which they are judged are quite meticulous. Jacalyn Duffin notes that many of the clerics involved are rather jaded and suprisingly cynical, and in all cases, medical testimony was also required. So it's not a slapdash process. The annals of the Catholic Church's processes of canonisation are, for that reason, valuable archives of evidence and testimony, going back centuries.

But the idea that these cases 'mock and insult' anyone is, I think, completely groundless. I think what is being 'mocked and insulted' is your sense of propriety - the kinds of ideas that sensible people ought to entertain.

As regards Kristina Kenneally, I have always rather liked her, and Geraldine Doogue is another prominent Catholic in the media that I have respect for. The latter is even more remarkable for having had a long marriage to a passionate and outspoken atheist, for whom she arranged a non-religious funeral when he sadly died from cancer. But, there are some Catholic philosophers that I generally respect (not least Ed Feser).

I just don't believe in the God that periodically hears some prayers and acts, but in most cases does nothing. Rather, I prefer (it takes some effort) to believe in a God who does not intervene, perhaps can not intervene, but shares our suffering. I don't believe in the Grand Reward of Heaven, either, or Hell. God doesn't preside over a paradise spa, and didn't set up torture chambers in the sub-basement of the triple-decker cosmos (heaven up, hell down, us in the middle). — Bitter Crank

I hear you. I am very reticent about what God is or isn't, or does and doesn't do, but I think heaven and hell are real, or represent something real. I have to believe that actions have consequences beyond this physical existence.

I don't define God — TimeLine

Wait, but you still believe in God? Didn't you just write that before or no? :s

what we attribute to God are properties or representations that attempt to affirm our inferiority and the perfections we should strive towards. — TimeLine

If we should strive toward them, why be against, then?

If I am striving toward moral excellence without necessitating any recognition from a person or community or institution, because of the absence of 'codes' that regulate behaviour, my endeavour can be discredited by the prejudice that no one can can authentically reach this higher state without guidance and the approval by an authority or higher figure. — TimeLine

Depends on what moral excellence looks like for you, and why you've set that as your goal.

Also, is this moral excellence of yours conceived as being potentially greater than, say, what some of the medieval Christian saints appear to have attained? If Christianity helps you in becoming a Saint Francis or Bonaventure, uh, what's stopping you from working toward that within an explicitly religious framework. (devil's advocate here, btw :-* )

In the end, what you are striving for is others. It is the same with what you read and accept; should I avoid Heidegger because of his personal choices, or should I accept all of what he writes, rather than just read and appreciate what aspects of his work may be sensible? — TimeLine

Well, you're getting at a pretty big difference between philosophy and theology, here; namely, how each are applied to and in the world. Philosophy doesn't really have a component of evangelization - theology does. To me, this is one key in distinguishing between how one ought to read a Heidegger, Kant, Bitter Crank, whomever else, in contrast to an Aquinas or John Paul II, for example.

I have read the New Testament, indeed the Old Testament and the Qur'an, and there is wisdom and a great many moral suggestions that I appreciate and adhere to, but certainly not all. How I choose to interpret that is mine and mine alone without the influence of a religious institution' interpretation. — TimeLine

A problem I find with this is that you're attempting to attain moral excellence through seemingly egotistical means. It can't all be about you when morality itself requires the application of right compassion and love. Ethics require a kind of community, agreement on how to interact. If you get rid of a system, say, like the Catholic Church, some would argue that you're getting rid of a necessary step on the road toward making better sure that you are treating others as well as you are able to - which, as a result, is the only way in which one's own morality can be fostered.

If reaching a state of moral perfection is entirely a subjective endeavour, — TimeLine

...

hence why Jesus spoke in parables, then how does practicing a religion influence the independence or autonomy required for one to achieve this?

Each individual creates the world upon coming into being, but the world, once made, serves each individual as a whole. Think Tower of Babel.

Interestingly, I have just read in another account of the case that Jacalyn Duffin commented on, which says that this case was rejected by the Vatican as 'a miracle':

[Vatican] experts argued that she had not had a first remission and a relapse; instead, they contended that the second round of treatment produced a first remission.

And was, therefore, due to medical treatment, and not to divine intervention. (However, the canonisation proceeded regardless, presumably on the basis of other cases).

Duffin comments 'Though still an atheist, I believe in miracles - wondrous things that happen for which we can find no scientific explanation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24660240

Her book is in Fisher Library, I think I will borrow it next visit.

I am very reticent about what God is or isn't, or does and doesn't do, but I think heaven and hell are real, or represent something real. I have to believe that actions have consequences beyond this physical existence. — Wayfarer

I who was ranting about people claiming to have specific knowledge of God, should not then make opposite pronouncements, like "God doesn't do anything", since I claim there is no specific knowledge about God is available to us. So STFU, Crank...

Life Eternal, Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Final Judgement, etc. These words resonate in my mind, whether I like it or not. The faith I was raised with was mainline (Methodist) Christianity. But mainline Christianity is where all those specific attributes for God came from that I find troublesome. So, when I try to salvage something of my spiritual up-bringing, I fasten on to God concepts that get God out of the job of solving our infinity of problems brought to Him in prayer. So, rather than expecting God to heal the pain, maybe God only shares our pain with us. God is eternal, (that does seem to be kind of necessary) but maybe not all knowing, all powerful. God has my OK on being everywhere, too. If He is going to be the Ground of Being, I guess he needs to be all over.

Like I said, I'm not really sure what the "ground of being" means. I'm not alone. Someone asked what it means on a catholic forum. The answer is from 7 years ago, and the person writing this has since been banned. Don't know if it was for heresy or not.

What does "God is the 'ground of being' mean?"

This is a good question and cannot be answered in words other than as an intellectual assertion not necessarily referring to the actual denotation of that phrase. That is because "God as the Ground of Being" is a mystically arrived at Understanding and is more of a hindrance as a concept than a help in such comprehension as may be had. Suffice it to say that in Western minds, save for the few who have an experiential clarity through diligent effort or through Grace, there is a grammatical inability to grasp the import of this Idea. English is inherently an ideological filter in this case that does not allow an easy grasp, as wonderfully useful as it normally is!

If the OP is sincerely interested in a dairy of someone who arrived at such a Realization, or in an exegesis of that experience in scholarly terms, may I recommend them to the following, both by Franklin Merrell-Wolff: there are many others, but these are likely the most thorough and succinct.

Though it may be a term bandied or even correctly used by some contemporary liberal religionists, the Understanding that prompts those words is the single consistent Insight that has appeared throughout history without regard to time, place, culture, gender, intellect, or any other factor, including the birth religion of the one realizing. On inspection it is even congruent with the words of the Bible, in particular those having to do with Identity.

That being the case, the referent experience is much maligned in the Christian world and the world in general due to its esoteric nature. Christianity is for the most part exoteric, and therefor unfriendly to this avenue of Understanding, though it is easy to see that most Christian mystics factor heavily in this expression, though in their own language. — TUNO, August 9, 2010 non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic

I to have used such a phrase before in order to illustrate Gods sovereignty over all creation. However, it is the context in which it is used that gives the sentence its full meaning. It appears to me that by saying that God is the ground of all being, this is meant in the context of ontological authority. God being a foundation; in other-words, God is that which is most fundamental to all reality in general. This means only that in order for there to be any kind of contingent reality at all, their must first be that which is a necessary reality. An analogy is thus used to describe the fundamental source of reality as being that which is holding everything up. Hence God is the ground of all being.

I don't think that the person intends to place God outside of the concept or predicate of being, as if to say that God is something more than being. That's logically impossible. If God is anything at all, God is necessary being. However, I am perhaps assuming to much and reading my Thomistic outlook in to it. — MindoverMatter2, August 13, 2010, Catholic

The thread on the Ground of Being quickly descended into bickering. Like, "BTW, there is a jewel of a little book used in many comparative religion classes, even Catholic ones, that has an elementary introduction to General Semantics and its application to religious studies. I will refer you to it if you like, Gregory I. But first, find How to Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler, and then other books might be of use to you.

For me, belief in God is so distant that it's outside of my observable universe X-)

I think the hardest part for a believer in understanding "the fence sitter" is the real pull of their belief in the first place; they need to take a position on God, for or against, which is the result of how impactful belief is in their own lives (for them, belief in God appears to be tied in importance to the belief that life is worth living, hence their perceived necessity to decide). This reaction comes from staunch hard-atheists too. Imagine my surprise when the Christian and the hard-atheist both gang up on me to tell me I'm lying to them or myself about the reality of my beliefs.

Accepting our own ignorance seems to be something widely and sorely needed these days...

Like I said, I'm not really sure what the "ground of being" means. — Bitter Crank

I tried to explain my understanding of 'ground of being' in another thread. (The next post down of mine, on the symbolic nature of scriptures, is also relevant to this point.)

Those quotes from Franklin Merrell Wolff certainly ring true with me, but if you were to post them in a Catholic (or Protestant) forum, then sure you would expect blow-back.

the Understanding that prompts those words is the single consistent Insight that has appeared throughout history without regard to time, place, culture, gender, intellect, or any other factor, including the birth religion of the one realizing. On inspection it is even congruent with the words of the Bible, in particular those having to do with Identity.

That being the case, the referent experience is much maligned in the Christian world and the world in general due to its esoteric nature. — TUNO, August 9, 2010 non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic

The 'maligning' is especially true - as I tried to explain earlier in this thread, this formed a large part of the conflict between the 'pistics' ('salvation by faith alone') and the early Gnostics ('you will know the truth') in the early Church. The pistics carried the day, and history was written by the victors. But every so often, other gnostics come along - Merrell Wolff was one of them - but the mainstream can't stand them.

The point of the analogy is that nobody has access to the closet (i make it my closet in the analogy so it makes sense in the real world; you don't have access to my closet. The analogy is for you, the reader). — VagabondSpectre

Too many rules; analogies don't work this way; they should be simple.

Whether or not your friends are the umpteen proofs of God or not doesn't change my retort. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, it does. Your analogy gets lumpier and lumpier the more you try to explain it.

So God is an ultimate concern because he offers salvation? Sure, but that seems greedy.

If everyone only obeys God in order to avoid hell and get into heaven then they're more hedonistic than yours truly. — VagabondSpectre

I don't see salvation as heaven vs. hell, I see it as actualization of personality and humanity. So there isn't greed involved. Greed signifies wanting too much of a good thing. The actualization of humanity doesn't fit that category.

You cannot lack atheistic beliefs because there's no such thing to lack. — VagabondSpectre

So atheistic beliefs don't exist then?

You could lack atheistic lack of belief, which statistically would indicate you're a theist! — VagabondSpectre

Maybe I am...who knows at this point...

The regressive left doesn't really go after Christianity though, at least not very much these days. — VagabondSpectre

My personal experience doesn't jive with that; I'd be curious what your reasons for claiming such would be.

The new enemy is the colonial west, and the victims are everyone other than straight white males. — VagabondSpectre

I do have to agree to some extent here. I'm not particularly looking to discuss politics in this thread about religion, though.

As you can see from the above video, no. — VagabondSpectre

But where, philosophically, do their views com from? Where are women's studies, sociology, etc., descended from philosophically?

That's right. I'm interested in reasonable truth, not ultimate, divine and gilded truth. Reason is what I rely on to try and discover or approximate "truth", if I transcended reason, I would therefore be failing in that endeavor. — VagabondSpectre

So this must be where we differ, then. I'm uninterested in reasonable truth. I'm interested in ultimate truth.

What's so great about great love? — VagabondSpectre

The answer to this question is experiential, not philosophical, so I can't answer it for you.

So you're an altruist then? — VagabondSpectre

Textbook altruism, yeah. The twisting of the word via evolutionary biology, no.

Humans are selfish, and so things like social contract theory and humanism seek to offer rational paths toward moral behavior (don't steal, don't murder, etc...) — VagabondSpectre

The same role religion provides...funny...reminds me of my previous arguments.

No, they have to be completely selfless, or they're nihilistic children, you say... — VagabondSpectre

Certainly I never said that.

Atheism has nothing to do with my moral positions — VagabondSpectre

How/Why?

You can judge the quality of a moral position by finding out how well it actually promotes the values it sets out to promote, — VagabondSpectre

Can you (or we) do this if (us) humans are inherently selfish, as you describe them?

and freedom and happiness are the values I seek to promote for everyone and also myself. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

As to nihilism, I understand it as a belief that life is meaningless. So, the antithesis would be that life has meaning. The reason I bring up nihilism in this scenario is that life having meaning, to me, must be an ultimate meaning. If life having meaning means me, my loved ones, and everyone else having comforting lives and enjoying life until they die, then how is that real meaning? That, to me, is a temporal, unfulfilling excuse for meaning. It comes down to this: meaning and the infinite must be linked, in order for meaning to exist. Meaning has to point beyond the temporal in order to have any ontological and metaphysical content. Meaning can't exist temporally, or finitely. This is the gist of my argument about nihilism; to me your views on an altruistic life are what I would ironically call "soft-nihilism". It has no real meaningful content.

Being some completely selfless being who doesn't care about comfort at all? That resembles nihilism in my opinion. — VagabondSpectre

How? And I never described a being who doesn't care about comfort; I suggested the possibility of a being who would lay down comfort for something higher: someone who does not make comfort their ultimate concern, contrary to what you describe.

This conversation is getting boring; we're obviously speaking two different languages here.

'You should let go even of dhammas' - you don't find that in the Bible. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's a new one for me. Interesting. Things to think about.

Yes, it does. Your analogy gets lumpier and lumpier the more you try to explain it. — Noble Dust

So I take it you're not agnostic then...

I don't see salvation as heaven vs. hell, I see it as actualization of personality and humanity. So there isn't greed involved. Greed signifies wanting too much of a good thing. The actualization of humanity doesn't fit that category. — Noble Dust

What is the actualization of humanity?

So atheistic beliefs don't exist then? — Noble Dust

Atheism is itself a lack of theistic beliefs. there's a difference between believing something exists, lacking a belief that something exists, and believing something does not exist. The simple analogy is designed to point this out.

The same role religion provides...funny...reminds me of my previous arguments. — Noble Dust

The difference being that religion doesn't tend to do ti via reason like humanism and social contract theory

[No, they have to be completely selfless, or they're nihilistic children, you say. - VagabondSpectre]

Certainly I never said that. — Noble Dust

Vagabond: I can work with greed and we can achieve the ends we want by agreeing to cooperate because it's more profitable. Capitalism alleges to do this, and humanist/theistic morality does it too.

Noble Dust: As I said, this idea of working together for my sake is nothing more than a child manipulating it's parents or her friends to get what she wants for herself. It's childish. That's why I bring up altruism. True altruism, or true unconditional lovelays itself down for the other. This concept doesn't avail itself of survival, or creature comforts, or whatever.

Atheism has nothing to do with my moral positions. -VagabondSpectre

How/Why? — Noble Dust

Because I don't base my moral system on God. Why is it necessary to have God in order to have morality?

You can judge the quality of a moral position by finding out how well it actually promotes the values it sets out to promote - VagabondSpectre

Can you (or we) do this if (us) humans are inherently selfish, as you describe them? — Noble Dust

Yes, observation and reason are how.

and freedom and happiness are the values I seek to promote for everyone and also myself. - VagabondSpectre

Why? — Noble Dust

Because happiness is the state that I want myself and others to be in, and freedom seems to be an essential way to get there. Freedom and happiness sum up the plethora of valuable things that life has to offer.

As to nihilism, I understand it as a belief that life is meaningless. So, the antithesis would be that life has meaning. The reason I bring up nihilism in this scenario is that life having meaning, to me, must be an ultimate meaning. If life having meaning means me, my loved ones, and everyone else having comforting lives and enjoying life until they die, then how is that real meaning? That, to me, is a temporal, unfulfilling excuse for meaning. It comes down to this: meaning and the infinite must be linked, in order for meaning to exist. Meaning has to point beyond the temporal in order to have any ontological and metaphysical content. Meaning can't exist temporally, or finitely. This is the gist of my argument about nihilism; to me your views on an altruistic life are what I would ironically call "soft-nihilism". It has no real meaningful content. — Noble Dust

I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is essentially that the well being of your loved one's is meaningless and unfulfilling to you.

It's meaningless because meaning can't exist temporally or finitely and is therefore unfulfilling.

But then, what's the point of altruism?

It seems like your altruism is yet another layer of greed which obscures your personal desire for some kind of spiritual connection with the infinite (whatever that might happen to be). Somehow altruism gets you there; it's an arbitrary means to the ultimate end of spiritual delight. Welcome to hedonism.

I suggested the possibility of a being who would lay down comfort for something higher: someone who does not make comfort their ultimate concern, contrary to what you describe. — Noble Dust

Define "something higher" or define "ultimate concern" and we might begin to speak the same language. If your "something higher" is an indescribable ineffable infinite force of love, truth and theosophical ecstasy, naturally that's your ultimate concern.

I have a vast and changing hierarchy of wants and values, but there is no ultimate value that renders all others meaningless by comparison. That's an effect reserved for only the most grandiose of ideologies.

The article I referred to is about a medical specialist who was called in to adjudicate whether a particular case could be accounted for scientifically. — Wayfarer

That it cannot be accounted for scientifically is no evidence for it being a miracle. The number of unexplained phenomena scientists observe is much greater than the number of explained phenomena. That's why they still have jobs - to search for explanations.

There is even a word for this in medicine - idiopathic - which means 'we currently have no idea why this happens'. I have an idiopathic arthritic condition, but I don't attribute it to supernatural beings, good bad or indifferent.

That it cannot be accounted for scientifically is no evidence for it being a miracle. — andrewk

You did notice that I later posted that the particular case that I was commenting on, was later declared by the Vatican, to have a natural or scientific explanation?

Furthermore, the context of such a judgement is significant in this discussion. I don't think that a Catholic would wish to claim that anything that happens for which there is no scientific explanation is therefore 'miraculous'. It might simply be unexplained, and I'm sure they're sufficiently pragmatic to understand that. But the kind of phenomena that are being discussed in these cases are not simply 'unexplained' - there's more to it than that.

But the kind of phenomena that are being discussed in these cases are not simply 'unexplained' - there's more to it than that. — Wayfarer

What more is there to it, and how does that extra feature lend support to belief in the efficacy of supplicatory prayer?

Well - there's that entire corpus of documentation that I have referred to - all of the literally thousands of cases that have been subject to examination by the Vatican, which you earlier declared 'snake oil'. Those ones.