I have a problem with the idea that we are separate from the body. To me that's an awareness function that has gone rogue. A point of awareness is that we are the body's steward. — Philosophim

Doesn't saying awareness is our body's steward imply awareness is separate from the body?

I imagine my soul as inhabiting another realm - call it a 'higher reality', or 'heaven', or the 'spiritual realm', and voluntarily immersing itself in this particular life as an educational, or character-building exercise, or just an entertainment, as one might play an interactive game, or listen to a lecture. — unenlightened

But can we be aware of our soul, or must we accept its existence on faith? If we can't be aware of our soul, then why should we care about its eternal fate? If we can be aware of our soul, then doesn't that mean that soul can be contained in awareness?

It seems that either awareness and soul are identical, or awareness contains soul. — Art48
I don't feel this is right. — unenlightened

I'm assuming awareness and the soul exists, and say that soul must be contained in awareness. How would you describe the relationship between awareness and soul?

The Most Dangerous Superstition is a book written by Larken Rose, in which he argues that the belief in political authority, or the institution of government, is the most dangerous superstition people have been taught. He uses examples of the countless evils that have been committed in the name of political "authority" and the "law", such as genocides, acts of aggression like unprovoked wars, and oppression.

Mr. Rose also makes the argument that the belief in political authority/the institution of government is a superstition because no one can legitimately wield political authority, as no one has the right to rule or forcibly control another as if he or she were his slave. — AntonioP

Does he discuss a better social structure than political authority? If not, then his criticism may be true but it's not actionable. Simply eliminating all political authority would be a disaster. Does he describe a better system?

So the ceiling and the floor are the same. — TheMadMan

If so, it would seem we are seeing different sides of the same thing when we look down and up. Atma is Brahman?

The gamer’s dilemma was created in 2009 by the philosopher Morgan Luck and boils down to the basic argument that if in and of itself virtual murder in video games like the kind in GTA is morally permissible because no one is actually being harmed then in and of itself virtual pedophilia and rape in video games must be morally permissible also for the same reason. He argues that they’re either both morally permissible despite society finding sexual assault far more distasteful and violative than murder or they’re both impermissible. In his article he then goes on to respond to five different counter arguments that attempt to find a relevant moral difference between virtual murder and virtual sexual assault. — Captain Homicide

My take on the argument is "IF killing people in a video game is morally permissible, THEN sexually abusing people in a video game is morally permissible, too."

A practical response sidesteps the moral question. It says killing in a video game does not encourage the gamer to go kill in real life, but that gamers who get sexual satisfaction out of virtual pedophilia and rape are more likely to do those acts in real life. (I'm not interested in defending the argument. It's just a thought.)

A deeper response is that Christianity hit the big time as Rome's official religion and that almost any state religion minimizes the taking of human life so its citizens will fight the state's wars. So, killing a human being is as morally impermissible as pedophilia and rape, but centuries of state-mandated Christianity has dulled us to that fact. (Look for a list of wars Christianity has declared an unjust war and forbidden Christians from fighting. It's a very, very short list of length zero.)

I think it goes too far to say philosophy is for questioning religion. I'd say philosophy is for discovering truth and the truth it finds often conflicts with the bogus "truths" of religion. Thus philosophy by its very nature often results in questioning of religion.

.Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?

The opposite of science is art.
Religion is one form of art.

The science of knowledge vs the art of intuition.

One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction.
The other puts together. Induction. Often narrative. — HarryHarry

One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction. AND puts together (Relativity and quantum mechanics describe almost all known phenomena)

The other puts together often fictitious events (ex., worldwide flood, miracles) to produce a grand narrative (ex. Jesus died for our sins)

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

I haven't heard of this fallacy before and I think it is helpful.
I think it's vaguely like the moving the goalposts fallacy.

You can't kill a religion. — Benj96

But religions can and have died, the religions of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc., etc.

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

It occurs to me a tendency towards monism is built into our language when we recognize universals.

Suppose a child has a pet cat "Fluffy". If the child lives isolated, on a remote farm, for instance, the child may believe that Fluffy is unique in all the universe. But eventually the child learns that Fluffy is a cat and that there are other cats in the world. So, the child sees Fluffy as an instantiation of the class "cat." Later, the child learns that cats and dogs are instantiation of the class "pet," and that cats, dogs, elephants, and people are instantiations of the class "animal." An obvious idea is that all things are an instantiation of something deeper. Thus, positing monism is natural and understandable.

[To be explicit, I'm not claiming this proves monism, only that it makes the idea natural and obvious.]

Considering the fact that scientists are attempting to look 13,800,000,000 years into the past, I'd say they're functionally the same. — Tzeentch

1. The Bible attempts to look 10,000 years into the past, not 13.8 billion. Google to see how Christians calculate the age.
2. Science really looks. It uses sophisticated instruments (like the LHC or the James Webb) to gather data and then uses logic, reason, and math to makes sense of the data. The Bible does its looking by repeating ancient imagined tales mixed with a bit of history.
Functionally the same? No.

For example, a belief in the big bang isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth. — Tzeentch

Belief in the big bang, a theory supported by solid evidence, for example, the cosmic background radiation,isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth, for example, the Genesis stories which include a talking serpent? I have to disagree.

In general the mindset of the atheist — invicta

I've watched Christian/atheist discussions (for example, the 'atheist experience' videos on YouTube) where time and time again the atheist knew more about religion than the Christian, perhaps because many atheists were once believers who bothered to critically investigate their beliefs.

I would argue that everyone reasons their way to faith — Epicero

Imagine a seven-year-old child who in a religion class has just learned that God is a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The child has faith in the trinity but I cannot see how reason has played any part in the child's faith. Can you?

RogueAI,

By “incremental morality,” do you mean something like the following?

• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can live. Good.
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can avoid years of severe torture which will leave him alive but permanently damaged physical and mentally. Good, probably.
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can avoid a few days in the hospital with Covid which will leave him permanently disabled in some not-too-serious way. Good or bad?
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that Pete can have a fun 1st birthday party. Bad, definitely.

Somewhere along the line as the consequences to infant Pete become less serious, sacrificing Joe flips from good to bad. But exactly where does it flip? It seems like your OP is related to the sorites paradox.

Wayfarer,

I’ve also seen the distinction that “exists” applies to what exists in spacetime and “subsists” applies to our ideas and other abstract objects.

If we take “is” to apply to everything, then we have the idea of direct experience of “isness.” The Hindu sage Ramakrishna taught we can “taste sugar” (i.e., experience isness as something other than ourself) and we can “be sugar” (which I take to refer to unitive vision).

P.S. as you may know, the thought of Plotinus entered the West via the mistaken identification of the “Dionysius the Areopagite” (also called Pseudo-Dionysius) who wrote in the 5th or 6th century with an individual named Dionysius that St. Paul is said to have converted.

↪Art48
There is one monism: "the truth". It remains the same regardless of what we make of it. As its the truth - it doesn't change. Science is not equal to the truth as ethics, spirituality, consciousness, art, religion and philosophy also exist and aren't explicable by scientific method (one tool out of many).

However they all have overlap, and the overlap portends to the truth. — Benj96

I agree, mostly, but have one question: if there’s a truth about ethics, would that imply that moral values are objective, not subjective?

I accept Hume’s is-ought distinction which rules out objective moral values. But if we choose a goal—human flourishing, for instance—then science provides the map of reality and we can use that map to determine optimum paths to the goal. The optimum paths imply moral values, i.e., the best way to behave to bring about human flourishing.

When you read the ancient and medieval description of the divine intellect as 'beyond being', I take that to mean 'beyond the vicissitudes of coming-to-be and passing-away' - an expression that is found in both the Western and Buddhist sacred literature. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your informative response. I've seen "beyond being," i.e., beyond existence, taken to mean that the source and foundation of all existence must itself be, in some sense, independent of existence, beyond existence, vaguely similar to the idea that the messenger must be independent of the message.

Again, the key in such discussions is to refrain from objectification or reification: there is no ultimate thing, substance, entity, or anything of the kind that can be conceptually described and grasped (something especially emphasized in Buddhism) — Wayfarer

Statement 1: there is no ultimate thing, substance, entity that can be conceptually described and grasped

Statement 2: the ultimate thing, substance, entity cannot be conceptually described and grasped

I’m thinking about the difference between the two statements. Statement 2 can be understood in an obvious way in that a) ultimate reality cannot be described because it is utterly other than anything with which we are acquainted, and b) qualia in general cannot be grasped conceptually. The Mary’s Room thought experiment illustrates b). So, statement 2 allows that ultimate reality may be experienced but the experience may transcend words (i.e., be ineffable). And statement 2 points out that merely thinking about an experience is not the same as having the experience. (Only a bat really knows what it’s like to be a bat.)

Statement 1, I think, can be understood much as above, but it is also open to a very different understanding that would rule out experience of ultimate reality, that would say ultimate reality IS NOT (it does not exist; it does not occupy a state “above” existence, per Pseudo-Dionysius), or say it possibly IS but is in no way accessible to a human being.

Comment?

Russell set Kant's objection out much more clearly. this is an oversimplification, but...
Existence is taken as a second-order predicate.
First-order predicates apply to (range over) individuals, and are written using the letters f,g,h... We write "f(a)" for the predication "a is f". — Banno

I've seen this argument before but never fully understood it. Can you provide a reference which elaborates? Why can't existence be regarded as a first-order predicate?
Letting "a" stand for "exists" we have:
f(a) is false if f is "the first even prime number after 2"
f(a) is true if f is "the first odd prime number after 2"

Also, if "a" is "is green" then f(a) is true if f is "grass". But does that make "is a color" a second order predicate because we can say "green is a color"? i.e., "a" means "is a color" and f refers to green.

Monism is essentially foundationalism. You're trying to find a foundation that has no prior identity, and it is not a sub identity of anything else. Ice = water = H20 = molecules = existence. Existence is the final identity that basically describes everything that all entities can simplify down to. — Philosophim

Yes.

The abyss is the substance. — bert1

Is this like the emptiness of Buddhism?

That is exactly what I am stating. Identities are mental constructs that we as humans can create. There is no limit to what we can identify. As such, it a logical allowance to do so. — Philosophim

True, but we seem to be talking about two different things. Monism, as I understand it, requires the "supreme being" to be the ultimate ground and basis of all that exists, much as water is the basis of ice.

We can now group them together into the one supreme reality that exists. — Philosophim

Is there any reason using that logic we cannot group all the universe's entities together and call the grouping the one supreme entity? I think of the supreme reality as the fundamental reality upon which all things are based. For instance, everything I see on my monitor is at root a manifestation of light.

Science tends towards monism. — Art48
Science does not posit an ultimate ground or one supreme reality. The terms 'ultimate' and 'supreme' are question begging. — Fooloso4

There's a big difference between "tends towards" and "posits".
You are attacking a straw man.

Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach? — Fooloso4

Good question. Refer
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14272/why-monism

The OP appears to be assuming the exterior world is real and the house is in the real external world. But information might just as well lead me to a house if I’m playing a video game and the house is in the game. If brain in a vat or solipsism is the case, then following information might also lead me to a house in the simulation or an imagined house in my mind. In other words, consistency within a world does not demonstrate the world is an actual objective fact.

My pet cat reasons as follows.
1. I can conceive of nothing greater than MO (my owner), who takes care of me, feeds me, provides me catnip and a comfortable place to live.
2. If MO existed contingently, there would be something greater
3. Nothing is greater than MO
4. Thererfore, MO exists necessarily
5. Therefore, MO is God.

The flaw is
2. Nothing is greater than TTWNGCBC
Any limitation in what we can conceive, doesn’t imply anything about what exists.

:smile: Yes

I think it must transcend the subject-object distinction, because it includes both the cognizing subject and the object of cognition. Hence frequent references in the literature to the union of knower and known. Objectivity, as a criterion for what really exists, is very much an artefact of the modern mindset with its emphasis on individuality and empirical validation. — Wayfarer

I used "objective" to indicate the ultimate ground IS, unlike unicorns. But your point is well-taken. Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius) would say that the ultimate ground, because it's the source of all existence, is above and beyond existence. Vedanta makes a similar point.
Is Awareness Experienced as an Object? | Swami Sarvapriyananda
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoV47KLEw

I think the idea of union with the supreme, whether that is cast in Christian or Advaita terminology, is not necessarily a similar kind of cognitive understanding to that divulged by experimental physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, we do not know the ultimate ground as we know other things. Usually, knowing involves 1) the knower, 2) the object known, and 3) the act of knowing. But in unitive knowledge of the ultimate, there is only knowing (or, if you prefer, only the knower).

I'm confused here by what you mean by "philosophy" and what you mean by "religion" and "science" as well. Some clarification would be helpful. — 180 Proof

That a tall order. Here's a response.

Epistemologically, science and philosophy accept the supremacy of human reason; religion has sacred texts and people (prophets, incarnations, etc.) whose authority cannot be denied.

Ontologically, science determines what is and philosophy (ideally) draws on science, attempting to answer ultimate questions, or, at least, give guidance in how to best live life. Current religions (ideally) become obsolete, although any valid insights are incorporate into science/philosophy.

An analogy: suppose a tribal civilization believes that the bark of a certain tree relieves headaches because the tree is dear to some god. Science examines, extracts the active ingredient, and doesn't accept belief in the tree god.

I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian. — Tom Storm

Of course, no one has a patent or trademark on the word "Christian" but most self-described "followers" of Jesus don't even know everything Jesus said, much less follow it. Rather, they follow their preachers.

Two examples.

1. Matthew 5:33-37 has Jesus in the plainest, strongest terms saying "Don't take oaths." which most "Christians" (i.e., Jesus fans) cheerful ignore, when they testify in court, assume political office, join the armed forces and, if they are schoolchildren in the U.S., daily recite the pledge of allegiance, which is, in fact, an oath. They are fans of Jesus (they think highly of him) but they are followers of their preachers.

2. But I don't mean to say that everything Jesus says is good, or should be followed. Jesus endorses OT commands about killing a child who curses a parent. This is Jesus speaking.
• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Matt 15:4
• For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Mark 7:10

In Matthew, 15:1-4 is as follows.

1Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat.” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother' and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if anyone says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he need not honor his father or mother with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

So, Jesus says the Pharisees "nullify the word of God" by not killing children who curse parents.

Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said.

I believe this is a basic problem with Kant's metaphysics. We can see this with his phenomena/noumena distinction. It seems that we cannot have any real knowledge of the noumenal world because it appears to us only through the medium of the phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover

In Schopenhauer's view:
"Schopenhauer . . . believes that the supreme principle of the universe is likewise apprehensible through introspection, and that we can understand the world as various manifestations of this general principle.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#3

My own explanation:
To Alice, Bob in a phenomena, a manifestation of the noumenal. Therefore, it may be possible for Bob to experience the noumenal, which is his fundamental ground, via introspection.

My name for Christian culturist is "Jesus fans." The don't actually follow his teaching, but they say he's a really great guy.

I did, and that's why I still want (more) compelling reasons. If that's all you've got, well okay, Art, ... whatever. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure there are more compelling reasons other than actually having the experience. Even then, some people interpret mystical experiences as of some person God: Jesus, Krishna, etc. And other people decide they temporarily went nuts.

However, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says the departed awareness naturally approaches the "Clear Light" but most cannot endure the intensity, and fall back through various states until rebirth. If it's accurate, we'll all have the experience then, even if we don't have it sooner.

Wayfarer,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I’m working on an article. (links below to the current draft version). I’d like to explain some points from the article to address your response.

I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. The table’s ground of existence is the wood; the wood’s ground of existence is its atoms; etc., etc., down to the ultimate ground of existence which underlies the entire universe. At this point, it’s a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. I'd say the concept of ultimate ground is harmonious with science, which is looking for a theory of everything.

Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea. And others who ascribe their experience to some God may be guilty of what I call “gratuitous attribution.” For instance, Pascal had an experience of FIRE and attributed it to "the God of Abraham."

I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe I’m still doing philosophy, not theology.

But accepting the testimony of the mystics implies that a human being can have a direct experience of the ultimate ground. How can this be possible? How can a human being have a direct experience of something below quarks? On the other hand, how can a human being NOT experience ultimate ground if that, ultimately, is what a human being is? One answer is evolution has tuned us to pay attention to the physical universe. Contemplate your ultimate ground and you may become some animal’s lunch. So, various practices may be helpful to unlearn evolution’s lesson and have direct experience of the ultimate ground (although the experience seems to sometimes occur spontaneously). Mystics have recommended various practices.

So, a human being is an expression of the universe’s ultimate ground of existence and can choose to try to directly experience his/her own ultimate ground. At this point, I believe I’m still in philosophical territory, although perhaps not within philosophy’s current scope.

Now comes the link to theology.

How to relate to the ultimate ground? That is up to the individual. Schopenhauer called it blind. Someone else might call it the goddamned stuff that underlies our horrible world of evil, suffering and pain. But because it is that in which “we live and move and have our being,” someone might regard it religiously as God, not a God who is a person who lives in heaven, but more like Brahman or Tao, i.e., an impersonal God who is immanent in the universe, who in fact IS the universe.

Regarding the ultimate ground religiously or not is a person's choice. When I next revisit the article, one goal will be to make that clearer.

There’s more that could be said, but this, I hope, gives a rough idea of my thought.

P.S. I'd describe Neoplatonism as a philosophy, with optional religious component.

Links to article
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

I may have missed it but tell us (again?) why – on what basis – you "don't believe
... encounters with uncreated light" are delusions. — 180 Proof

See my response to Banno, about 7 entries up.

Art48
I've quoted that very passage numerous times on this forum. Doesn't change anything I said. There's no point discussing these kinds of ideas on this forum. — Wayfarer

OK, you have much more experience on this forum than I, so I believe you. But I'm puzzled. Why is there no point in discussing a "a perennial philosophical reflection" on a philosophy forum? Can you elaborate?

Banno,

OK. People can "see stars," and weird things may occur when someone is dying. But people "see stars" when they are bumped on the head and don't claim the experience was of God. The experience of uncreated light, per Augustine, is "Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind". Augustine goes on to call the light, God, and went from being a libertine to a saint. It seems like his experience was something more than "seeing stars."

Accounts like Augustine's seem to be what mysticism is based on. Here's another account.

In 1945, a 42-year-old Jungian psychiatrist raised Protestant, had an unusual experience.

There was light everywhere. . . . [T]he world was flooded with light, the supernal light that so many of the mystics describe . . . [T]he experience was so overwhelmingly good that I couldn’t mistrust it. . . . [G]lory blazing all around me. . . . I realized that some of the medieval poems I had been so innocently handling were written to invoke just such an experience as I had had. (That stuff is still alive, I tell you.)

Her experience lasted for five days; the aftereffects lasted longer. At age 82, she wrote her experience was “. . . so far from anything that I had thought in the realm of the possible, that it has taken me the rest of my life to come to terms with it.”

The quote is from Foster, G. W. (1985). The World Was Flooded with Light; A Mystical Experience Remembered. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, p. 33-34

I'd say the evidence can be interpreted either way. I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are.

The majority will never accept that there is the kind of state of self-realisation or higher knowledge that the Advaitins are speaking of, as it has no reference points in modern philosophy or Western culture generally. — Wayfarer

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Arthur Schopenhauer:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
in the section 4. The World as Will

I've added the bold

When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.
Hypoxia mistaken for ontology. — Banno

The Cleveland Clinic page on Hypoxia doesn't mention the experience of white light.
> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23063-hypoxia
Can you provide a source for your assertion?
Also, can a retina be deprived of oxygen without the entire body being deprived of oxygen?