The Supernatural

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by Mithras Religious people who deny the influences of other traditions are far worse than edgy atheists. There would be no Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic heritage without influences from Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism (this particular one in the case of Christianity only). Other influences most likely range from Assyrian Mesopotamian religion to Egyptian Cult of Osiris, but I have not researched those as much. The narrative of religions have far-reaching influences beyond social control and personal belief or disbelief; their narratives and mythos alter the common metaphors people use to make sense of interpersonal relationships or man's relationship to the world. The ideas of mutual reciprocity and other virtues, for example, originates from ancient religions, and they still have relevance to this day. It is not possible to reconcile normativity with naturalism, so the effects of religions on ethos are still important to study, irrespective of their metaphysical validity. I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. They might say it's a question of causality. If so they might claim that the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition is the final cause of the preceding traditions in the same way that the flower is the cause of the seed. I asked a classroom full of students a specific question with a specific answer. The first round of answers I received were close but not the exact answer I wanted to hear. Finally, someone eventually raised their hand and told me the exact answer to the question.

Religion, as i have pointed out before, exists along a historical axis but also along an atemporal one; exists in fact, on the interesection of these.
I do not believe in the story of Abraham as it was once true, but because it is always true. To see a religion as movement along the historical axis only, is to mistake a part for the whole.

[qcrisp]

http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/...earce.cfm.html

Quote

In spite of the profound effect of Buddhist teaching upon his general outlook, Schumacher's return to England 'was not marked by an intensification of his study of Eastern religions'. Instead he concentrated his efforts on a thorough study of Christian thought, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas, and modern writers such as Rene Guenon and Jacques Maritain. He also began to read the Christian mystics and the lives of the saints. Although he still did not consider himself a Christian his previously hostile attitude had softened. One result of this was that his wife, who came from a devout Lutheran background, could take their children to church without fear of her husband's objections. Schumacher first publicly stated his new orientation in a broadcast talk in May 1957 in which he criticized a much-acclaimed book by Charles Frankel, entitled The Case for Modern Man. He called his talk 'The Insufficiency of Liberalism' and it was an exposition of what he termed the 'three stages of development'. The first great leap, he said, was made when man moved from stage one of primitive religiosity to stage two of scientific realism. This was the stage modern man tended to be at. Then, he said, some people become dissatisfied with scientific realism, perceiving its deficiencies, and realize that there is something beyond fact and science. Such people progress to a higher plane of development which he called stage three. The problem, he explained, was that stage one and stage three looked exactly the same to those in stage two. Consequently, those in stage three are seen as having had some sort of brainstorm, a relapse into childish nonsense. Only those in stage three, who have been through stage two, can understand the difference between stage one and stage three.

[qcrisp]

YouTube

Indeed, I felt I had to.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech Quote Originally Posted by Mithras Religious people who deny the influences of other traditions are far worse than edgy atheists. There would be no Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic heritage without influences from Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism (this particular one in the case of Christianity only). Other influences most likely range from Assyrian Mesopotamian religion to Egyptian Cult of Osiris, but I have not researched those as much. The narrative of religions have far-reaching influences beyond social control and personal belief or disbelief; their narratives and mythos alter the common metaphors people use to make sense of interpersonal relationships or man's relationship to the world. The ideas of mutual reciprocity and other virtues, for example, originates from ancient religions, and they still have relevance to this day. It is not possible to reconcile normativity with naturalism, so the effects of religions on ethos are still important to study, irrespective of their metaphysical validity. I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. They might say it's a question of causality. If so they might claim that the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition is the final cause of the preceding traditions in the same way that the flower is the cause of the seed. I asked a classroom full of students a specific question with a specific answer. The first round of answers I received were close but not the exact answer I wanted to hear. Finally, someone eventually raised their hand and told me the exact answer to the question. Religion, as i have pointed out before, exists along a historical axis but also along an atemporal one; exists in fact, on the interesection of these. I do not believe in the story of Abraham as it was once true, but because it is always true. To see a religion as movement along the historical axis only, is to mistake a part for the whole.

I suppose for Christians the Incarnation is seen as the intersection of both the historical and atemporal axes. I don't know much about Islam, but I assume Muhammad's first revelation possesses the same characteristic.

[Mr. Veech]

One thing I've been thinking about for some time is that atheists can have "religious" experiences which are just as powerful as anything experienced by religious people. Speaking from personal experience, personal tragedies reveal to one that God is completely absent, i.e., nonexistent.

There are moments when what is customarily called "good" is utterly destroyed by the everyday course of things. I firmly believe that to experience such events is to gain insight into the bankrupt nature of existence. The only real benefit to said insight is that you realize there's nothing really to fear once you realize you inhabit a "bargain bin" universe.

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

One thing I've been thinking about for some time is that atheists can have "religious" experiences which are just as powerful as anything experienced by religious people. Speaking from personal experience, personal tragedies reveal to one that God is completely absent, i.e., nonexistent. There are moments when what is customarily called "good" is utterly destroyed by the everyday course of things. I firmly believe that to experience such events is to gain insight into the bankrupt nature of existence. The only real benefit to said insight is that you realize there's nothing really to fear once you realize you inhabit a "bargain bin" universe.

I've pondered over replying to this, since i do not like to commit the disrespect of valuing one subjectivity over another, but in short: it is my experience that one of the two states you mention ( knowing God & knowing not-God) is -richer?more comprehensive?more complete?- than the other because only that one contains the other.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

One thing I've been thinking about for some time is that atheists can have "religious" experiences which are just as powerful as anything experienced by religious people. Speaking from personal experience, personal tragedies reveal to one that God is completely absent, i.e., nonexistent. There are moments when what is customarily called "good" is utterly destroyed by the everyday course of things. I firmly believe that to experience such events is to gain insight into the bankrupt nature of existence. The only real benefit to said insight is that you realize there's nothing really to fear once you realize you inhabit a "bargain bin" universe.

No aspersions as to your personal sincerity intended but I find it hard to comprehend this. Either the negation of the good shows something is not as it should be, a state which does not fit with an amoral naturalistic universe, or that this supposed 'good' was merely a phantasm with no external ground. A consistent realisation of God's non-existence, if taken to be the non-existence of a transcendent ground of all values, would mean the insight that such an event is not tragic, it’s not anything - the glorious and the tragic, the good and the evil, the what should be and what should not be are phantasms projected by the will (for no reason at all).

* Which sounds a bit like the benefit of which you speak - if so though there is not reason to preference that 'good' over a contradictory one.

Following on from this an intuition into the non-existence of God would at the same time be an intuition into the illusory nature of truth, and thus of reality as an external objectivity (including one’s own identity). The place of God as ground of being would subsumed by the solipsistic will to power, which, unable to be spoken of without making truth claims, can only be 'visualized' as ultimate incoherent feeling.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Evans

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech One thing I've been thinking about for some time is that atheists can have "religious" experiences which are just as powerful as anything experienced by religious people. Speaking from personal experience, personal tragedies reveal to one that God is completely absent, i.e., nonexistent. There are moments when what is customarily called "good" is utterly destroyed by the everyday course of things. I firmly believe that to experience such events is to gain insight into the bankrupt nature of existence. The only real benefit to said insight is that you realize there's nothing really to fear once you realize you inhabit a "bargain bin" universe. No aspersions as to your personal sincerity intended but I find it hard to comprehend this. Either the negation of the good shows something is not as it should be, a state which does not fit with an amoral naturalistic universe, or that this supposed 'good' was merely a phantasm with no external ground. A consistent realisation of God's non-existence, if taken to be the non-existence of a transcendent ground of all values, would mean the insight that such an event is not tragic, it’s not anything - the glorious and the tragic, the good and the evil, the what should be and what should not be are phantasms projected by the will (for no reason at all). * Which sounds a bit like the benefit of which you speak - if so though there is not reason to preference that 'good' over a contradictory one. Following on from this an intuition into the non-existence of God would at the same time be an intuition into the illusory nature of truth, and thus of reality as an external objectivity (including one’s own identity). The place of God as ground of being would subsumed by the solipsistic will to power, which, unable to be spoken of without making truth claims, can only be 'visualized' as ultimate incoherent feeling.

I've pondered all of the above for many years. While it's all quite logically compelling, it's not at all compelling in the "existential" sense, i.e., it does not satisfy the human heart. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever altered my worldview on the basis of a philosophical argument, and I'm willing to bet that, all things considered, no one else has either.

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech Quote Originally Posted by Mithras Religious people who deny the influences of other traditions are far worse than edgy atheists. There would be no Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic heritage without influences from Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism (this particular one in the case of Christianity only). Other influences most likely range from Assyrian Mesopotamian religion to Egyptian Cult of Osiris, but I have not researched those as much. The narrative of religions have far-reaching influences beyond social control and personal belief or disbelief; their narratives and mythos alter the common metaphors people use to make sense of interpersonal relationships or man's relationship to the world. The ideas of mutual reciprocity and other virtues, for example, originates from ancient religions, and they still have relevance to this day. It is not possible to reconcile normativity with naturalism, so the effects of religions on ethos are still important to study, irrespective of their metaphysical validity. I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. They might say it's a question of causality. If so they might claim that the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition is the final cause of the preceding traditions in the same way that the flower is the cause of the seed. I asked a classroom full of students a specific question with a specific answer. The first round of answers I received were close but not the exact answer I wanted to hear. Finally, someone eventually raised their hand and told me the exact answer to the question. Religion, as i have pointed out before, exists along a historical axis but also along an atemporal one; exists in fact, on the interesection of these. I do not believe in the story of Abraham as it was once true, but because it is always true. To see a religion as movement along the historical axis only, is to mistake a part for the whole. I suppose for Christians the Incarnation is seen as the intersection of both the historical and atemporal axes. I don't know much about Islam, but I assume Muhammad's first revelation possesses the same characteristic.

In Islam, i'd say it is not the revelation that is the axis but the exact intersection of revelation and man.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by Evans Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech One thing I've been thinking about for some time is that atheists can have "religious" experiences which are just as powerful as anything experienced by religious people. Speaking from personal experience, personal tragedies reveal to one that God is completely absent, i.e., nonexistent. There are moments when what is customarily called "good" is utterly destroyed by the everyday course of things. I firmly believe that to experience such events is to gain insight into the bankrupt nature of existence. The only real benefit to said insight is that you realize there's nothing really to fear once you realize you inhabit a "bargain bin" universe. No aspersions as to your personal sincerity intended but I find it hard to comprehend this. Either the negation of the good shows something is not as it should be, a state which does not fit with an amoral naturalistic universe, or that this supposed 'good' was merely a phantasm with no external ground. A consistent realisation of God's non-existence, if taken to be the non-existence of a transcendent ground of all values, would mean the insight that such an event is not tragic, it’s not anything - the glorious and the tragic, the good and the evil, the what should be and what should not be are phantasms projected by the will (for no reason at all). * Which sounds a bit like the benefit of which you speak - if so though there is not reason to preference that 'good' over a contradictory one. Following on from this an intuition into the non-existence of God would at the same time be an intuition into the illusory nature of truth, and thus of reality as an external objectivity (including one’s own identity). The place of God as ground of being would subsumed by the solipsistic will to power, which, unable to be spoken of without making truth claims, can only be 'visualized' as ultimate incoherent feeling. I've pondered all of the above for many years. While it's all quite logically compelling, it's not at all compelling in the "existential" sense, i.e., it does not satisfy the human heart. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever altered my worldview on the basis of a philosophical argument, and I'm willing to bet that, all things considered, no one else has either.

I have.