romansh

Illusion ... calling some thing an illusion can be for some a scary or at least its outcome. So I think we need to practice a bit of rigour here and clarify what me mean by illusion. Otherwise we talk past one another.

Of course our perceptions are not only coloured but actually formed by our experiences, chemistry, genetics etc. So our perception of reality is at best only a reflection of a small part of the universe or more accurately weighted to a small part of the universe. I suppose it could be argued some reflections are more accurate (more complete?) than others. Though it has been demonstrated some take on a post modernist flavour and claim we can't measure the accuracy not even relatively.

I personally might not describe our waking perception as dream but I think our perception is limited and therefore reality cannot be as perceived with absolute accuracy ie, not what it seems. This sort points to Kant's noumenon and phenomenon. Phenomenon is but a refection of noumenon. But by using numerous kinds of phenomena we can build up a more accurate description of the noumenon assuming we have error checking in place. This is hopefully an ongoing process and we are never at the final description and needs to be viewed over centuries.

Carl Sagan ... We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself. (I might argue about the word "know", but I think the general sentiment points in the right direction)'

• illusion: something is not as it seems, I accept there are other senses ... ie it can be synonymous with delusion.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎14 at 0:44 PM, thormas said:

In response, in order of your comments:

- no, I didn't feel demeaned, I merely wanted to know the rules so I could fire back if allowed :+}

- for most people, objective reality is not mere semantics; they know and know they know.

-  To clarify: I don't believe that God and the universe are one and the same, so I don't believe the universe is (only) love.  I believe that the reason all exists is because of Love. Is it 'in everything?1' Better to say, it is present to everything: it is available to all and waits for a response of free beings (see below). I get this for humanity, still working on a better insight into the rest of created reality but, as previously mentioned, I do accept that Being/God/Love 'lets be' even that speck of dust.  BTW, I also allow that such an act of love creates (of necessity) a tragic situation in which suffering, evil and sin occur. This is a belief that resonates with me but I too have questions about the nasty parasites, cancers and the dust in the far reaches of the universe. Actually I think I have more questions and doubts around this subject that most (in part because theology is what I was educated in, what I did for a living and what continues to fascinate): that is why I read, think, rethink, read and on and on. It would seem that the let be (Heideggar, I believe) is a bit of an unusual take on love -but it works.

- Try this and I mean it in all sincerely: when my wife and I had a daughter, she was created out of love, brought up in love, showered with love and will be to the end (or as Buzz says to infinity and beyond). However, in the moment we began to try, we were creating or allowing for a possibly tragic situation. She was born into this creation which is tragic: anything can happen and does: asthma, allergies, colds, chicken pox, cancers, careless drivers, hurricanes, that speck of dust that carries an infection, hurt by friends, hurt by the little red haired boy, experiencing the death of loved ones, the death of a beloved and ultimately the death of self. In a real sense, we did this! We knew this about creation but what choice did love have?2 Love creates "out of itself' the other, in her freedom, but such freedom (even with the conditions previously discussed on this site) is the only way for a being to be, to live, to truly have her life. The risk is for the child and also for the parent, the creators, who have opened themselves, as never before, to risk and to Life. Could it be otherwise?3 I don't think so. This is what love is, this is what love does: it gives itself away for the other. There is a part of me, a large part that lives in fear everyday even now that she is in her 20s. But there was no choice with love: it must go out from itself and create, grace an-other with existence, with Life yet in that moment the tragedy of creation is for evermore present. But to have loved, to have created her, to be there in compassion, to heal, to hold, to continually (hopefully) enhance life, to be the hand that is held, the kiss given and received, how could it not be done?4 It was done because we looked around and in spite of the tragedy of creation, we said, this is good and love did what it was.

So I take this and begin to think on God. Why do we exist?5 Why create or why is there creation?6 I reject happenstance, so purposefulness is my option. And the only real purpose/reason I know is love: unbound, a poring out of love for the other. And, the tragedy of creation is God's fault, as mine is the life I gave my child - but love is omnipresent, it is 'there' not in spite of the parasites, the cancer, the space dust but present through humanity, through men and women, to love amidst the tragedy of creation until Oneness. The paradox is that God's omnipotence is not the power of domination, of control, of God experiencing existence (as if it is all about God) - it is, rather, the power (or weakness) that is love. It is not God that experiences existence (although I allow there may be something to this), it is that Love went out from Self so we, the other, can experience existence.

Love, given its very nature, involves risk. God is not in the quicksand (see previous post) with us. Although we are 'of God,' we are other and therefore God can help. But there is no supernatural hand coming down from heaven. Rather, we, by responding to love, are the bodies, the flesh that makes the difference: the hand held, the kiss given, the door held open. Creation 'moves forward' by humanity incarnating divinity, by humanity being Love. The ancient Fathers called this deification. Yet the tragic structure, the undeserved suffering, the evil men commit-  continues. So we must be about the business of Love.

- This is not and there are no demonstrations, it is only a presenting and the hearer or reader must decide if it speaks to their experience.

- I have not really concentrated much on love and mammals or other forms of life- short answer, I have always believed that the 'caring' evident in other forms of life are guided and realized by instinct and that all creation, to paraphrase Paul, groans in/toward fulfillment. That is it for now.

- what causes belief?7 For me the answer is tied to the self-revelation or self-giving of God. Even with what I have said above, I don't see it as evidence. I believe that man is a self-transcending being, always reaching beyond, for more and I think for some this reach is met in faith expressions. I don't see it as evidence. What causes love?7  I know you might have an evidence based answer but, for me, the reach is met (surprisingly, amazingly, bewilderingly, unexpectedly but it is met).  

- How can one demonstrate or provide evidence for the accuracy of their belief?8  If it speaks to one'e experience, if it provides meaning and answer the age old questions all men (okay most men :+} ask; it is taken as one's own. If it doesn't, it isn't. This is also how we make a judgement on our belief.

- I recognize that, for some/many, the problem of ‘evil’ is a problem for traditional and panentheistic gods. But for me, agnosticism and atheism do not answer the question of evil and don't have an answer to life. Why doe we exist?9 Their answer: I don't know or there is no answer yet they trudge on - to what, for what?10 If they laid down and quit it would be the same as if they lived till 90. If someone thinks it is courageous to continue to push the rock up one side, have it roll down and then push it up the outer side for all eternity, it is not. It still means nothing, no one knows and there is no God to rebel against; it is in itself and ultimately, a meaningless act . And existence doesn't care either, you were just happenstance. If you were, if you weren't - it is the same. Even for friends I love beyond measure, this stance - though theirs and thus respected, is beyond senseless (to me).This may well be their belief, but then, now, in the future, whenever, so what?11 And the pantheist God shares the quicksand, so then what?12

 - I have provided a partial answer on the problem of evil, perhaps we can dive onto it in the more at some point.

 

Thormas ... I must admit for me this was way too long and if I may say so flowery.

1. To me this seems like rhetorical question about your beliefs.
2. Choice about love? Absolutely none - at least free choice.
3. Could it be otherwise? I don't see how. But generally I disagree with the premise preceding.
4. See 3
5. Why do we exist? Teleology! What evidence do we have of a purpose or intent for our existence?
6. More teleology ... not necessary in my opinion.
7. What causes love? ...  the properties of matter. The same that causes hate, lust, greed, fear, jealousy, etc .. you get the picture.
8. Already answered.
9. More teleology.
10. More teleology
11. More teleology
12. It just might be a more accurate description of existence.

Anyway my answers.

1 minute ago, thormas said:

Sorry Rom, you suggested and I took the time to respond to that request.

There for the reading, hardly a wall of text, appreciate the snakiness but still a dodge.

 Turn about is still fair play: don't start asking even more questions - respond or not! 

Actually I have mentioned to Joseph (in the past and before your time here) I am not a fan long posts. I prefer to have more of a discussion. So if you see it as snarkiness aimed at you fair enough. But I would appreciate it if you could summarize the points you want me to address.

45 minutes ago, thormas said:

Sorry, should have been more clear. I reject happenstance as the reason for being, for creation. I totally accept happenstance in the sense that 'stuff' happens for which we are not responsible. Sort of reminiscent of Kushner's 'When Bad Things Happen To Good People.'

As for the rest, a nice dodge especially when you suggest the topic. Besides, turn about is fair play: you ask and ask and ask (like above) but when asked...................nada.

If I want a wall of text I normally pick up a book. What is (or are) the questions you would like to be answered.

One that comes to mind how we measure accuracy which I answered already. What were the others.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎14 at 0:44 PM, thormas said:

I reject happenstance,

I pick just one aspect of your reply ... in that there I find much that does not make sense and is off topic and not make discussion too unwieldy.

This is a 'positive' claim in a philosophical sense. What is your corroborative evidence for rejecting happenstance?

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎15 at 11:34 AM, JosephM said:

Rom,

i am the perpetrator.  

PS Perfectly alright with me if you see chaos where i see order. Also ok to name me whatever vowels and consonants you wish to put together for me. You might point close but you'll never get there.

If by perpetrator you mean proximate cause ... then I agree. There are a whole bunch of causes (seen and unseen) supporting you being a perp.  

If there was true order then my pointing could be spot on. While we can see order in the rotation of the moon about the Earth which rotates about the Sun ... these are in fact chaotic. Or at least the evidence points that way. Evolution is chaotic, the molecules around us are chaotic, the very fabric of matter appears to be chaotic. Yes we can pick out pockets of order.

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

PS When i look i see the universe dancing in an orderly and balanced fashion. For every so called victim (innocent or not i do not know) i see a perpetrator (justified or not i do not know) But this i have seen ...

What I do see is a chaotic universe in which there are pockets of what appears to be order; the ticking universe can be described by what we call laws, ultimately these descriptions are not accurate in an absolute way, but can be pretty darn good. I suppose I could call this balanced. This I think I can justify. I can see action and reaction, cause and effect.  I fail to see a perpetrator; though I can imagine one. I am seeing the same universe as you Joseph.

Now not knowing you can justify the perpetrator you see is what I would call faith. But understanding that you know you do not know you can justify this is (I would argue) agnosticism. So in the nomenclature of the topic that would make you an agnostic theist. I know we may not like descriptors, but they do facilitate discussion.

Good and evil ... ultimately figments of our imagination.

34 minutes ago, Burl said:

Just to note that evil and good are not opposites, just as rust is not the opposite of refining metal.

Just ignoring the disparity in noun versus verb for the moment ... rusting from the metal's point of view is electron loss and refining (ie removing the oxygen) is electron gain.

But I might agree that good and evil are not opposites. Closer to illusions in my book.

that one should not demean or ridicule another.

It was not my intention to demean, my apologies if you feel demeaned.

Most rely on this 'objective reality' on a daily basis to function. In addition, believing there is no proof must be an extreme agnosticism

No not really. I could be a semantic issue here. Weak agnosticism might claim I don’t know and I don’t know what you might know. Having said that I might be skeptical that others claim they know. They might think or believe they know.

- one that would leave its few adherents cowering in the corner (there being no proof, no evidence that it exists either) as one just doesn't know .....anything.  As for "faith is any old thing" - again demeaning and full of ridicule which seems to be so un-PC. 

Here you conflate no proof and no evidence as the same thing. When dealing with the real world all we have is inductive logic where we always have alternative possibilities. Proofs might be found in deductive logic but here we must agree on the axioms and agree that the logic used is sound and that logic can be used.  You have never heard anyone argue that one can’t prove there isn’t a god and therefore it is OK to believe?

You make two mistakes if, as it seems you are, suggesting this is my view: first I do not equate the universe with God (this is pantheism) so I do not believe a 'holistic panentheism can be attributed to this universe.'

I have read this through several times. Just to be clear do you think Love is in everything? So we find Love in nasty parasites or are you suggesting Love is only found in some behaviours? I am not sure how there is love in a speck of dust out in deep space. Unless you are using some unusual definition of Love.

And second, it is your 'belief' and only a belief, that because there is much in this universe that cannot be easily coupled with love (I would go further adding in direct opposition to Love), it follows that God is not Love. Many 'believe' the opposite. Merely because you state it, does not make it so,

Well you have not demonstrated in a convincing way that love can be found in malaria for example. Sure some people care for those infected with malaria, but who or what actually Loves malaria?

You state your 'belief' that some of the higher mammal attribute loving bits to life while it is obvious that others (including classic and contemporary theists) would neither character love as such or consider love as merely a human (and higher mammal) contribution. Again we have your belief vs. others: my point all along.

This makes no sense to me, thormas. Firstly, I did not quite say what you said. I said Sure we can have loving bits attributed to life, primarily some of the higher mammals. So it is your belief we do not attribute Love to mammals and life in general?

is no proof but there is reliable evidence, ok. But I was making a simple statement about believing that loves that leads to action and you introduce infidelity. My point stands, lets discuss infidelity at a later date because, as you said, you are getting frustrated.

You miss the point completely here thormas … the discussion here was faith versus agnosticism. It still is sort of.

there is no evidence and no proof there is a God, the universe is God or for or against the panentheistic understanding of God. It is belief, as your stance is also a belief. 

If there is no evidence for a God what causes this belief? And if a lack of belief is a belief, then this is some interesting semantic jugglery, at least I believe so.

there will be those who accept (ie. believe') that God is love and those that will reject it. To look for evidence (not to mention proof) for or against God is to not recognize that all the religious or non-religious stances are matters of belief.

So you believe. Is your belief accurate? How do we adjudicate our beliefs? We can argue about what is the quickest route between point A and point B. We can gather evidence look at cellphone responses, travel the routes ourselves. Ask others, ask Google. Now we can never be sure in any given instance which will be the quickest, but inductively we can make a more accurate choice.

As an example, I could easily make an argument against the classically understood theistic God and provide 'evidence' that such a supreme being, above and beyond the universe, but who is both omnipotent and all loving 'does not exist' or, better and more accurately, that I don't believe or accept such a God. Two points, the presence of evil can be 'explained' (and I'm not saying it is a satisfactory explanation for me or all others, but definitely for others) in classic theism and I do not believe in a such theistic God. 

For me, the problem of ‘evil’ is a problem for traditional and panentheistic gods that has not been explained away to my satisfaction. This may well be a belief, but then so what? Feel free to start a thread on this subject, should you wish.

We might be striving for a better understanding of our existence but how is 'accuracy' measured in such a endeavor (an endeavor of faith)? I respect the agnostic and the atheist to name two but I am not either: they do not resonate and provide no insight/understanding that would (since both are statements of faith) compel me to action, to live a certain way. And I recognize they feel the same - so what? Diversity in Unity. I am not out to convince them, I am wiser than that as I, again, recognize and respect the beliefs of others; the faith of others cuts it for me. 

This fair enough.

6 hours ago, thormas said:

We must have been typing at the same time, I missed this post.

But good point as it also shows there can be faith (even Love) without proof or 'evidence.' Who can prove another loves them? The evidence can lie - I mean I have seen enough movies where the evidence points to her loving the guy and it turns out she wants his money, or plans to have revenge, or perhaps the Astronaut is not the person the 'Astronaut's Wife' thinks he is (He's an alien). I mean this stuff happens:+} 

I must admit I am experiencing some frustration here thormas.

1. As we are on a thread about agnosticism and you are discussing this with an agnostic, the comment Who can prove another loves them? leads me to the Homeric response of Duh! There is no proof in this world and frequently people seem to think that as a consequence it is reasonable to have faith in any old thing.
2. Case in point being Love is God. There is much in this universe that cannot be easily coupled with love. And if this true then a holistic panentheism cannot be attributed to this universe. Sure we can have loving bits attributed to life, primarily some of the higher mammals.
3. While I would agree evidence can be misleading. Some reasons we might consider are a ) the data that the evidence is based on is just plain wrong, b ) The data that points to the evidence also points to other hypotheses and c ) a proponent does not have the skill and perhaps the wherewithal to actually go from data to evidence. Nevertheless if data and evidence are handled well it can lead to accurate descriptions of the universe.

So plainly we can love an unfaithful wife that is not the problem here and that we can have faith where it has no business being is not a surprise. But should the wife being faithful be important to us then it, I think, would be wise to get some corroborating evidence, one way or the other. Similarly God being somehow equivalent to love then I think it would wise to get some corroborating evidence for a fully panentheistic view of this, bearing in mind the horrible diseases, parasites, hunger and destruction that routinely visit this world.

This is of course is based on an assumption that we are striving for a more accurate description of our existence and that being more accurate is somehow important to us. Faith as a method does not cut it for me.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎10 at 1:26 PM, thormas said:

 ... Faith is, for me, the same:...

For me faith is a little different. 

If I were to say I believe my wife is not having an affair, I could cite a whole bunch of evidence to corroborate my belief.

On the other hand if I were to say I have faith my wife is not having an affair, this will be despite not having a lot of evidence to support this view or perhaps evidence to the contrary.

Thormas

What is the difference between a thought and a belief?

Is there evidence that the universe is happenstance? Yes ... quantum phenomena.

If god and the universe are synonymous then yes there is evidence that there is a pantheistic god. If however we wish to add special properties like Love or the en in panentheism then I would agree it is far from evident.

An agnostic might not be sure (know things are evident or not) but she may be sufficiently convinced that there is a universe but understand there is no conclusive proof. In fact she would understand looking for proof is nonsense.

To define the universe as god is simply a semantic issue. To define the universe as God with some magical added property is the tricky bit. And from my perspective a remnant from the more orthodox beliefs that are in society.

No it means somethings were not understood and may remain so. But labelling things incomprehensible as God does not make much sense to me. And God not making much sense is God also does not make sense. ad infinitum

The process of belief, for me, is an unconscious process which I rationalize after the fact.

27 minutes ago, JosephM said:

pf Thomas,

Let them argue all they want. It seems to me it is the definition of God that makes a person an atheist or agnostic. Change the definition to that which is evident and the argument disappears. Even Rom believes there is a Universe. If you defined the Universe as God, it seems to me he would not require further evidence.

True ... but I would call it the universe primarily for clarity. (Thormas note the lower case u).

In a Joseph Campbellian way I think a lot of folklore and myths point to the universe as god, but we as a society and as individuals hold on to duality. Sure there is much that is not understood in this universe. But that is OK. I don't have a need to revere the bits that I don't comprehend.

The bits that were once incomprehensible cease to be God as we gain understanding? Perhaps we don't have the physiology that allows to accurately understand the universe does that mean there is a God?

7 hours ago, Burl said:

When conscious contact is continual, repetitive and unchanging perception turns off.  An orienting/analytical response is only useful in changing circumstances.  Live near train tracks or an airport and after a short time they will not wake you at night.

This I think is an accurate observation Burl. I think back to when I was learning to drive. All that consciousness was not necessarily a hindrance but something to get past to become a fluid driver. Similarly for the sports I have played.

Whereas this :

Quote

People to habituate to the presence of God in the same way.  It takes an active effort to avoid that habituation.  Some people have God running through their thoughts like a Montana coal train and deny God even exists.

I can't say correlates with my experience. I don't ever recall being aware of a first mover never mind being habituated to its presence.

Then you can't say they have beliefs.

What are agnostic beliefs?

Are you sure we don't find there is evidence for somethings?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

The religious person, considering the incompleteness and incomprehensibility of existence, has one 'answer' while the atheist and the agnostic have a rather different take - nobody has evidence of anything; these are beliefs. 

I won't speak for atheists but an agnostic might answer I don't know.

Nobody has evidence of anything? Really?

16 hours ago, Burl said:

The evidence for God is a sense of incompleteness and incomprehensibility.  This is why we respond to archetypal metanarratives, and why we are different from all other animals.

Last phrase first. This is how we are different from animals not why!

https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=tedspread

In fact the TED talk also indirectly touches on the archetypal metanarratives.

The first sentence falls foul to the informal fallacy of an appeal to ignorance. What ever we don't understand is the First mover. No it is a sense of incomprehensibility.

And this being an agnostic thread ... what is the evidence that something you don't understand is evidence for God. Does this explain correlation that we experience between belief and a lack of education? (Present company excluded of course). 

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Sure we do: for some, faith provides an understanding of existence and a way to live one's life.

There is no proof, no evidence (as typically understood) to establish meaning or God.

And what is the proof and evidence you have that is not typically understood?  How do you verify God?

Meanings are definitional games (semantics).

For me

• faith: a thought that is held as true despite scant evidence for or even the evidence is against the held truth.
• belief: a thought that held as true, but is incompletely substantiated with evidence and data but likely can be substantiated.
• knowledge: a collectively accepted position that is backed by a wealth of evidence but may be subject to revision.
• know: philosophically to be absolutely certain, in the vernacular to be able to recall or understand, and believe either are accurate.
• data: observations, often formal, of our universe: can have various formats, not necessarily limited to narratives, pictures, numerical descriptions, recordings etc.
• evidence: is data in support of a particular proposition, hypothesis, theory or perhaps even a speculation.

My first crack at these words.