Inspiration

[davidk]

Minsocal,

I'm sorry you missed the point in my little story about my grandson. Who, by the way, is an adult. Although, there is some suspicion that you didn't really.

[glintofpewter]

Mike,

 

Smullyan says it well. We have been talking about inspired experiences, sacred experiences, mountain top epiphanies, but the Sage enjoys each moment as an epiphany.

"[The Sacred] . . . becomes a reality in the very directness of life."

I think it is similar to the idea that we "make the road by walking". Moment by moment experience is the reality. Everything else is anticipation and reflection, both secondary level activities

 

 

David,

 

I think you would say that we walk the road God meant for us.

 

Only what exists can give meaning for something that is no yet, or may not be. Cause and effect.

 

Not all great minds think alike nor are they all certain but I recommend page 43 of the April issue of Discover magazine. There, in the middle of an article about "backward causality", is "Does the Universe have a Destiny?" in which Paul Davies at Arizona State University is investigating whether the final state of the universe is influencing what is developing now. I think this idea would be both novel and consistent with your beliefs, David. On the other hand "backward causality" challenges us all.

But the objective truth emerges.

Objective means to me that a Hindi, a liberal Christian, a conservative Christian, a Muslim, and an atheist could each measure the height of my mailbox and find the same measurement. But when I read your sentence I remembered talking about the Four Gospels as witnesses to Jesus. That each gave a slightly different view and out of those different views a fuller view of Jesus would emerge -- I don't think the views of the Gospels of my five mailbox measurers would emerge into a an objective truth.

 

 

take care

Dutch

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

I'm sorry you missed the point in my little story about my grandson. Who, by the way, is an adult. Although, there is some suspicion that you didn't really.

 

I was hoping you might have read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

If the evidence did not objectively exist we'd have nothing to observe. How we understand it is from our subjective perceptions, and that is determined by our presuppositions. But the objective truth emerges.

 

 

If we presume there is an objective truth about God that exists but humans can only understand it subjectively, how do you know your understanding of God is the objective truth?

[Mike]

If we presume there is an objective truth about God that exists but humans can only understand it subjectively, how do you know your understanding of God is the objective truth?

 

I agree with this - the thing about objectivity is that there is never any finality to it, that is, any certainty. No knowledge can be complete or absolute; it is contingent and without any guarantee that it hasn't missed or excluded something important. Our notion of the objective world is only as good as our subjective judgment.

[Neon Genesis]

Or as Paul says in 1 Cor 13

For now we see in a mirror, dimly,* but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

[JosephM]

If we presume there is an objective truth about God that exists but humans can only understand it subjectively, how do you know your understanding of God is the objective truth?

 

 

Yes, as a human being, from that perspective, we can only subjectively experience truth of that oncerning that which is beyond subjectivity, thus, 'it seems' to me to be so.

 

Joseph

[davidk]

Our notion of the objective world is only as good as our subjective judgment.

Mike,

This is precisely my point. We can only subjectively know of what is objectively there; whether that be God, truth, the universe, or a mailbox. We can never have exhaustive knowledge, but what we do know can be true. We do not have to have exhaustive knowledge to know something truely.

 

 

David

 

My grandson has to remove the battery from his truck. He's not certain which wrench will fit. With some uncertainty, he had subjectively hoped and presupposed that a 7mm will. But when faced with the true nut, he had to conform his presuppositions to fit the objective evidence that the nut was a 9mm. Now he is subjectively certain that a 9mm will fit. It did. It objectively and subjectively does. He now has a rational hope that when he has to tend to the battery in the future that he may be safely certain to subjectively presuppose the 9mm wrench will work every time.

[Adi Gibb]

Hello again everyone,

 

I have been interested to read the exchanges about subjectivity and objectivity in faith, and I just wanted to add my own thoughts, for what they are worth.

 

For me it comes down to there being an objective yet mysterious absolute, rather than something that is absolutely subjective. At one point in my spiritual journey I embraced the proto-existentialism of Kierkegaard and the post-modern construct of there being nothing more than individual perceptions of reality. I passionately believed in this, arguing, amusingly, with all my might during one philosophical tutorial that if one man saw and felt a pink elephant on his shoulder but nobody else did that the pink elephant was still real, because that man's reality could only be subjective and bound by individual perceptions of reality. As my journey progressed my attitude changed, and I began to appreciate a fundamental point, if one takes that post-modern construct to its ultimate conclusion, theism becomes problematic. If one wished to believe in an external force beyond human parameters and cognisance (and for me personally I need that externality to human cognisance for an external force to have any power) one needed to accept that that force was NOT subjective and bound by individual human perceptions of reality, but rather objectively absolute. SO I came to the conclusion, 'I believe in an absolute, objective, external power'. Of course that is one thing, but what shape does that take? For me this is where the subjectivity kicks in. As some have indicated already, the desirous position must surely be to first accept an objective and absolute force, yet acknowledge the mysterious nature of that force. We, as did the four blind men and the elephant, in the face of that mystery create a subjective relationship with the objective absolute. And if you can find something or someone that, in your soul and heart, shows you a glimpse of that mystery, in my case the figure of Jesus, then maybe you adhere and worship that conduit to the limitless divine.

 

No idea if that all makes sense, but there you are.

 

Adi

[JosephM]

Davidk said...

This is precisely my point. We can only subjectively know of what is objectively there; whether that be God, truth, the universe, or a mailbox. We can never have exhaustive knowledge, but what we do know can be true. We do not have to have exhaustive knowledge to know something truely.

 

Yes, "what we do know can be true", or may be, or may not be. It is a subjective experience and in the things of God more likely, in my view, many of those things concerning God may not be true, based on my past learning subjective experience. It seems to me the problem is that those who can not live at peace with this uncertainty, mistake 'can be' or 'may be' for 'is' or 'objective truth'. Perhaps a true humbleness and greater inspiration can come from this uncertainty?

 

Just one view to consider,

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Adi wrote

At one point in my spiritual journey I embraced the proto-existentialism of Kierkegaard and the post-modern construct of there being nothing more than individual perceptions of reality.

. . .

[Now] 'I believe in an absolute, objective, external power'. Of course that is one thing, but what shape does that take? For me this is where the subjectivity kicks in. As some have indicated already, the desirous position must surely be to first accept an objective and absolute force, yet acknowledge the mysterious nature of that force. We, as did the four blind men and the elephant, in the face of that mystery create a subjective relationship with the objective absolute.

 

Adi,

I am drawn to your comments.

 

But I have not "returned" from a post modern construct. There is a second step that follows "there [is] nothing more than individual perceptions of reality" The second step is the ability of shared language to create reality. I don't believe that there is an objective sacred divine that is not a construct of our shared language. We use spiritual words to refer to some of our experiences. Because we have a shared language for those experiences we feel part of a community. The perceived commonality of our experiences, created by language, somehow points, like four men and the elephant, to an objective [sacred/absolute/transcendent/eternal/divine].

 

I must hold my beliefs with all my heart and and all my soul as if they were the truth, perhaps the only truth - well, they are for me. That they might point to objective transcendent [other] I have no way of knowing.

 

So, at this point in my life---

 

Believing with all my heart and all my soul is not about an objective truth, it is only "Believing with all my heart and all my soul."

Finding meaning in life doesn't prove that there is meaning it only says that I find meaning.

 

 

Thoughts for today.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Adi Gibb]

Hey Dutch,

 

Thanks so much for your comments. Would really love to hear other member's thoughts on your response too. In the meantime, here is my take, naturally predicated with 'this is my personal point of view'.

 

Your comments bring to mind a recent seminar here in Brisbane that I didn't attend sadly, but it was titled, "Does religion create people, or people create religion?". It also brings to mind the book Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. If you haven't read it I would highly recommend it, especially espousing the notion of shared perception and language creating a reality.

 

For me the above notion, as beautiful and 'spiritual' as it can be, does not equate to a theism. I guess you could argue it is pantheistic in a way, but it is predicated on the notion that there is no 'real' (and by that I mean absolute and external, which may be a moot point) divine which pervades all and which we pervade in turn. Rather, I think your notions, Dutch, and I could be wrong, assert that 'divine' is something which is created by humanity through shared language and experience. It is a little like the Noetic Sciences, the notion that things which are 'supernatural' or 'metaphysical' are actually merely powered by a shared consciousness moving things in fundamental ways that astound us. Yet my faith is predicated on the notion that one can have a relationship with a limitless divine which is just that, limitless, and not bound my human parameters. One can, I think, see the difference. One is a purely human construct, the other leaves human parameters and engages in an existence 'beyond' mortality. To extrapolate outwards, I need to believe in something 'beyond' mortality for that thing to have any power. If the figure of worship is nothing more than a result of shared consciousness, then, quite frankly, why worship the puppet, and not the puppeteer. In other words, for me, if I believed in the notions you are espounding Dutch I would become a humanist, and not a theist. (I am not suggesting that you should do that, I am saying for me that would be my course)

 

Now your response did hint that there MAY be an objective divine, but that is not something which you concern yourself with. I can apprectiate that notion. For me, however, I am in need of an objective divine, beyond and external, so that I can say with absolute humility that if humans didn't exist, the limitless divine would still 'be'. However, like you, I do not concern myself with 'knowing' in an absolute way, the precise makeup of that limitless divine. In a sense, until I am not bound by mortal parameters (which I hope to be a LONG time away) I cannot know. As Joseph mentioned, perhaps embracing the uncertainty is a good thing. So it may be paradoxical, but for me I need to know there is an objective and absolute external limitless divine. Because of that, I cannot know more than the mystery of that divine, but I can engage on a subjective relationship with it.

 

Adi

[JosephM]

'objective divine' with objective used as adjective....

 

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv) adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object.2. Having actual existence or reality.3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair¹.b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

 

Is your Divine a material object? If so show me it.

Does your Divine have 'actual existence' or 'reality (one such as a person or entity)?

Is your Divine (your perception or definition of) uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices?

Is your Divine based on observable phenomena presented factually?

 

It seems to me that Dutch has a good grasp on uncertainty as relates to man and the Divine.

 

Just one man's view,

Joseph

[Adi Gibb]

'objective divine' with objective used as adjective....

 

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv) adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object.2. Having actual existence or reality.3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair¹.b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

 

Is your Divine a material object? If so show me it.

Does your Divine have 'actual existence' or 'reality (one such as a person or entity)?

Is your Divine (your perception or definition of) uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices?

Is your Divine based on observable phenomena presented factually?

 

It seems to me that Dutch has a good grasp on uncertainty as relates to man and the Divine.

 

Just one man's view,

Joseph

 

Hmmm, good question Joseph. To be absolutely frank when I was using the word 'objective' I was really focusing on a colloquial notion of something being 'not subjective', which I guess would point to the third definition above. But if you took the word 'objective' and replaced it with the others I used in the post, 'external', 'mystery', 'beyond', 'limitless', my point would still be the same. But, at the risk of engaging in semantics, let's have a look at the ole dictionary take on it.

 

1) Material object? Not sure really. 'Real' and 'In existence', yes, but material? The mystery of the divine is such that I cannot know that. As Kirkegaard once said, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." So if I need to conclusively prove that for the limtless divine to be an 'objective' truth then it needs to be absolutely material, I cannot say it is. Score one for the dictionary!

 

2)Actual existence or reality? Yep. For me this is absolutely the case, garnered through my own faith journey and various experiences along the way. I feel I have a transcendent communicative relationship with the limitless divine, through Jesus Christ. So I would have to give myself a tick there.

 

3)Uninfluenced by emotions and personal prejudices? Absolutely! As I said above, if no human being existed, I believe the limitless divine would still be. So it is and can be, completely devoid of emotions and prejudices. The fact that the limitless divine nonetheless allows us to be within its grasp it the ultimate act of love and compassion. It doesn't need to! I guess you could argue that this means it IS influenced by emotions and personal prejudices, but I guess I would argue that it doesn't need to and the only emotion it is influenced by is love, administered without prejudice. Does that make sense?

 

4)An observable phenomena presented factually? To be honest I am not sure how to answer this question. I see the limitless divine everywhere! In my own life I could point to 'observable phenomena' which transformed me. I guess it comes down to whether it satisfies current scientific experimental standards? Is that maybe what this point means? The 'presented factually' is ambiguous of course as what amounts to 'fact'. Hawking's theories on black hole entropy were considered 'fact' until disproved. Anyway, to make a long story short, I am not sure if the limitless divine can be 'observable phenomena presented factually'. I think the answer, if I am right about the above definition being chiefly of a scientific nature, is probably no, the limitless divine can not be seen in such a way. Again, I would not wish this to be the case, as 'God' is meant to be beyond such things.

 

Okay, that was fun. So what was the score, 2 for and 2 against? Of course, thankfully, the limitles divine is not bound by definitions, nor dictionaries, nor progressive christians debating about such things. The limitless divine is limitless, mysterious, external, beyond and real. Fifty fifty about 'objective' I guess. Will think twice about using the word again!

 

Adi

[rivanna]

Hi Dutch,

 

You said “I don't believe that there is an objective sacred divine that is not a construct of our shared language.” In the sense of God’s love needing our prayers, words, breath, hands to be manifest, I agree. But if it implies that God’s existence is dependent on the world—what do you say about the creation of the universe, the ultimate cause? That’s the problem I have with process theology - I’m not well read on the subject, but it reminds me of your thread from last year on Mellert's & Pittinger’s books, Alfred Whitehead’s philosophy etc. It’s in the book discussion section --the only way to get to those threads, on my computer anyway, is to click on Filter options, then Show All, then hit Go. (Sorry, this is getting way off Javelin’s original topic!)

[minsocal]

It we draw from the language of cognitive neuroscience and psychology, it is rarely the case that practical reasoning and emotion are divided. The evidence comes from individuals with focal damage to the part of the brain that integrates emotion with the process of reasoning. In these cases, reasoning is unimpaired but the capacity to decide is virtually abolished. The reason for this is that feelings of emotion provide the polar and scalar values (as in evaluation) that motivate choice. Without scalar values, these individuals live in a world where all choices are equal and others have to make their decisions for them. In a more technical language, emotion and intuition provide the "conditions of satisfaction" that ground practical reasoning. This notion is found in both Whitehead and Jung in almost identical form.

 

Inspiration is not necesarily the search for "truth". In an important sense, wisdom is not about truth or falsity. It is more about knowing "how" and "when" a choice is to be made.

 

As for love, I agree with Whitehead where he notes that "[agape] love is just a bit amoral". It is as "ulitmate" as one can imagine. It is the "condition of satisfaction" that grounds choice and action and, more importantly, the link to God as the "ground of all being". Empathy, compassion and love are innate capacities. Be careful what you throw out in the search for inspiration.

[Mike]

Personally I would be very hesitant to say that the Sacred is only a human construct - though of course, it is that too since we are imagining and talking about it. But since we are talking about it, it seems that there should be a reality about which we are talking - or perhaps more correctly, pointing to. But what is our language pointing to?

 

Mircea Eliade in 'The Sacred and the Profane' writes:

"...for the man of all premodern societies, the sacred is equivalent to a power, and, in the last analysis, to reality. The sacred is saturated with being. Sacred power means reality and at the same time enduringness and efficacy. The polarity sacred-profane is often expressed as an opposition between real and unreal or pseudo-real."

 

Elaide then goes on to point out that sacred and profane are "two modes of being in the world."

 

To me this all means that in what we call sacredness, we are relating to reality. Or looking at it from the 'other side', reality is disclosing itself to us. (Both 'sides', to me, are selfsame.) It’s important to note that in both descriptions, ‘Reality’ or ‘Truth’ still plays an essential part.

 

Therefore 'Reality' does come into the picture genuinely and not arbitrarily, for what we call sacred is identified with what's 'really real' - about life, about the cosmos - about our own self. I am reminded of how the Sufi understands Islam's creed, 'there is no god but God' as 'there is no reality but Reality'.

 

So if by ‘objective’ we mean simply that it’s ‘really real’ outside of human convention and thought - I would say it is ‘objective.’ Of course, without humans there would be no one call it ‘sacred’ as opposed to ‘profane’ - but what’s ‘really real’ - that Truth to which a sacred encounter (or an encounter with the sacred - again, the same thing in my book) relates - is not a construct.

 

Having said that - I also don’t find ‘objectivity’ ultimately useful in trying to relate to the sacred. To me, God, the Sacred, is not an object, and therefore the main idea behind objectivity - to make an object out of everything - is mistaken. To me it makes no sense to place God either externally or internally, defining him as objective or subjective, outside or inside. However, to me subjective experience has the obvious advantage of directness and immediacy. But if God is not measurable, has no parts, is not defined by spatio-temporal categories, then ideas like 'he's out there' as opposed to 'he's in here' are not ultimately applicable.

 

Just some disjointed thoughts.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[davidk]

I must say this has become a most excellant dialogue.

I can't resist but to chime in at this point to address the definition of 'objective". It's not that I have any problem with it, but some interpretations do veer off course. I believe Adi needs to reconsider any thoughts of abandoning it's uses in his argument.

 

Summary:

 

Is your Divine a material object? If so show me it.

With this, the gauntlet has been thrown.

I believe the question errs. The definition is of the adjective- "objective".

If we actually apply the definition ("Of or having to do with a material object"), it is telling us that part of what defines 'objective' is of or having to do with a material object. It is not the material object!

'Objective' is not a noun in the manner Adi is using it or by the definition provided.

"Is your Divine a material object?" is a diversion from the discussion.

 

Despite Adi's concession. 15 - love: Adi.

---

Does your Divine have 'actual existence' or 'reality (one such as a person or entity)?

No comment needed. 30 - love: Adi.

---

Is your Divine (your perception or definition of) uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices?

Really now. The question is still considering 'objective' a noun. But, it is still the adjective "objective" that is being discussed here.

Again, advantage Adi.

---

Is your Divine based on observable phenomena presented factually?

This is a question not based on any claim by definition or by author. It's not clear how the question has any merit in the manner it is being presented. "Objective" is the nature of relating to what is "observable phenomena presented factually".

 

Game- set- match: Adi.

[Mike]

One of the definitions for 'objective' in the dictionary that comes with 'Microsoft Works' is:

 

existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception

 

Stated in this sense - as a synonym for 'realism', I can have no objection to it. To my mind, the alternative would be some radical form of idealism or solipsism.

 

But there is more to what objectivity tends to mean than the mere assertion that there is more to reality than our individual minds. For one, objectivity has as its root activity the conviction that reality is an object and therefore can be treated as one. This is fine for practical, relative purposes, but ultimately it leads to all kinds of existential problems, which need not all be discussed presently.

 

The net result is that we become convinced that the objective is superior to the subjective, or that the two are truly pitted against one another, or that the objective world (or object-word) holds more truth than subjectivity, or that the subject-world's reality is only derivative or secondary, not quite as real. Reality becomes bifurcated. However I think the opposite is true: that object-ifying reality is ultimately an illusion. The subjective world is the objective world and the objective world is the subjective world. It is an illusion to think that one's objectivity truly discloses more of reality than subjectivity, in other words, that you can really know more than subjectivity, broadly speaking. When we go beyond ourselves, it is usually called 'speculation,' at best. Absolute, objective knowledge, then, would require an absolute, objective subject.

 

If I may simply use for an example, David says, "We can only subjectively know of what is objectively there." That is fine, but rarely is it acknowledged that we can only objectively know of what is subjectively there. It is an illusion to think that objectivity as a methodology can really be divorced from objectivity as a belief - that is, from the object-category of thought, from the pursuit of the object-ification of reality, from the assumption that reality really can be handled as an object and assumed to be an object.

 

And hence we run into a serious hurdle. We want to apply our objective methodology to that which is in principle a Mystery. We have called it beyond definition, ineffable, absolute, infinite, limitless, and (best of all) Spirit. All of this resists object-ification. It resists identification with any fixed being, things, entities. The problem becomes obvious when we simply ask what results objective methodology yields in explaining, capturing, or grasping what we are talking about. What would it mean for the infinite divine to be an object? The object-category of thought is simply inadequate when dealing with what is admittedly an ambiguity. You cannot make the ambiguous clear without altering its nature.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[JosephM]

Hmmm, good question Joseph. To be absolutely frank when I was using the word 'objective' I was really focusing on a colloquial notion of something being 'not subjective', which I guess would point to the third definition above. But if you took the word 'objective' and replaced it with the others I used in the post, 'external', 'mystery', 'beyond', 'limitless', my point would still be the same. But, at the risk of engaging in semantics, let's have a look at the ole dictionary take on it.

 

Yes, I also like those words better.

 

1) Material object? Not sure really. 'Real' and 'In existence', yes, but material? The mystery of the divine is such that I cannot know that. As Kirkegaard once said, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." So if I need to conclusively prove that for the limtless divine to be an 'objective' truth then it needs to be absolutely material, I cannot say it is. Score one for the dictionary!

 

Actually I am not keeping score, just sharing views but it seems davidk is.

 

2)Actual existence or reality? Yep. For me this is absolutely the case, garnered through my own faith journey and various experiences along the way. I feel I have a transcendent communicative relationship with the limitless divine, through Jesus Christ. So I would have to give myself a tick there.

 

You say you feel you have .... In my view, that is your subjective experience and not necessarily anyone's reality other than yours and those who might agree . For you I agree it is seen as actual existence and reality but is it? Do you know? Are you absolutly certain? it seems to me if you did you would not need theology or philosophy.

 

3)Uninfluenced by emotions and personal prejudices? Absolutely! As I said above, if no human being existed, I believe the limitless divine would still be. So it is and can be, completely devoid of emotions and prejudices. The fact that the limitless divine nonetheless allows us to be within its grasp it the ultimate act of love and compassion. It doesn't need to! I guess you could argue that this means it IS influenced by emotions and personal prejudices, but I guess I would argue that it doesn't need to and the only emotion it is influenced by is love, administered without prejudice. Does that make sense?

 

The question was 'your Divine' not 'the Divine'. Your Divine may be considered limitless but as a conditioned being how can 'your Divine' be devoid of influence by your emotions and prejudices? Your experience of 'the Divine', with you as a human is limited to being subjective, is it not?

 

4)An observable phenomena presented factually? To be honest I am not sure how to answer this question. I see the limitless divine everywhere! In my own life I could point to 'observable phenomena' which transformed me. I guess it comes down to whether it satisfies current scientific experimental standards? Is that maybe what this point means? The 'presented factually' is ambiguous of course as what amounts to 'fact'. Hawking's theories on black hole entropy were considered 'fact' until disproved. Anyway, to make a long story short, I am not sure if the limitless divine can be 'observable phenomena presented factually'. I think the answer, if I am right about the above definition being chiefly of a scientific nature, is probably no, the limitless divine can not be seen in such a way. Again, I would not wish this to be the case, as 'God' is meant to be beyond such things.

 

I would be of the same persuasion as you have written.

 

Okay, that was fun. So what was the score, 2 for and 2 against? Of course, thankfully, the limitles divine is not bound by definitions, nor dictionaries, nor progressive christians debating about such things. The limitless divine is limitless, mysterious, external, beyond and real. Fifty fifty about 'objective' I guess. Will think twice about using the word again!

 

Adi

 

No score Adi . I was merely making a point with words relating to Dutch's post. It seems to me that in our subjectivity and uncertainty, there is a transcendence to greater inspiration. It also seems to me that in a sense, uncertainty becomes the window to knowing in which the word objective loses its meaningfulness. It also seems to me Mike has said it in a manner that is acceptable to my own view and I very much like your use of the words limitless, mysterious and beyond more-so than the word objective.

 

Joseph

[Adi Gibb]

Hi again Joseph,

 

Absolutely not keeping score either, I really value your views.

 

What is interesting is that your comments above remind me SO much of the discussions I have with a friend of mine. He too believes that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is bound by subjective perceptions and much of his arguments mirror yours (and, as you can imagine, we go round and round on this issue and never get a result!). But, and here is the thing, because of this belief my friend rejects the notion of any kind of external force and is proud to call himself an atheist. And this makes sense to me. If you cannot accept that there is anything other than human constructs, then surely theism becomes problematic. Now, i have a feeling you may have an answer to that and, sincerely, I would like to hear your views, as I find it fascinating the notion that you can be both, ie, only believe in individual perceptions of reality AND a theist.

 

You see, and this is only my take of course, for me one needs, at some point, to believe in something, as I said, external or beyond, for theism to really mean anything. One cannot KNOW the makeup of a divine, but surely one must believe that a divine exists beyond human constructs of it for it to have any power? Otherwise, to be frank, we could all be worshipping a mass halucination! Am I way off the mark? I could honestly be missing a middle ground, and the saviour is almost always a shade of grey, so I would be keen to hear your thoughts.

 

Adi

[JosephM]

Hi again Joseph,

 

Absolutely not keeping score either, I really value your views.

 

What is interesting is that your comments above remind me SO much of the discussions I have with a friend of mine. He too believes that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is bound by subjective perceptions and much of his arguments mirror yours (and, as you can imagine, we go round and round on this issue and never get a result!). But, and here is the thing, because of this belief my friend rejects the notion of any kind of external force and is proud to call himself an atheist. And this makes sense to me. If you cannot accept that there is anything other than human constructs, then surely theism becomes problematic. Now, i have a feeling you may have an answer to that and, sincerely, I would like to hear your views, as I find it fascinating the notion that you can be both, ie, only believe in individual perceptions of reality AND a theist.

 

You see, and this is only my take of course, for me one needs, at some point, to believe in something, as I said, external or beyond, for theism to really mean anything. One cannot KNOW the makeup of a divine, but surely one must believe that a divine exists beyond human constructs of it for it to have any power? Otherwise, to be frank, we could all be worshipping a mass halucination! Am I way off the mark? I could honestly be missing a middle ground, and the saviour is almost always a shade of grey, so I would be keen to hear your thoughts.

 

Adi

 

Thanks Adi,

 

Yes the Divine exists. It is without the need for my belief or disbelief. When one says I am a theist it conjures up images in ones mind so words like that do not say much to me. The Divine exists to me but not as separate from "I" (capitalized). To me internal and external as relates to the Divine is meaningless. Separation can only exist in the human mind which is temporal. In my view, the mind can be transcended and then our conversation becomes mute.

 

Its time to go fishing so, thanks for your comments Adi and have a fine day mate.

 

Love Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

 

What is interesting is that your comments above remind me SO much of the discussions I have with a friend of mine. He too believes that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is bound by subjective perceptions and much of his arguments mirror yours (and, as you can imagine, we go round and round on this issue and never get a result!). But, and here is the thing, because of this belief my friend rejects the notion of any kind of external force and is proud to call himself an atheist. And this makes sense to me. If you cannot accept that there is anything other than human constructs, then surely theism becomes problematic. Now, i have a feeling you may have an answer to that and, sincerely, I would like to hear your views, as I find it fascinating the notion that you can be both, ie, only believe in individual perceptions of reality AND a theist.

On the other hand, there are atheists like Richard Dawkins who believe in objective truths and believe that atheism is the one true way. Even if we presume there is an objective truth exists, if we can only experience truth subjectively, how do we know a personal theistic is true and not atheism?

 

You see, and this is only my take of course, for me one needs, at some point, to believe in something, as I said, external or beyond, for theism to really mean anything. One cannot KNOW the makeup of a divine, but surely one must believe that a divine exists beyond human constructs of it for it to have any power? Otherwise, to be frank, we could all be worshipping a mass halucination! Am I way off the mark? I could honestly be missing a middle ground, and the saviour is almost always a shade of grey, so I would be keen to hear your thoughts.

 

Adi

I think Einstein, who was a naturalistic pantheist, says it all as to what it means to worship God.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

I also like this other quote by Einstein

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”

[Adi Gibb]

Hi Joseph and Neon,

 

Okay, fair enough, I had suspected that this might be a pantheistic approach. I totally respect that, I was a pantheist once myself, passionately, and can see the attractions. It is not something I still hold to personally. The closest I could come to it would be Borg's PanENtheism, which perhaps comes closest to a system which embraces both the immanent and the beyond, the natural and transcendent. Having said that I am not sure I would describe myself as a panentheist, but anyway.

 

Thanks for you comments, understand more fully your position now.

 

Adi

[JosephM]

Hi Joseph and Neon,

 

Okay, fair enough, I had suspected that this might be a pantheistic approach. I totally respect that, I was a pantheist once myself, passionately, and can see the attractions. It is not something I still hold to personally. The closest I could come to it would be Borg's PanENtheism, which perhaps comes closest to a system which embraces both the immanent and the beyond, the natural and transcendent. Having said that I am not sure I would describe myself as a panentheist, but anyway.

 

Thanks for you comments, understand more fully your position now.

 

Adi

 

 

Adi,

 

Speaking only for myself, i do look at it as an approach of any sort. Labeling and defining with single words things concerning the Divine and our subjective experiences of the Divine, to me, always seem to come short. The experience in my view is enough in itself, and that 'state' agreeable to all and i find very little accurately can be said about it in words. I do not describe myself with any of the labels you have used nor do i personally find it necessary or useful to me to do so. However, having said that, it is perfectly okay with me for others to do so. Anyway, may you continue to be inspired in your experience of the Divine.

 

Love Joseph