philosophy study, anyone?

[pandacular]

I wouldn't even say that the Bible is the best way to understand the Judeo-Christian God (YHWH), certainly not on its own. If you are interested in unraveling some of the history to help with separating out the theology, I recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It's a very interesting observation on the interplay of different thought and movements within the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[PerryB]

....On the one hand, I find it intellectually dishonest to say, "I don't believe in God." What that really means is something like, "I don't understand God, and I don't want to acknowledge that there is something beyond my capacity for understanding." On the other hand, it seems weird to say you believe in something when you don't understand what it is.

I second @pandacular 's recommendation of Karen Armstrong 's History of God, and having read widely in religions and philosophy, I don't find it intellectually dishonest to say, "I don't believe in God" as God is understood in our current culture.

Given the discoveries of 20th (and 21st!) century physics, astronomy and astrophysics, I am finding more resonance with Western mystical traditions, Sufism, and Taoism than with any of the religions that teach a DEFINITION of god. The idea that just saying there is a non-knowable essence or energy at the basis of---and that is also permeating---our Universe does not strike me as intellectually dishonest. I can celebrate the mystery and the unknowingness while pursuing all that is knowable.

The Sufis do this through poetry, meditation and their famous, delirious dancing. The Taoist do this through their poetry, study of Nature, meditation, paintings and calligraphy.

There's a marvelous novel from a couple of years ago, When We Cease to Understand the World, by Benjamin Labatout, that gets at what a mystical understanding of existence might mean in a culture that is now aware of general relativity,, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang and the James Webb Observatory. I highly recommend it.

 

[Gabler]

I don't find it intellectually dishonest to say, "I don't believe in God" as God is understood in our current culture.

I agree with you there. I think the issue for me is that the popular depiction of a bearded man in the clouds is sort of like a straw man. Sure, there are those who read and believe the Bible at a literal and materialist level, but when you engage with a position, if your goal is to apprehend the truth, then you should engage with the strongest version of that position. I think that atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) fails to truly grapple with the strongest positions in favor of the existence of God. There are also theists who make a similar error, but that doesn't negate the fact that I've yet to encounter someone who is certain that God isn't real, and who actually understood what they deemed to be false. Believers often are guilty of the inverse problem.

 

[Gabler]

I have an intuition that I'm trying to put to words so that I can test out the idea, but it's really stretching my intellectual capacity to be able to articulate that intuition.

 

[PerryB]

I agree with you there. I think the issue for me is that the popular depiction of a bearded man in the clouds is sort of like a straw man. Sure, there are those who read and believe the Bible at a literal and materialist level, but when you engage with a position, if your goal is to apprehend the truth, then you should engage with the strongest version of that position. I think that atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) fails to truly grapple with the strongest positions in favor of the existence of God. There are also theists who make a similar error, but that doesn't negate the fact that I've yet to encounter someone who is certain that God isn't real, and who actually understood what they deemed to be false. Believers often are guilty of the inverse problem.

Perhaps the issue with the bolded part is that it's harder to prove the non-existence of a phenomenon at the scale of the Universe that it is to prove the existence of something observable. So, certainty that God exists isn't possible at an intellectual level; this is why Kierkegaard's leap of faith is intriguing but, for me, is less defensible now that when he proposed the concept.

I can appreciate the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. as cultural artifacts of their time but with current knowledge and culture I see mystical atheism as the more probable basis of a sound spiritual discipline.

 

[Gabler]

So, certainty that God exists isn't possible at an intellectual level; this is why Kierkegaard's leap of faith is intriguing but, for me, is less defensible now that when he proposed the concept.

I think the point of a leap of faith is that it's not, nor has it ever been, "defensible." I think the point is that you start to live your life as someone who believes in God, even if you're inwardly still skeptical, and you test out whether it works.

I don't really remember much of what Kierkegaard wrote on the matter. When I read his works for school, I probably didn't read as closely as I should have, and I seem to recall it was just excerpts, rather than a lengthy text. Thus, I should clarify I'm not commenting on what he said specifically. It would be more accurate to say I'm talking about the idea of a leap of faith more generally.

 

[PerryB]

I think the point of a leap of faith is that it's not, nor has it ever been, "defensible." I think the point is that you start to live your life as someone who believes in God, even if you're inwardly still skeptical, and you test out whether it works.

I don't really remember much of what Kierkegaard wrote on the matter. When I read his works for school, I probably didn't read as closely as I should have, and I seem to recall it was just excerpts, rather than a lengthy text. Thus, I should clarify I'm not commenting on what he said specifically. It would be more accurate to say I'm talking about the idea of a leap of faith more generally.

In truth, it has been almost 50 years since I read Fear and Trembling, by Kierkegard so I'm sure only that my understanding of him is incomplete and lacking nuance.

My attitude is also certainly shaped by the fact that some of my leaps of faith have proven to be counter-productive to my well being.

I DO think that Kierkegard's idea that a strong faith requires the exercise of rigorous doubt is an even better idea now than when he proposed it roughly 180 years ago. I don't know that I have ever met anyone with this kind of "muscular " faith.

 

[Gabler]

In truth, it has been almost 50 years since I read Fear and Trembling, by Kierkegard so I'm sure only that my understanding of him is incomplete and lacking nuance.

My attitude is also certainly shaped by the fact that some of my leaps of faith have proven to be counter-productive to my well being.

I DO think that Kierkegard's idea that a strong faith requires the exercise of rigorous doubt is an even better idea now than when he proposed it roughly 180 years ago. I don't know that I have ever met anyone with this kind of "muscular " faith.

Yeah. I think it's fair to say that those with any kind of faith are more often than not blindly faithful, and those who doubt tend to lose faith completely, rather than merely testing it to make it stronger.

I do like the analogy of muscles. You have to injure them slightly in order to make them stronger. It makes sense that faith is the same way. Unfortunately, like muscles, when you put too much strain on it all at once, it tends to fail outright, and it needs expert care to repair it.

 

[HorseloverFat]

Oh man!

I LOVE philosophy study.

I LOVE ethical/existential debate.

I LOVE theology.

I've read a good many religion's "holy words/teachings" and have done the Christian Bible (but the KJV) cover to cover.

I just don't think I am here enough to participate!!

 

[Gabler]

Oh man!

I LOVE philosophy study.

I LOVE ethical/existential debate.

I LOVE theology.

I've read a good many religion's "holy words/teachings" and have done the Christian Bible (but the KJV) cover to cover.

I just don't think I am here enough to participate!!

There's no real harm in a late response to a post.

 

[Gabler]

I think Plato would have described bonsai as the pursuit of the Form of the Tree. I also think, to the extent that our direct ancestors lived in trees for sixty million years, we have circuitry in our brains for appreciating trees, and in a certain sense, the form of the tree is real, albeit slightly different from one brain to the next.

I don't always like reducing things to materialism, but materialism is the easiest philosophical viewpoint from which to explain what I'm talking about.

Thoughts?

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if God does not exist, then life is absurd and philosophy becomes rather pointless. I was exposed to philosophy as a new Christian through apologetics. Which utilizes a lot of philosophy and science in an effort to defend the existence of God, or the Church (I’m Catholic).

For example, I learned that without a metaphysical mind as the ground and foundation for meaning, purpose and morality, none of it can be objective. Basically, those three things are ideals or thoughts that we can observe to exist only in our human minds. So it would only logically follow that another mind, that is, God, would be necessary for those things to exist outside of our minds. Which is necessary if we want to move beyond opinion and into truth.

Opinions concerning meaning, purpose and morality are true or false, and not opinions in the sense of preference (chocolate versus vanilla). And if God does not exist, they’re all false, and become nothing but preferences. But when you push this to its extreme, it all becomes absurd. You might say that to live is to love and laugh, but the gang banger might say life is all about hustling and pimping and making money. The former opinion isn’t in any way, shape or form right or more valid than the other, just different preferences. It becomes even more absurd when considering morality, like whether or not murdering your wife for cooking your food wrong is immoral. You can say it is, but that’s just, like, your opinion.

So unless you want to be irrational or live a life of absurdity, you need to take that leap of faith that God exists. But here’s the main problem once you take that leap of faith: How do you know anything about God unless he reveals himself to you? Either you accept that one of the scriptures are true, or you live a life of pure speculation. And in my eyes, if you take the former route sincerely and with a spirit of truth, you’ll become a Christian. And after digging into the different denominations, considering it all, you’ll become a Catholic.

Just my take on it all.

 

[PerryB]

"Correct me if I’m wrong, but if God does not exist, then life is absurd and philosophy becomes rather pointless."

Well,...yes, you are wrong, on so many statements in your post that I will not attempt (for now) a detailed reply.

There are an infinite number of ways that individual humans can interact with one another, and each of those interactions begins to build a relationship and thereby meaning. Multiply this by thousands of years of human history and thought and by the billions of people who have lived over time, and there's a wealth of meaning completely apart from the search for God.

This was one of insights from later existentialist philosophers like Martin Buber as well as Michael Polanyi and Simone Weil. Earlier existentialists thought that "God is dead" equalled "Life is absurd", but several Eastern schools (notably Taoism) understood that meaning arises from relationships as simple as two magnets in a single space and as complex as two countries establishing diplomacy or declaring war.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

"Correct me if I’m wrong, but if God does not exist, then life is absurd and philosophy becomes rather pointless."

Well,...yes, you are wrong, on so many statements in your post that I will not attempt (for now) a detailed reply.

There are an infinite number of ways that individual humans can interact with one another, and each of those interactions begins to build a relationship and thereby meaning. Multiply this by thousands of years of human history and thought and by the billions of people who have lived over time, and there's a wealth of meaning completely apart from the search for God.

This was one of insights from later existentialist philosophers like Martin Buber as well as Michael Polanyi and Simone Weil. Earlier existentialists thought that "God is dead" equalled "Life is absurd", but several Eastern schools (notably Taoism) understood that meaning arises from relationships as simple as two magnets in a single space and as complex as two countries establishing diplomacy or declaring war.

But this meaning is subjective, not objective, and therefore ultimately a preferential opinion, and not something based on actual truth. That’s the point I was making. You didn’t actually address what I said.

 

[PerryB]

But this meaning is subjective, not objective, and therefore ultimately a preferential opinion, and not something based on actual truth. That’s the point I was making. You didn’t actually address what I said.

Your own belief in your Christian God is purely subjective. Period.

 

[pandacular]

I think Plato would have described bonsai as the pursuit of the Form of the Tree. I also think, to the extent that our direct ancestors lived in trees for sixty million years, we have circuitry in our brains for appreciating trees, and in a certain sense, the form of the tree is real, albeit slightly different from one brain to the next.

I don't always like reducing things to materialism, but materialism is the easiest philosophical viewpoint from which to explain what I'm talking about.

Thoughts?

I've been thinking about this since you posted it, but haven't had a chance to post a response (much less formulate one) as I've been at the in-laws.

I think there's some truth to a lot of what you say, and I find it hard to disagree--though I disagree that ol Broad-shoulders would say something so clean cut--but I'm not sure I can. I think that one of the roles of arts, from my somewhat Platonic perspective, is to convey truth about the Forms (or, in other words about objectivity) that can't be conveyed in other ways. I think that's true in bonsai as well. Of course, I think other things than trees can be portrayed, penjing being a good example as the goal is often to portray a scene or even experience.

One of the big holdups for people in the "is bonsai art debate" is that it's not exactly "transformational." A tree is used to represent... a different tree, to paraphrase Ryan Neil. Meanwhile, if you're transforming a block of marble into a person or a glob of ink into a landscape, it's viewed as more transformational.

Actually, bonsai has led me to read more about art philosophy than anything else in the past. Any reading recommendations for that?

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Your own belief in your Christian God is purely subjective. Period.

Huh? It’s subjective in the sense of belief. But it’s objective, ultimately, when trying to tackle the question of whether or not God exists. Does he or doesn’t he? If he doesn’t, well there’s some logical consequences to accept.

 

[PerryB]

Huh? It’s subjective in the sense of belief. But it’s objective, ultimately, when trying to tackle the question of whether or not God exists. Does he or doesn’t he? If he doesn’t, well there’s some logical consequences to accept.

"But it's objective, ultimately..."
This makes absolutely no sense.
Consider yourself ignored forever.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

"But it's objective, ultimately..."
This makes absolutely no sense.
Consider yourself ignored forever.

The snowflake is strong in this one.

I was taught that subjective means mind-dependent, like an opinion. And that objective means mind-independent, like a fact. My belief in God might be subjective, but this has nothing to do with whether or not God is an objective reality, something existing outside of my mind.

If I’m wrong, I’m a grown up, and would love to be corrected and learn. But obviously you’re very rude and incapable of teaching.

 

[Cajunrider]

I enjoy reading the posts in this thread. However, I just can't afford the time to participate in the discussion to the level I set for myself on this subject.