Are logic and rationality godly?

Nick_A,

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem seems to prove what you’re saying, that logic is an incomplete system. So maybe we could never use logic to arrive at the truth about God. But that’s not what my topic is about.

Hm… I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “conceptualized [the existence of God]”, and in turn “bringing them down to our level”. So maybe what you’re saying is that any time we attempt to “conceptualize” (do you mean to say “figure out”?) God, the result is always false because God cannot be conceptualized by our limited human minds? Or maybe God is not something to be conceptualized, period?

The process of logic is already in the past? So, you mean that thoughts, which we use when reasoning and in logic, occur successively, which therefore relegates every prior thought to the now-imagining past. Okay, but this seems to marginalize every thought process that we use, including all forms of logic and thoughts outside of logic. And does this really serve to render them ineffective?

Emotional states combined with consciousness, producing real objective perception in the present? That sounds sort of like imagination though (maybe my definition of imagination is different from yours). They seem to be objective to ourselves. But even hallucinations and illusions and imagination are objective perceptions to ourselves (the mind) as well, no?

Does God really exist only in the present? I wrote in my first post that I was primarily referring to the Christian God, and in the Bible it says that God is the beginning and the end. Perhaps God exists at all times, or maybe “time” isn’t really a process of objective, successive events.

I don’t really get what you mean when you say that the future is a result, because it seems like a future result would be of a different nature than a past result. If the past and the future are both imaginations, it would seem as if the past is an imagination of a particular sort, and the future an imagination of a different sort.

If God is “being” exclusive of results, it could also seem that God would then exist in all times, and not just the present as you wrote.

But it seems like you’re actually arguing that logic and rationality are ultimately unable prove/disprove God (because the process is in the past, etc.). I don’t mind continuing this, but it’s not what my topic is about.

let’s rush you into the working world…

god is dead.

-Imp

Imp,

“the priests and rabbis were quaking in their boots perhaps, the philosophers laughed…”

Spinoza was the foregoing expert on Cartesian philosophy in all of the Netherlands. Leibniz sought his council and may have even plagarized. What philosophers are you dreaming of?

all is god, god loses distinction

No. Everything gains distinction.

let’s rush you into the working world…

“Imp’s working world” not that’s an oxymoron. :slight_smile:

Dunamis

-Imp

Imp,

spinoza stood rene on his head.

He also was the foremost expert on Descartes, heading a circle of Cartesian philosophers and even writing a Cartesian philosophy text book in Geometric method, in which he expressed almost none of his own ideas…Then he stood that philosophy on its head.

"locke, hobbes, berkeley, hume, even kant to name a few… "

And Goethe, Marx, Lessing, Schelling, Nietzsche, Hegel, Deleuze, Althusser, Negri, Davidson respected him (to name a few), and none of them were laughing. :slight_smile:

Dunamis

This is a problem, I think. How does a pantheist respond to this?

Jerry,

“This is a problem, I think. How does a pantheist respond to this?”

This is no problem. This is a liver, no it is part of me. This is an eyeball, no it is part of me. This is a DNA strand, no this is part of me. This is a homo sapiens, no this is part of God/Nature. This is a rock, no it is part of God/Nature.

Dunamis

Then to Imp’s point, what’s the real difference between a pantheist and an atheist?

Jerry,

“Then to Imp’s point, what’s the real difference between a pantheist and an atheist?”

There are many gradations of pantheism. Spinoza’s pantheism grants rationality to the entire universe, and makes of all events an expression of God, it also grounds ethical behavior in the rationality of that universe. The entire process is one of a thinking substance. If you want to call that athiesm, you would have to extend the meaning of athiesm to embrace participation in a single thinking substance.

Dunamis

Hi G C

I would agree that you cannot use logic to prove God but I do believe that if you reason from a triune perspective rather than our normal dualistic perspective, one can begin to understand the descent of God’s will manifesting as creation.

You’re probably familiar with the law of excluded middle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

But the axiom of the included middle introduces a perspective that helps clarify a great many things including quantum relationships. If such an idea interests you I’ll search my files to find an article I know I’ve saved somewhere that is very revealing.

We must learn our limitations so there really is no harm in trying unless a person becomes obsessed with such thought. But it is a worthwhile experience I believe to see how we are taken and lose the perspective of the verticality of being and twist it into the horizontal line of reason.

As a Christian you know that the cross is a symbol rich in meaning and one meaning is the intersection of the vertical and horizontal lines of the cross. The point of intersection is our understanding in the true sense of the word. Our knowledge and reason falls on the horizontal line that covers the span between knowing nothing and knowing everything. The place on this line intersects a point on the vertical line of being that is our level of being and covers the span of being between natural man and man re-born.

Notice that in the symbol the intersection is roughly at the level of the heart. The ability to"feel"as a human being and the calling and possibility of re-birth from a relationship with the higher is what Christianity offers through Jesus’ sacrifice.

Higher reason concerning the relative quality of the moment begins to enter us from the line of being. We in turn attempt to conceptualize it along the horizontal line of reason losing its meaning and denyingour being its value. Father Sylvan explains this as well as I’ve ever read:

So all things considered I believe it wise to begin to appreciate the limits of our reason in the quest of the experience of higher understanding. Otherwise a person just becomes stuck and gradually begins even to lose understanding. Logic and reason is a good tool but like all tools it best serves what it is designed for. It would be foolish to try and saw wood with a hammer.

Imagination is what occurs in the absence of consciousness. Imagination can be healthy but its danger is that it has the tendency to take the place of conscious attention which is necessary for a person to acquire higher understanding… Consciousness is objective. Interpretations of conscious experiences are subjective. Our task is to lessen the divide.

Time is a topic in itself. But linear time is completely subjective so it exists within now. Imagine yourself in a field and a plane comes over the horizon in the east from your future and begins to enter your past as it flies over your head and disappears into the western horizon and further into your past. You are right to say that it appeared from your future and entered into your past. But for the passengers in the plane, it all occurred in the present. From Ecclesiastes 3

15 Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account.

I see this as describing the quality of “now” in which the past and future both exist as an aspect of God as “being” in the “now”. do you agree?

Looking back on your initial post I see that I’ve touched on God outside of logic but not the following:

Consider the purpose of the Bible:

The Bible is a psychological work which can allow a person to become open and be “seen” from above. In order for this to occur it must bypass our normal tendency for preconception and touch something in us that lies behind this tendency. Its psychology is meant to awaken something that our level of logic and reason cannot.

From the Gospel of Thomas:

(

Sacred text can allow a person to experience themselves psychologically in a new way. it is the beginning of a quality of self knowledge that allows one “to become known.”

So this is a way of understanding God without relying on logic or our habitual tendency to conceptualize everything. By seeing it from a “triune perspective”…

So reason and logic can even hamper our discovering the truth, because of how we tend to conceptualize what isn’t meant to be conceptualized. Instead, what is needed is this certain intrinsic, psychological element of empathy.

I didn’t say I was Christian, and in fact I’m not Christian. I’ll admit this is the first time I’ve come across this interpretation of the cross as a triple intersection of reason, being and emotion.

So basically, using logic and reason is like seeing the plane fly over me, as I see it existing in the past, present, and future. And on the other hand, using the emotional reasoning, or you might say from the “triune perspective”, is like being in the plane, where there is no past, present or future but simply an established existence, and that is how God exists.

Well, you make a point of saying that emotional reasoning can allow us to realize the truth (God) more effectively than simple reason and logic. Since God is always in the “now”, emotional reasoning is better than logic because our emotion is also in the “now”. But I think this sort of begs the question.

So emotional reasoning is better than logic because through it we connect with God, at least more so than through logic. This is because they’re both in the “now”. And through this we achieve greater understanding of God. But when we use logic, and some parts of the logic become the past, what becomes of the “past logic”? Does it contribute nothing to the conclusion, and overall meaning of the work?

We’ve agreed that logic cannot solve everything, in one case because of Godel’s Theorem, but now there’s your theory about logic operating on temporal planes. Using a form of reasoning which exclusively performs in the “now” (emotional reasoning) might be better than a form of reasoning which performs on temporal levels (logic), but you haven’t yet proven how these temporal levels are inferior to the “now” other than that God also exists in the “now”.

It seems like when we say that logic is in the past and the future, it’s simply an issue with syntax. I’m still not convinced that logic is actually in the past which somehow prevents it from pertaining to God, but only that we say it’s in the past. I’m not convinced that this issue with syntax prevents it from being relevant to God.

And are we sure that your definition of “now” is how God really is?

On the other hand, I think what conclusion we might be arriving at is that logic can prove certain things and that emotional reasoning can prove other things. And logic should be able to prove some things about God, while emotional reasoning should be able to prove other things about God. There are some things that logic can and can’t prove, and some things that emotional reasoning can and can’t prove. Emotional reasoning could allow people to connect with God, and certain things can be understood in this way, which logic can’t do. But it also works the other way around. And if we can’t actually prove anything, we might at least arrive at some conclusion.

Hi GC

They hamper the search since they tend to keep it on the same level which gradually becomes corrupted by imagination.

It is more than just empathy but consciousness as well. In this way the higher thinking function (consciousness) works together with the higher emotions.

Imagine life on earth as continuing along a horizontal line. Everything that occurs on it that we label as good and evil or degrees of good tht continue manifesting on it as events. Reason keeps us locked into deciding between the duality of yes and no along this line in respect to the relationship between these events.

Now begin extending lines upward in a vertical direction from each end of the horizontal line (duality) so that they meet at a point in the center forming a triangle. This is adding the third principle. It is a degree of consciousness that sees, feels, and experiences the existence of each of the events along the horizontal line as a connected whole where good and evil are only determined subjectively by our minimal consciousness caught up within this continuum of events

From the higher perspective of the apex of the triangle degrees of good or “quality” of life along the horizontal line are determined by their relationship to what lies above and below it creating the vertical continuum of “as above, so below.” This continuum of "as above,so below, exists in the now while events along the horizontal line of linear time we can only conceptualize in the context of our subjective conceptions of the past and future

But naturally such consciousness is beyond the being of fallen man. Our emotions that normally would allow us to experience this vertical relationship have devolved from affirmation into all forms of denial usually manifesting in the many forms of false pride and vanity preventing one from knowing themselves or the experience of themselves in relation to above and below in the vertical psychological sense. The importance of Christ was the necessary help in this direction.

When we begin to recognize its limitations for what they are, this recognition is part of what allows us to consciously begin to transcend it. In this way the experience is beneficial. In Christianity, this experience is “metanoia”, which is our change of direction in the search for meaning from the external to the internal where we find new eyes to see and new ears to hear… But as we remain locked into reacting to the external, we only turn in circles

We may not be able to “know God” beyond time and space but our being is capable of becoming through re-birth a conscious aspect of God’s will which I believe to be man’s potential.

We can’t be sure of anything. But we cannot look into the past or the future so where else but “now” can we begin to verify anything? the question becomes how to be open to such verification.

I agree. Reason and emotion must work together if a person is sincere in trying to develop objective understanding since they both can provide important experience

The most important conclusion I can find is to admit that we are unable to do it and as a result, we live in a dream. Then the question becomes the essential question of all the ancient traditions: how to awaken?

I don’t know, Dunamis. I struggle with this. Where is the evidence of rationality and of a “thinking” substance? With Spinoza’s hard determinism, I’m not seeing the “thinking” at least not in any kind of creative way. Elsewhere you had substituted the word “expressive” for creative. Well, yes, all acts are expressive of…something. But why not just say they are expressive of nature or the natural world and, in fine deterministic fashion, inevitable consequences of the preceding acts, which were inevitable consequences of their preceding acts, etc., etc. Why call this God? In this deterministic, pantheistic model, what room is there for a “thinking” universe? Where do we see the “rationality”?

Jerry,

“Why call this God? In this deterministic, pantheistic model, what room is there for a “thinking” universe? Where do we see the “rationality”?”

It just a way to see things that has internal coherence. The “thinking” part of the universe comes in expanding your understanding what thinking is. All things “think” to the complexity of their order, and when combined they think in assemblage. The “rationality” comes through the relative freedom that understanding provides, the movement from passive to active states. Because the whole picture cannot be seen, you can take this as some sort of blind vitalism, or you can take it as a thinking substance. If you prefer to think of things as inert matter with an exterior God who works with a compass and plan, that is okay. If you prefer to think of things as a jumble of rocks floating in space and man but a “thinking reed”, an accident of molecules, that’s okay too. :slight_smile:

If you would like to understand Spinoza’s sense of rationality and of what it means to think, you may have to study him. Central to his premise is the idea that the one substance unfolds in parallel movements of both extension and thought, that is perhaps as extension and information.

Dunamis

For the record I don’t prefer either of these choices. I am something of a panentheist. My problem with Spinoza is the hard determinism. I see the universe as an unfolding of creative acts, inspired by free will, limited though it might be, but free enough to create, and not just express. Otherwise I struggle to ascertain a purpose, not that my struggling is a reason to deny Spinoza. It’s just that one observes (apparent) purpose seemingly everywhere one looks.

Anyway, these are all things I am thinking through of late. Spinoza is definitely interesting to me.

It seems like you’re saying that humans cannot comprehend all of logic, because of their tendency not to go far enough. But then it’s not a problem with logic itself, but a problem with the human mind.

Well, I know that the Bible speaks of people being God’s children, of people entering heaven, of people being born again, of people being humble, but this “conscious awakening” I think might be a little extreme. In the Old Testament, God prevented the building of the Tower of Babel because he didn’t like that people were trying to be like God. God confused the languages of the people so that they couldn’t communicate to each other effectively. I don’t think he did this so that the people would become more conscious.

You mentioned Christ a little bit, saying that he helped/can help people realize their capacity for higher emotional reasoning, but you might have to elaborate a bit more on that.

Again, I would want to know where you get your justifications for this. Your assertions are very specific. In particular, I think “our being is capable of becoming through re-birth a conscious aspect of God’s will” needs some justification and elaboration. What does it mean to become a “conscious aspect of God’s will”? Do we really need to be “consciously re-awakened” to be part of God’s will (and what does that mean)?

Just because we’re unsure of something doesn’t mean that the next alternative is the right one. And why are you using the term “now” as a term for the present (which is distinct from past and future)? When before and for the most part you were using the term “now” as the higher-conscious state where past, future and present don’t really exist distinctly but it’s like being in the plane?

But how can you detail an entire explanation on something that you’ve never done, that no one seems to have done? I still don’t know how you arrived at this theory, what your justifications are for it. How do you know that “higher consciousness” exists? And “higher emotions”? And i thought you just told me how to awaken.

Hi G C

Yes the is the limitation. The universe I believe makes perfect sense but we are limited in our appreciation of it because of the fallen nature of our “being”.

Consider it from the point of view of dimensions. First we have to define a "point"as no dimensions but just a “limit.” Everything can be built upon this.

A line is one dimension (length) and is the creation of a series of points. At right angles to each of these points new lines project creating a plane or surface creating the second dimension of width. Now extend lines from each of the points on this plane into creating a cube existing within three dimensional space.

Now extend lines out from the points of the cube and it should create a fourth dimensional object that exists within four dimensional space. It is beyond our ability to logically visualize it. Yet it can be assumed as a logical possibility.

A line or one dimension can be seen as a boundary of a surface. A surface can be seen as a boundary for a cube. A cube can be seen as a boundary for???

A man recognized as a three dimensional body could also then be considered as a boundary of a four dimensional being. We can see this as a logical possibility but how could we either verify or conclusively deny it by logic and reason?

Exaggerating the faculty of reason in the quest of understanding only serves, IMO, to lead into imagination. If this idea of the limitations of the literal mind interests you, click on

rawpaint.com/library/intro.html

Click on “Against the Literal Mind” in Jacob Needleman’s Chapter One: The Universe and see if the following resonates with you:

The universe is in constant motion in the directions of involution into dispersion or evolution into wholeness. From the point of view of consciousness as it relates to re-birth, good is what helps man’s evolution towards the creator and evil is what continues man’s descent into dispersal.

I am interested in esoteric Christianity. The ideas are ancient and Jesus’ mission was able to actualize them allowing those able to follow. The analogy of the triangle which could be expanded to form a pyramid and the symbolism of the cross are all within it.

There is no dogma since its purpose is experiential. It adds psychology to philosophy as we know it broadening it into the experience of “meaning”.

Here is a general article. It is only for those that are drawn to the experience of meaning beyond the usual . If something truly interests you, I know of good source material but because of the wholeness of the ideas it cannot be argued into details before the wholeness can be experienced.

hermes-press.com/Perennial_T … ianity.htm
.

This is a very important point. The Tower of Babel is symbolic not of consciousness but of the interpretations of consciousness by our egotism leading to destruction all the way around. This is why the substance of a living tradition is revealed privately when the student is ready. Without such cautions, we easily become our worst enemy.

Enough for now, gotta run.

Religious people tend to see things in a backward fashion.

The universe does not make perfect sense. However, if you look at it starting right now and go backwards then it does.

Example:

You come upon a bunch of scattered shreds of paper lying on the ground and you see what looks like a picture. You conclude that someone made the picture and it is a piece of artwork.

Later, you find a videotape of your friend carrying a box of shredded paper that is to be thrown away. So, paper flies out as he walks and happens to hit the floor in such a way as to make the design that you saw. Now you realize that the design is random, and is not a piece of art.

The reason that the design occurred was because of the various physical conditions and shapes of the paper allowed them the fit together as they fell into a pattern that the human mind was capable of recognizing as being a design.

So, in this case the end product fallaciously indicated the beginning.

It is the same case with the universe.

Many of you are seeing the end result of the atomic structures that fit together by chance as having been fitted together by design simply because now they are together in a way that is recognizable to you.

Unless I’m mistaken, other dimensions have been theoretically proven by mathematics. I don’t get how what you’re saying makes sense. True, we can’t visualize a four-dimensional object, but that doesn’t mean that we’re humanly incapable of conceptualizing it. Because we have conceptualized it, just not visually, but through logic (mathematics).

But why should I want to consider a man as the boundary of a four dimensional being? And why does this even matter? And if we can’t verify that a fourth dimension to the human exists, why even postulate it? If anything, trying to add a fourth dimension to the human body, when we haven’t yet fully realized our full logical capacity for this endeavor, seems to me like over-exaggeration and imagination.

And from where do you come to say this? Where’s your reputable source, and moreover your justification, that says that the universe constantly moves toward “dispersion” or “wholeness”? And how can you be sure of something like this if you say that it’s either one “or” the other? And your second sentence is just so vague and ambiguous. What is a “point of view of consciousness as it relates to re-birth”? And “evolution towards the creator”? They just don’t make sense semantically.

But you write in a very assertive manner, as if what you claim is true (“The universe is like this, humans are like this, if humans do this then this will happen, etc.”). I’m wondering how you can make these claims and assertions, if you’re not simply speaking completely from personal belief.

… I don’t have time right now to write more, later.

Hi G C

Yes, mathematics suggests it but how can we begin to experience it, become conscious of it. Imagination can suggest many enjoyable ways of spending a billion dollars but what good is it until you have it? Only then is it experiential.

You’re asking why a person should go out on a clear night and wonder at the sky while asking oneself what lies beyond it. If we can’t verify our wonder, why bother? Personally I appreciate the experience of awe when I feel the presence of something much greater then myself suggesting that there is more to myself then I am aware of and everything is manifesting within universal laws that I only have a glimpse of. Somehow it touches something in me that is attracted to higher meaning.

As far as the universe in motion, you can get an idea of it from the link posted on the initial post of this thread:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=144727

In all fairness, questions of consciousness as it relates to re-birth and man’s evolution are not just simple yes and no questions. If you are interested, read the whole of chapter one in the link suggested above and copied below:

rawpaint.com/library/intro.html

Click on Jacob Needleman’s Chapter One: The Universe

It is a good beginning

I’m not trying to be assertive. As I’ve said, a person must verify these things for themselves. I make these claims because as I’ve learned them they make sense to me and I’ve verified some of it for myself. I believe that reason and religion do not necessarily contradict each other and in fact they are complimentary for a person that has acquired a balanced presence through a certain degree of consciousness. Please believe me that I have no incentive whatsoever to shove anything down anyone’s throat and what I am discussing are my personal beliefs based on my understandings from personal experiences and writings of a depth and suggestive of ideas I could never have discovered on my own and have become meaningful for me.