Peace

Why should I have to respond in a “More substantive manner” when you do not have to do so. I provided for you my best source for explanation the necessary changes in religion, and you dismissed it as irrelevant. I will not go to the plethora of book references and pod casts on the web to prove a point you would simply deny, that is, the evolution of the Christian religion. Maybe it would be best if you take your close-mindedness elsewhere.

Ierrellus

Hakuna Matata, Ierrellus. It happens to the best of us, the worst of us and the in-between too.
Thank you for your graciousness.

.

“When I was walking in the mountains with the Japanese man and began to hear the water, he said, 'What is the sound of the waterfall?’ 'Silence, he finally told me.”
― Jack Gilbert, Collected Poems

That in Green gives me peace…Peace.

"Two monks were arguing about a flag. Onesaid, “The
flag is moving.” The other said, “The wind is moving.”
A Zen Master passing by remarked, “‘Not the wind,
not the flag; mind is moving.”

I am not so sure how the above koan jives with what you said above but for me it seemed to work.
I thought that it was kind of profound, at least to me. Some of these are capable of blowing one’s mind. It is like a “ah” affect.

Well, I do not know much about that but I LOVE Wordsworth’s poems. Oh, how they do speak to me.
I might just call myself a pagan too because of the way in which I feel about nature. I come close to worshipping nature unless, in fact, I do. Just feel the interconnectedness. lol

poets.org/poem/i-wandered-lonely-cloud

poets.org/poem/world-too-much-us

…It moves us not.—Great God! I’d rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.

So what was the “not in a good sense?”

There is that side in nature at times. But then again there is that peaceful, sacred, teaching, all-present side too. Awesome.

Yes, though some would like to call them acts of God.

Sorry to have somewhat derailed your thread.

We clearly have a different take here on what constitutes substance.

In regard to the distinction you make between the old religious narrative and the new progressive understanding of God, I asked you to take this out into the world and note actual contexts involving behaviors in conflict as that would pertain to the old thinking – an omniscient/omnipotent God judging human behaviors on this side of the grave so as to allow them access to immortality and salvation on the other side of it – and the new thinking: yours.

In other words, instead of merely assuming that the old narrative need be but linked back to the conservative fundamentalist assumptions about God while the new and improved narrative is patently embodied in progressive liberal assumptions.

Okay, make this distinction, but then illustrate it for us. Provide us with particular examples of this. From, say, your own life. Your own interactions with the fundamentalist ilk. With respect to moral issues here and now and your imagined fate there and then.

An issue re this thread like peace on Earth.

Now, the substance of my argument here is no less awash in assumptions. I am not arguing that I am myself able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous folks are likely to embrace it.

Instead, my point is that any particular individual’s understanding of God appears [to me] rooted more in the life that he or she lives than in any possible capacity on their part to actually demonstrate – philosophically or experientially – that what they do believe about God is in fact true.

Thus I was once a devout Protestant Christian accepting of the old narrative regarding God and salvation. Then I got drafted, was sent to Vietnam and, through a combination of experiences there and the soldiers I met, I came home an atheist.

Clearly an “existential contraption”. And it is a frame of mind that, in my view, most objectivists [sacred or secular] will do almost anything to avoid attributing to themselves.

Arc,
Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology.
Wm. Blake believed we should worship men, great men in particular. So he considered Wordsworth to be an idol worshiper. Some of my fondest teaching experiences were when I taught Wordsworth and watched those bright student eyes light up in discovery of such insights as “the child is father to the man.” And I can attest to the fact that some natural environments can give one a sense of at-one-ment. I’m fond of Blake because studying his work helped rouse me from “My dogmatic slumber”; I was a die hard fundamentalist. The new wave of Progressive Christianity, by eschewing the supernatural, has offered me hope in my spiritual journey."Thanks for sharing the koans.

Iamb.,
Your arguments are a one trick pony, leading one to ask, “Is that all there is?”
“The answer is blowin’ in the wind.”
“The times they are a-changing”.—Bob Dylan

Well, I figured this: that with just immortality alone on the line, it was plenty. But the bottom line [mine] is that you will no doubt take your own comforting and consoling rendition of God to the grave. Something I once thought was in the bag myself. If only in sync with the old narrative.

And, sure, for all practical purposes, that’s the only bottom line that counts for mere mortals. It’s ever and always what the religious objectivists are able to convince themselves is true, rather than what they can demonstrate [even to themselves] is in fact the case.

I get that part. They win, I lose. At least on this side of the grave. And, admittedly, as for the other side of it, what the hell can I really know about that?

My favorite Blake work is “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” Have you read that one, Arc?
And Blake was fond of aphorisms or one-liners.
Urizen was his name for “your reason”, the worship of which he saw as another form of idolatry.

There is no such animal as a “religious objectionist.” This is an oxymoron since religion can be experienced and the only way to communicate an experience is intersubjectively (Changeaux). In fact that may be true of any mental attempts at objectivity. You are communicating to me your own take on dasein, etc., a communication not set in stone or handed down by some group of rational and virtuous mind police.
Dasein is 3 Bs: being or isness, becoming or change, and belonging or meaning. Belonging is admission that what exists is necessary. From the latter come most thoughts on religion or science.

Here of course you can’t lose. You take God and religion and peace earth and reconfigure them. They are reconfigured from the manner in which they are actually embodied by mere mortals interacting on this side of the grave into a “technical” discussion of “objectivism”.

That way the behaviors you choose here and now relating to what you imagine peace on earth to be – as with what you want your fate to be there and then – becomes moot.

That’s just subsumed in the assumption that how you view the new and improved “progressive” God is true merely because you believe that it is.

Nothing actually need be substantiated at at. The old narratives are necessarily wrong because your new narrative is necessarily right. Why? Because, you insist, it is in sync with how you describe communicating religious experiences above.

In your head, in other words. The only place it has to be in order to sustain your own comforting “philosophical” assessment of all this above.

As expected. It would be nice if the matter was only in my head. Then I could take credit for it. The new wave is forming from better minds than mine. My agreement with them is not a problem. It is an opportunity to evolve or die. I comment on objectivity since that appears to be all that would satisfy your lack of curiosity. After all, by your own definitions, objectivity is just a consensus of agreements. In your head are your philosophical arguments. Show me the numbers of rational and virtuous people, even here at ILP, who do not contest your ideas, but align with them.

Yes, it’s in the minds of others too. Better minds than yours. But how would the very best of these minds go about demonstrating that their own new and improved God is in fact more in sync with what religion really ought to be than the very best minds of those who still hold to the old narrative?

Link us to what you construe to be the best contemporary argument you have come upon.

Also, their argument as to how the God that they imagine can ever possibly be squared with the terrible “natural disasters” embedded in what would seem to be a planet that He created. Again, only Harold Kushner’s argument makes any sense to me here.

Evolve or die pertaining to what set of behaviors in what contexts?

Commenting on it and demonstrating it in relationship to God would seem to be the distinction that anyone curious about their own immortality and salvation would make.

And I have come upon few who have delved into it more than I have. Being curious though is actually the least of it when waiting for godot.

On the contrary, in regard to the either/or world, a consensus of opinion is always trumped by that which can actually be demonstrated to be true.

And on the day you are able to demonstrate the existence of this new and improved “progressive God”, I will be the first to insist that any particular consensus embraced by others must give way to the proven facts that you provide.

And it is indeed a fact that many contest my own arguments here at ILP. But that doesn’t necessarily make either them or me rational and virtuous. To the extent that you actually believe this is merely the extent to which you completely misconstrue my point of view.

Also, I suspect that most will reject my arguments here because as I noted elsewhere:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.

Iamb.,
I am currently reading Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion” and am finding that your “psychoanalysis” of religion is very similar to his. For both of you, I find it a pity that you cannot or in his case could not recognize experience as truth if it cannot be spelled out according to the mental definitions of reason or objectivity.
For you a religious experience simply cannot be sufficient in and of itself, it must be weighed against the current standards of reason.i.e., it must have an agreed upon psycho-physical source to be considered real. I doubt you are enough into evolutionary psychology or neuroscience to make that sort of opinion valid.
In any event, you speak from where your mind is now. For me that offers nothing of hope. So what if my ideas are comforting. I’d rather believe in nothing than to accept your estimate of the ulterior motives of human religious aspirations.

Psychoanalysis?

There either is a God or there is not. This God either judges our behaviors or He does not. If He does, there either is a connection between the behaviors we choose here and now and our fate there and then or there is not.

And [re this thread] your new and improved rendition of God in relationship to peace on Earth is either closer to the truth than the old renditions or it is not.

Still, what does one’s psychological disposition have to do with demonstrating the actual truth here?

Are you suggesting that with, as some/most insist, immortality and salvation on the line, the only thing that really matters here is one’s own personal experiences? If you experienced a ghost then for you ghosts exists. If you’ve experienced an encounter with extraterrestrial beings, then for you they exist. If you experienced the presence of a witch, then for you they exist.

That’s the criterion that matters?

Or, sure, I’m misunderstanding you.

Either your own understanding of God is able to be conveyed such that others can understand the experience and learn from it, or it all comes down to “personal experiences”. And, if that is the case, how is this in and of itself to be connected to God in a way that others can understand it?

And if “the current standards of reason” exchanged between philosophers and scientists are shunted aside in favor of merely accepting our own and other’s uniquely personal experiences, then discussions of God and religion in places like this become, for all practical purposes, a gigantic free-for-all of “personal experiences”.

Exactly. I couldn’t have conveyed the manner in which I react to your assessment here better than that. Hope revolves around what you are able to convince yourself is true. And the fact that I construe this to be basically an existential contraption rooted in your own personal experiences is, well, a bit ironic.

We simply understand “I” here in very different ways. You are able to link yours to what I presume is a “soul” intertwined “in your head” with “God”, intertwined in what you imagine attaining peace on Earth would entail.

I was once able to convince myself of the same. Now however I have thought myself into a different frame of mind. “I” believe “in my head” “here and now” that human existence is essentially meaningless and ends in oblivion for all time to come. But I can only assume that this too is an existential contraption going all the way back to 1] the day I was born 2] the definitive understanding of existence itself and 3] the assumption that you and I are in possession of at least some measure of free will.

Every time you mention its “in your head” or find “comforting” problematic you are into interpretations that could only be considered psychoanalytic. Be that as it may, what I think of as soul is radically different from how you seem to interpret the word. You are still comparing progressive ideas, which are not to be localized as mine only, with outmoded fundamentalist takes on the subject. In every post you show an unwillingness to understand progressive Christianity, mainly by considering it only my ideas or ideas “in my head”. Progressive Christianity can lead to “surcease of suffering” in the here and now. It involves a radical change in thinking that no longer relies on paternalism, slavery, misogyny., etc., etc. It offers a future based on what is best about humans, not a continuation of the worst.

I’m not clear what this has to do with my point that…

[b]There either is a God or there is not. This God either judges our behaviors or He does not. If He does, there either is a connection between the behaviors we choose here and now and our fate there and then or there is not.

And [re this thread] your new and improved rendition of God in relationship to peace on Earth is either closer to the truth than the old renditions or it is not.[/b]

We think and feel things about God in our heads. They either comfort us or not. This is a manifestation of human psychology embedded biologically in the evolution of life on Earth itself. But what doesn’t change is the extent to which what we do think and feel about God, we are able to demonstrate to others. Otherwise we’re back to merely having had personal experiences which prompt some to think and feel what they do. End of discussion.

For example…

Your experiences have led you to think about the soul as you do. Same with me. Same with the fundamentalists and all the major religious denominations around the globe.

Right?

All I can then come back to is the fact that, with immortality and salvation on the line in the old narratives, getting the soul right would seem to be of crucial importance. In my view you have offered nothing – nothing substantive – beyond your own personal experiences and the arguments of the progressives that might persuade others with very different experiences and access to very different arguments to understand God as you do.

And your understanding of God either gives you comfort regarding immortality and salvation or it doesn’t.

So you say. But all I can say in turn will only be in sync with my own personal experiences and the arguments that I have had access to. Therefore, there has to be a way [in a philosophy forum], to go beyond that such that we are to persuade others that we have ways to actually demonstrate that how we think is how they ought to think too.

For the last time, my opinions about God, are not simply mine, so I resent the use of the word my as if these ideas did not belong to anyone else. That I accept these ideas does not make them mine alone. The Universalist Unitarian Church, an old institution, has espoused such ideas for centuries. There are books and podcasts on the net that show a vast movement of Progressive Christianity. The fundamentalists are not more, they are simply louder. So I am wasting my time trying to convince you of anything other than “What’s in your head”, as if that contains all feeling experience. AT=one-ment or holiness (being Whole) are experienced without words. Of course you can always rely on your mantram "In your head’ to avoid considering anything that cannot fit into your definition of reason, as long as we are talking about personal beliefs. I thought this was a forum for religious and spiritual considerations, not a philosophy forum per se., an excuse you use to deny experiential matters as valid. So, if there is no logical belief, there can be no belief worthy of comment. Can you realize what undue limitations you place on your own ability to think?

Back to the front. How do you interpret the following koan:
“If you see the Buddha sitting at the side of the road, kill him.”

Ierrellus wrote

Ah, how beautiful is the Robin’s red breast in the early morning light.

I know. Having lost my faith in the old Christian narrative in Vietnam, my friend Carol Mays convinced me to give the Unitarian Church right here in Baltimore a chance. But these folks, as truly special as they were, were no more able to assuage my doubts about God. Not given the world that we actually live in. Again, the only argument that ever made any sense at all to me here was Harold Kushner’s. At least to the extent God is actually thought to be a benevolent force in our lives.

Over and again you point this out. Lots of others think like you do. As though, what, that’s a substitute for actually responding to the points I raise?

All you are pointing out here is the obvious: that all of us have accumulated thoughts and feelings in our heads. But what never changes is this: that to the extent we do acquire an ability to think, we are either able to demonstrate to others why we think what we do or we are not.

Whether it’s related to discussions of gardening or parenting or repairing cars or the relationship between peace on Earth and faith/belief in God.

That’s the part in my view that you avoid like the plague. Instead, you are content to point out that in a religious forum in a philosophy venue personal experiences and self-serving arguments are just as acceptable.

Okay, carry on. I simply disagree. Personal experiences and circular, self-serving arguments that go around and around in circles, don’t work for me. At least not any more.

And here we’re just stuck.

the ‘problem of evil’ in theology has been poised by many different philosophers, and each of them have their own particular excuses for it… following some complicated line of reasoning or other. but one thing that seems to stick out in all of them is this notion that there is a dialectic at work in our evolution which requires the existence of such ‘evil’ in order for there to be progress. now this would only make sense to us if we were able to imagine our reality as a kind of ‘stage’ in some ongoing process… later stages which would then justify and excuse the horror we experienced during this stage. but the further you delve into these theological ‘systems of explanation’, the greater the number of dubious theoretical claims result. finally you’re into a hypothetical thought model so complex you can’t tell forward from backward and you just drop the whole thing. but everyone knows the basic gist of the idea: somehow an omnipotent god has created creatures with freewill who are supposed to use it to partake in this progression of becoming as they pass through the dialectical stages. hegel liked to think of this moving toward an absolute final state of pure ‘spirit’, whatever that means. but something like that might happen in the distant future when we’ve completely interfaced with computers. some kind of quantum machine that produces eternal dream like states of consciousness without any need of a physical substratum.

could this be what hegel meant but didn’t know? dude was a character. it’s reported that one time he went to give a lecture, and a student noticed he had forgotten to put on both shoes. that’s when you know you have a serious thinker; when the nigga forgets to put both shoes on in a rush to get to university.