Iamb.,
You and I speak two different languages. I have no more desire to learn yours than you have to learn mine.
Yes, “Nature is red in tooth and claw”-Tennyson; but nothing is ever lost.
More to the point [mine], the language that you speak comforts and consoles you a hell of a lot more than the language that I speak comforts and consoles me. No doubt about who is the “winner” here, right?
And, in my view, you completely bend over backwards to avoid confronting the points that I raise in order to sustain that crucial distinction.
But: you won’t go there – in a philosophy forum! – because there is simply too much that might be lost if you take the blinders off.
So, sure, keep them on. Stay up in the clouds that are those spiritual contraptions you never dare to come down out of.
After all, I did dare to.
And, trust me, the consequences of that have been brutal. You have no idea how it feels to think yourself into believing that your own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that, even worse, it will come to an end for all of eternity in oblivion.
After all, I was once you too, you know.
Which of us had blinders to shed? Not me. Your outlook on life is too bleak for me to consider in or out of a philosophy forum. And I have seen no rules or regulations in this forum that would make my take on existence unacceptable here or elsewhere. You were never me. You know nothing about me except for your interpretation of my posts. I would ask the moderators here whether or not these posts are acceptable in a philosophy forum.
What my thread is about—implications of the existence of God in the determinism and outcomes of bio-chemical evolution–perhaps lost in useless quibbles over what philosophy allows.
"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The bone of contention about positive evolution is whether it is fortuitous or teleological. I prefer to think that it implies purpose.
See, there you go again. My outlook is “too bleak”. But not because you actually address my points above and offer ways in which one might think and feel about them in a less bleak manner.
No, my outlook is just too bleak period. And it must be irrational simply because it is too bleak.
It would be like particular Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany noting ominous things about Hitler, and other Jews saying, no, that’s just too bleak to be true. Or those reacting to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” speculations back then and thinking, “No God? No way! That’s just too bleak to contemplate!!”
And, yeah, the world as we know it to be is a very bleak place if there is no ultimately loving, just and merciful God up there or out there somewhere. You won’t get an argument from me about that.
But what about this God, given the points I make above?
Nope, let’s not go there, right?
I hear you! Or, rather, I did back when my own belief in the Christian God started crumbling. Now, for me, it’s one or another rendition of this: youtu.be/VKcAYMb5uk4
And, given that, all I can do is to come into places like this and hope against hope that there are others intelligent enough to yank me up out of that frame of mind. But that starts with him or her at least addressing my points.
Where are you going here?
Note to others:
Where do you think he is going here?
[b][i]Look, you once asked me not to include posts of yours in my “on discussing god and religion” thread. And I stopped doing it.
Same here. If my posts anger and disturb you as much as [to me] they seem to, just ask me to stop responding to anything that you post here at ILP.
And I will stop.[/i][/b]
Edit:
I do respect you here. Unlike the Kids and the fulminating fanatics, you clearly take the time to, introspectively, think through in your own way the fundamentally important questions revolving around, “how ought one to live?”
Given “I and Thou”.
But you are either willing to respect the intelligence of those who don’t share your own “leap of faith” or “wager” in regard to God and religion or you need to ask yourself why you don’t or won’t or can’t.
It is not out of disrespect for those who disagree with me that causes me to eschew their worldview; it is because they will not hear anything that does not fit their philosophical agenda. If nihilism is comforting, which I think not, let it be. I opt for hope in a viable future for all mankind.
The internet contains a plethora of podcasts by wise and thoughtful people who opine about theism and evolution. It is time in history for the two to see what each owes to the other in explanations of what it means to be human. This is a new, hopeful age for the marriage of science and religion. We can evolve into that union.
Right, like you are more than willing to explore the arguments of those like me who disagree with you. By, for example, actually addressing the points I raise above. As though, instead, the whole point of posting here isn’t really to sustain your own far more comforting and consoling spiritual path.
And you seem rather adamant that nihilism is to be rejected precisely because it isn’t comforting. That’s the main criteria for you. Or so it certainly seems to me. Only, in a philosophy forum, should feeling soothed and solaced be the main criteria for establishing wisdom.
No, in my view, that’s the main aim of the objectivists. God or No God. It’s not what you and your ilk believe but that what you believe allows you to anchor your Self to something that can ensure you that “in your head” life is essentially meaningful and purposeful. And that, for the religious objectivists, it all continues beyond the grave. What I call the psychology of objectivism.
Know any of them? Then invite them here. Maybe they will have both the intellectual integrity and honesty – in a philosophy forum – to address the points I raise.
Iamb,
You inevitably turn the conversation to personal matters and your take on my consideration of nihilism is off the mark.
Please refrain from posting in my thread. You add nothing to the current debates on religion as equal to science in exploring what it is like to be human.
You had rather distort opinions of anyone other than yours instead of trying to understand those opinions. In short your take is no help here. Please vacate the premises. A million podcasts brought here for you to see would not alter your take on the matter.
No, I inevitably turn discussions of God and religion into exchanges regarding the actual behaviors that people choose on this side of the grave given that which they believe or would like the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.
Or to discussions of theodicy.
Or the efforts of those who do believe in a God or a No God religious path to at least make an attempt to demonstrate to us how they demonstrate to themselves that what they believe “in their head” can be demonstrated to in fact be true. Especially given that there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting paths out there…and with so much at stake.
Finally, discussions that revolve around the chief component of own philosophy here: the role that dasein plays in forming individual points of view about God and religion.
And I am only interested in your own consideration of nihilism given the extent to which you will explore that with me given the manner in which you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
Your thread? This thread? Or all of your threads and posts? Let’s pin that down. If you want my disturbing arguments out of your head altogether then go all the way and insist on that.
Demonstrate to me that what I suspect of your own intellectual honesty and integrity is, sadly enough, all too true.
For example here…
…you configure into just one more of my many feckless Stooges.
Though I’ll refrain from using the C word.
After all, in your own way [as with Felix and others], you do attempt to explore all of this in a more sophisticated manner than the Kids and the Fulminating Fanatics. So, sure, I do wish you well in taking your own precious “comfort and consolation” all the way to the grave.
You have already typecast me. Please refrain from posting in this thread.
Can anyone honestly say, given the far reach of human understanding, that science can accurately explain all there is to know of the human condition? To say so would suggest an arrogance not even acceptable by major scientists. This sort of thinking is more characteristic of Dawkins, not by Einstein.
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”–Einstein. This aptly apples to Dawkins" assertions of religion–blindness. So we get to the point where we are asked to believe dasein, conflicting goods and how what we believe an afterlife will be as affecting this life are the sole possible ways of interpreting existential awareness or are the only ways one can speak of the here and now human condition. Surely, such descriptions smack of poverty of the intellect or at best spiritual blindness.
My purpose is not to waste time persuading the blind how to see. It is in espousing the freedom of thought available in human potential and natural possibility.
These are not abstract concepts, but here and now realizations.
Come on, don’t stop there. If you want my disturbing reactions to the spiritual/intellectual contraptions you sustain in posts like this…
…gone forever, ask me to steer clear of everything that you post here at ILP.
That way you can avoid altogether the points I raise here:
Iamb,
Yes. Please steer clear of everything I post at ILP since it only encourages your regurgitation of your personal beliefs. I’ve heard them ad nauseum. My philosophy is not so much concerned with the other side of the grave as with what we can think here and now about our future on this Earth. Besides I see reincarnation as a more moral human outcome than the old reward and punishment afterlives.
No problem. [-o<
Free at last! Free at last! Great God Almighty—free at last!
God is physical in acts of creative evolution, metaphysical in projections of becoming.
God is the situation and its cause. Without God there would be nothing.
God is present in one’s awe of Nature’s bounty and beauty.
God is also present when two or more people of good will come together in one accord.
God is present in the hunger for righteousness.
God is present in experience of God, about which words fail.
God is unconditional, universal Love.
duplicate
The part strives to reunite with the Whole. The God within is a part of the God outside the body of consciousness. Reclamation is God’s desire. Spiritual masters recognize the longing for completion as evidence of God’s inner Self, the God within. Creation separates to reunite. The individual eye (I) is a part of the whole vision.
Dawkins VS Paley–where do you stand?