Thoughts about religion and inceptivism, continued.
So the conversation continued:
Re:Deep Deep complex concepts that I have to write about very fast.
Posted by BJ, 12/4/2006 2:57:08 PM
fascinating read.....
if you have a minute I would like you to expand on how you came to formulate the moral code you refered to in a previous post..
Defies giving a short answer.
Posted by zinaval , 12/5/2006 8:59:47 AM
I'd have to get into the trunk and dig up my "ancient writings" to tell because it was not a short process.
Basically: Since I presume there is no God and the soul is mortal, then that implies there is no reward or punishment after death. Moreover, there is no inherent meaning imposed on the universe. Don't look for one.
Then, consider your limitations, which are many. There is no God in the universe, and that means you too. This brings humility. Your powers are extremely limited, your consciousness is intermittent, and it doesn't even have complete control of your body. You are greatly limited by time, position and space, mental and physical capacity and by senses that only show you an infinitesimal sample of what's going on in your immediate vicinity. Your memory is flawed an glitchy. That is only some of your limitations.
So, you could either limp along without any meaning in your life, or you could take your limited tools and try to bring meaning to it, and bring it to the parts of the vastness that you could touch. Improve the tools that you have for this purpose.
With the medium I've described, create a work of art from your life. Something that's aesthetically pleasing on the canvass of the universe. Something that if you were awakened from death and had to experience again without changing, you would embrace it.
Re:Defies giving a short answer.
Posted by BJ , 12/6/2006 9:13:39 AM
"Defies giving a short answer."
Boy, if that isn't the truth. Like you, or I guess you could say, like most folks, my views realy are the sum of my experiences to date. As such, it would be beyond my limited capacity to convey to you in a manner I would feel satisfied with the answer to the same question.
"""""So, you could either limp along without any meaning in your life, or you could take your limited tools and try to bring meaning to it, and bring it to the parts of the vastness that you could touch. Improve the tools that you have for this purpose.
With the medium I've described, create a work of art from your life. Something that's aesthetically pleasing on the canvass of the universe. Something that if you were awakened from death and had to experience again without changing, you would embrace it.""""""""
It is interseting but I must say I find something somewhat spiritual in what you say here. I don't want to put words in your mouth but the manner in which you seem to place value on existence and make quality judgements about that life....IOW, there is something more to YOU than the earthsuit your soul wears. (I was suprised to see you acknowledge "a soul" as well)
anyways, interesting reading.
Deep complex concepts need more questions
Posted by [Generic Christian] , 12/4/2006 11:09:32 PM
I appreciate your answers; they are thoughtful, intelligent and interesting. You are correct, many monotheistic religions do not accept Jesus Christ as Son of God, for example the Jewish Faith, Krishna, Buddha. Ditto. Now we can go on different subjects but I am more interested in your analysis specifically in relation to God and how you derived at that conclusion.
______
Your suppositions that “Everything is either material or part of a material process” and “that no spiritual world and no spiritual processes” exist are similar in thinking to…
Philosopher David Hume’s sincere belief: “it is a most unreasonable fancy that there might be life after death”. Mr. Hume believed that that all human knowledge comes to us through our senses. He basically believed that our reality is made up of perceptions, which comes from the impressions from what we hear, or see, or feel. Hume's skepticism says that we cannot believe that a certain thing, such as “God, a soul or a self exists unless we can point to the impression from which the idea of the thing is derived”.
So my question to you Mr. Zinaval, is it your contention that since God cannot be (supposedly) empirical derived from deductive or inductive reasoning that he therefore not exists?
My senses are far too limited for empiricism to determin that.
Posted by zinaval , 12/5/2006 9:20:11 AM
Empiricism is only as good as the information you have to feed into it. There is no way I have the capacity to gather that information and give a definitive answer.
I could only go by my best judgment. I call myself an atheist because of that judgment.
I make that judgment due to a few things: 1) the concept of a supremo is self-contradictory; 2) like myself, no human being has ever been in a position to know if there is a god, despite claims to the contrary; 3) the universe that the God created turns out to be far different than the universe any human depicted God would have ever created; 4) if this universe were created, it would not be by something that "thought" in the human sense of the word; 5) In my everyday life, I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that there is a God. I could go on and on, but I haven't the time.
If I'm now very dismissive of any human concept of God, that is not to say I'm no open to being surprised about it. I'm open even about the afterlife, but it would surprise me in the extreme.
Zin, wouldn't that make you an agnostic? eom
Posted by [GG] , 12/5/2006 10:37:56 PM
No, because I've 'placed my bet.'
Posted by zinaval, 12/6/2006 6:38:51 AM
I strongly believe that there is no God, that the universe cannot have been created by any mind. However, that is merely a belief not knowledge. From that belief, I live on the assumption that there is no God.
Also, this much I know: any God worshiped today is not even remotely viable as a creator of this universe. None of the Gods humankind have ever conceived would explain this as a "creation." So, next to all the religions today, I am an atheist.
Moreover, no God I could imagine myself would have created it.
God was possible when we had only a world around us to explain. Once we discovered the universe around it, I believe it is not possible.
In a sense, my decision does resemble agnosticism, but atheism has never existed as anything other than polemical against religion before, to my knowledge. The difference is that I don't attempt to deny belief as a legitimate mental process. That is part of why I call my view "inceptivism."
Other atheists would say you either know or you don't know, and belief itself is a myth. That is disproved in 10 seconds, yet they will still declare it. Human beings must always make decisions based on incomplete knowledge. That is judgment-- belief. It's distinct from knowledge, or thinking.
"To believe" BTW, is also a very distinct verb from "to believe in." This is what atheists do not understand.
Empiricism, 'a priori' knowledge and God
Posted by [Generic Christian] , 12/6/2006 10:48:38 PM
Philosopher David Hume stated that all knowledge begins with experience. Empiricism however as was you well stated Mr. Zinaval is not enough to understand all the substantive knowledge in our world. This is where Philosopher Kant came in and stated but it does not follow that all knowledge arises out of experience. Mr. Kant referred to this knowledge as 'a priori' knowledge. For example, the idea of time, mathematics, love, arise not from empirical impressions but from knowledge independent of experience.
Now what Hume and Kant are saying (to be succinct) is that different levels of understanding exist in the world. Agree. However these brilliant men of words did not quite fully understand. In the Old Testament we read that God said, “Let us make man in Our own image”. In the Gospel, Christ said, “I am in the Father, and Father in Me”.
These Holy words show us that man is made in God’s image: yet Essence of God is incomprehensible to the human mind, for the finite understanding cannot be applied to this infinite Mystery. God contains all, and cannot be contained. As brilliant as Hume and Kant were, they were men, human beings and imperfect. Imperfect because things which are understood by men cannot be outside their capacity for understanding, so that it is impossible for the heart of man to comprehend the nature of the Majesty of God. Our imagination is limited. Here is how:
The power of the understanding differs in degree in the various Kingdoms of God’s creation. The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own.
The rock (I am a Geological Engineer)cannot understand the growing movement of a tree. The tree in turn is incapable of understanding the prowess, the movement of an animal, their sense of smell, sight and hearing. It cannot understand what it does not possess.
The animal learns from its experiences, from their sense of smell, sight, taste, and hearing, are in essence, pure rational beings. The animal though in possession of these gifts cannot understand the intelligence of a human being. Tell the animal to add: 2 plus two, and it wouldn’t answer, it cannot answer because it cannot imagine anything in the abstract or as Kant referred to as 'a priori' knowledge. The animal only knows from its impressions of its animal senses.
Though man is God’s highest creation, the Reality of God; He, the Unknowable, the Unthinkable is far beyond the highest conception of man. To help us understand the Love of God well that is why he sent his Son. This Sun of Truth helps light our paths. The Lord Christ said: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father”. …And that’s another topic.
I was afraid of that. Now the Bible tract comes out.
Posted by zinaval, 12/7/2006 12:01:23 AM
I thought you were going to be less viral, but I'm disappointed by a Christian again. I see you were just looking for an entry.
Quit quoting Hume and Kant cliff notes at me. I didn't mention them, remember? Read what I wrote instead. Don't use the authority of smart dead guys to puff up your argument. BTW, "different levels of understanding" is a very poorly thought out cut 'n' paste cliche of a phrase.
Your advice is corrupt. My belief is honest and based on what I know as far as I can possibly know. Instead, you're telling me to change my belief to save my soul. Doesn't your religion say something about bearing false witness? You are encouraging me to sin, by your own religion's definition. You are encouraging the deepest hypocrisy.
Also, if a god (no way the Biblical character exists, no way) forgives me for pretending I'm wrong, and by accident, I turn out to be wrong, bearing false witness all the way to the gate, isn't the god unsavory? He wants acknowledgment and attention above honesty?
"I am the Father and the Father in Me." What the fuck does that mean? This statement wasn't even relevant in context. Quotes like that are just Christmas Ornaments.
I might not be able to comprehend a god, but I could tell the work of God from the work of human beings. God is clearly a human work. Right down to his obsession with whether human beings believe in him. Have you ever had a problem with people not believing you exist? How many human beings have that existence problem? Yet, this is supposed to be the first requirement of the creator of this whole universe?
Only a fictional work could have that fixation. The reason why? So the people foisting the fraud can benefit the most.
Re:Deep Deep complex concepts that I have to write about very fast.
Posted by BJ, 12/4/2006 2:57:08 PM
fascinating read.....
if you have a minute I would like you to expand on how you came to formulate the moral code you refered to in a previous post..
Defies giving a short answer.
Posted by zinaval , 12/5/2006 8:59:47 AM
I'd have to get into the trunk and dig up my "ancient writings" to tell because it was not a short process.
Basically: Since I presume there is no God and the soul is mortal, then that implies there is no reward or punishment after death. Moreover, there is no inherent meaning imposed on the universe. Don't look for one.
Then, consider your limitations, which are many. There is no God in the universe, and that means you too. This brings humility. Your powers are extremely limited, your consciousness is intermittent, and it doesn't even have complete control of your body. You are greatly limited by time, position and space, mental and physical capacity and by senses that only show you an infinitesimal sample of what's going on in your immediate vicinity. Your memory is flawed an glitchy. That is only some of your limitations.
So, you could either limp along without any meaning in your life, or you could take your limited tools and try to bring meaning to it, and bring it to the parts of the vastness that you could touch. Improve the tools that you have for this purpose.
With the medium I've described, create a work of art from your life. Something that's aesthetically pleasing on the canvass of the universe. Something that if you were awakened from death and had to experience again without changing, you would embrace it.
Re:Defies giving a short answer.
Posted by BJ , 12/6/2006 9:13:39 AM
"Defies giving a short answer."
Boy, if that isn't the truth. Like you, or I guess you could say, like most folks, my views realy are the sum of my experiences to date. As such, it would be beyond my limited capacity to convey to you in a manner I would feel satisfied with the answer to the same question.
"""""So, you could either limp along without any meaning in your life, or you could take your limited tools and try to bring meaning to it, and bring it to the parts of the vastness that you could touch. Improve the tools that you have for this purpose.
With the medium I've described, create a work of art from your life. Something that's aesthetically pleasing on the canvass of the universe. Something that if you were awakened from death and had to experience again without changing, you would embrace it.""""""""
It is interseting but I must say I find something somewhat spiritual in what you say here. I don't want to put words in your mouth but the manner in which you seem to place value on existence and make quality judgements about that life....IOW, there is something more to YOU than the earthsuit your soul wears. (I was suprised to see you acknowledge "a soul" as well)
anyways, interesting reading.
Deep complex concepts need more questions
Posted by [Generic Christian] , 12/4/2006 11:09:32 PM
I appreciate your answers; they are thoughtful, intelligent and interesting. You are correct, many monotheistic religions do not accept Jesus Christ as Son of God, for example the Jewish Faith, Krishna, Buddha. Ditto. Now we can go on different subjects but I am more interested in your analysis specifically in relation to God and how you derived at that conclusion.
______
Your suppositions that “Everything is either material or part of a material process” and “that no spiritual world and no spiritual processes” exist are similar in thinking to…
Philosopher David Hume’s sincere belief: “it is a most unreasonable fancy that there might be life after death”. Mr. Hume believed that that all human knowledge comes to us through our senses. He basically believed that our reality is made up of perceptions, which comes from the impressions from what we hear, or see, or feel. Hume's skepticism says that we cannot believe that a certain thing, such as “God, a soul or a self exists unless we can point to the impression from which the idea of the thing is derived”.
So my question to you Mr. Zinaval, is it your contention that since God cannot be (supposedly) empirical derived from deductive or inductive reasoning that he therefore not exists?
My senses are far too limited for empiricism to determin that.
Posted by zinaval , 12/5/2006 9:20:11 AM
Empiricism is only as good as the information you have to feed into it. There is no way I have the capacity to gather that information and give a definitive answer.
I could only go by my best judgment. I call myself an atheist because of that judgment.
I make that judgment due to a few things: 1) the concept of a supremo is self-contradictory; 2) like myself, no human being has ever been in a position to know if there is a god, despite claims to the contrary; 3) the universe that the God created turns out to be far different than the universe any human depicted God would have ever created; 4) if this universe were created, it would not be by something that "thought" in the human sense of the word; 5) In my everyday life, I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that there is a God. I could go on and on, but I haven't the time.
If I'm now very dismissive of any human concept of God, that is not to say I'm no open to being surprised about it. I'm open even about the afterlife, but it would surprise me in the extreme.
Zin, wouldn't that make you an agnostic? eom
Posted by [GG] , 12/5/2006 10:37:56 PM
No, because I've 'placed my bet.'
Posted by zinaval, 12/6/2006 6:38:51 AM
I strongly believe that there is no God, that the universe cannot have been created by any mind. However, that is merely a belief not knowledge. From that belief, I live on the assumption that there is no God.
Also, this much I know: any God worshiped today is not even remotely viable as a creator of this universe. None of the Gods humankind have ever conceived would explain this as a "creation." So, next to all the religions today, I am an atheist.
Moreover, no God I could imagine myself would have created it.
God was possible when we had only a world around us to explain. Once we discovered the universe around it, I believe it is not possible.
In a sense, my decision does resemble agnosticism, but atheism has never existed as anything other than polemical against religion before, to my knowledge. The difference is that I don't attempt to deny belief as a legitimate mental process. That is part of why I call my view "inceptivism."
Other atheists would say you either know or you don't know, and belief itself is a myth. That is disproved in 10 seconds, yet they will still declare it. Human beings must always make decisions based on incomplete knowledge. That is judgment-- belief. It's distinct from knowledge, or thinking.
"To believe" BTW, is also a very distinct verb from "to believe in." This is what atheists do not understand.
Empiricism, 'a priori' knowledge and God
Posted by [Generic Christian] , 12/6/2006 10:48:38 PM
Philosopher David Hume stated that all knowledge begins with experience. Empiricism however as was you well stated Mr. Zinaval is not enough to understand all the substantive knowledge in our world. This is where Philosopher Kant came in and stated but it does not follow that all knowledge arises out of experience. Mr. Kant referred to this knowledge as 'a priori' knowledge. For example, the idea of time, mathematics, love, arise not from empirical impressions but from knowledge independent of experience.
Now what Hume and Kant are saying (to be succinct) is that different levels of understanding exist in the world. Agree. However these brilliant men of words did not quite fully understand. In the Old Testament we read that God said, “Let us make man in Our own image”. In the Gospel, Christ said, “I am in the Father, and Father in Me”.
These Holy words show us that man is made in God’s image: yet Essence of God is incomprehensible to the human mind, for the finite understanding cannot be applied to this infinite Mystery. God contains all, and cannot be contained. As brilliant as Hume and Kant were, they were men, human beings and imperfect. Imperfect because things which are understood by men cannot be outside their capacity for understanding, so that it is impossible for the heart of man to comprehend the nature of the Majesty of God. Our imagination is limited. Here is how:
The power of the understanding differs in degree in the various Kingdoms of God’s creation. The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own.
The rock (I am a Geological Engineer)cannot understand the growing movement of a tree. The tree in turn is incapable of understanding the prowess, the movement of an animal, their sense of smell, sight and hearing. It cannot understand what it does not possess.
The animal learns from its experiences, from their sense of smell, sight, taste, and hearing, are in essence, pure rational beings. The animal though in possession of these gifts cannot understand the intelligence of a human being. Tell the animal to add: 2 plus two, and it wouldn’t answer, it cannot answer because it cannot imagine anything in the abstract or as Kant referred to as 'a priori' knowledge. The animal only knows from its impressions of its animal senses.
Though man is God’s highest creation, the Reality of God; He, the Unknowable, the Unthinkable is far beyond the highest conception of man. To help us understand the Love of God well that is why he sent his Son. This Sun of Truth helps light our paths. The Lord Christ said: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father”. …And that’s another topic.
I was afraid of that. Now the Bible tract comes out.
Posted by zinaval, 12/7/2006 12:01:23 AM
I thought you were going to be less viral, but I'm disappointed by a Christian again. I see you were just looking for an entry.
Quit quoting Hume and Kant cliff notes at me. I didn't mention them, remember? Read what I wrote instead. Don't use the authority of smart dead guys to puff up your argument. BTW, "different levels of understanding" is a very poorly thought out cut 'n' paste cliche of a phrase.
Your advice is corrupt. My belief is honest and based on what I know as far as I can possibly know. Instead, you're telling me to change my belief to save my soul. Doesn't your religion say something about bearing false witness? You are encouraging me to sin, by your own religion's definition. You are encouraging the deepest hypocrisy.
Also, if a god (no way the Biblical character exists, no way) forgives me for pretending I'm wrong, and by accident, I turn out to be wrong, bearing false witness all the way to the gate, isn't the god unsavory? He wants acknowledgment and attention above honesty?
"I am the Father and the Father in Me." What the fuck does that mean? This statement wasn't even relevant in context. Quotes like that are just Christmas Ornaments.
I might not be able to comprehend a god, but I could tell the work of God from the work of human beings. God is clearly a human work. Right down to his obsession with whether human beings believe in him. Have you ever had a problem with people not believing you exist? How many human beings have that existence problem? Yet, this is supposed to be the first requirement of the creator of this whole universe?
Only a fictional work could have that fixation. The reason why? So the people foisting the fraud can benefit the most.
posted by Zinaval at 8:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home