Complex views of God

[wynn]

What makes you think religion needs be involved?

Because religion is generally the only source of what is considered "revealed knowledge of God".

Anyone can do natural theology ("the God of philosophers"), but this kind of theology lacks the notion of being obligatory/normative, while this notion is typical for revealed theology (ie. the one found in religion).

Without religion, scripture is merely a text, even classified as "literary", along with "The Lord of the Rings" and such.

We cannot conceive of the divinity (and thus normative relevance) of scripture if we do not relate it to religion.

Granted, without relating the scriptures to religion, we can still appreciate them and take lessons from them, much like from The Lord of the Rings".

But scripture divorced from religion also means practice of scriptural instruction divorced from the association of fellow believers, which can bring about many problems for such a practitioner (not to mention that such a practitioner is ignoring the scriptural instructions that one ought to associate with those people).

A concept made by who?

For all practical intents and purposes, we do have to posit that concepts of God (along with definitions of God) are man-made.
Not because there would be "excellent evidence" that such is the case, but because this is the only way we are used to perceive things.

From the philosophical perspective, this is the predicament of having merely jnana, ie. theoretical knowledge.
Both atheists as well as aspirant theists share this predicament. The main difference is that atheists are more consequent in this regard.


I would suggest a book to you: Preaching to a Postmodern World. It is from the Christian perspective, but I find it useful, as it helps us understand where people nowadays tend to be in their stance on religion and God, and what one must be prepared for in discussing religion. For example, people nowadays generally do not acknowledge the authority of scripture, so a preacher must take this into consideration and not simply expect from them that they do so.
I bought the book for myself, to get a better idea of what is happening when I am being preached to, and to also be better able to have a meaningful conversation with a theist.

 

[wynn]

You're absolutely right. I'd say that mysticism, superstition and pretty much any belief that could be characterized as paranormal ultimately emerges from the same place. This is of course not proof of the non-existence of such phenomena, only the fact that we can not reasonably trust our intuition when it comes to trying to make a determination about the reality of such things. Of course many people feel otherwise which leads to a situation where no matter what they "know" they must also accept the validity of what other people "know" even if there is a direct conflict, otherwise they are calling into question the very premise they use to justify their own certainty (which is that they can intuit an objective truth). But there are of course those who believe that there is no such thing as an objective truth; that we may actually be living in world where two mutually exclusive realities can exist simultaneously. Such people might further argue that such contradictions are only apparent rather than real and are ultimately an artifact of the feeble human mind's attempt to make sense of a world it can't hope to comprehend. But to me that's kinda like saying that every aspect of reality exists in a superposition of all possible states and that it can collapse into a definite state according to the beliefs of a particular individual without collapsing globally for everyone. In this scenario I guess one could view God as the ultimate superposition; all possible things to all possible people (which would include, interestingly enough, being existent and non-existent simultaneously but always existent in the more abstract sense of being that which allows the superposition to exist in the first place (but then, suddenly, we have a definite truth don't we?)).

The epistemology of disagreement is a topic I find absolutely fascinating, and also important in everyday matters.

 

[wynn]

It's intellectually indefensible to simply equate all of the world's many concepts of deity and then to give them all a theological spin derived from one's own native religion.

Yaz, I'm not getting you.
Maybe if you give some definitions of God as expressed by other cultures, that would clear things up.

It would help if you two (and anyone else) would clarify where on the spectrum between sectarianism and ecclecticism you stand in how you understand the fact that there exist different religions.

See the chart and explanation here.

It would seem that Yazata is coming from a perspective of exclusivism if not extreme exclusivism (ie. each religion is essentially completely different from all others), whereas Jan is very much in the inclusivistic part of the spectrum.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Because religion is generally the only source of what is considered "revealed knowledge of God".

Two questions:
Says who?
What are scriptures for?

Anyone can do natural theology ("the God of philosophers"), but this kind of theology lacks the notion of being obligatory/normative, while this notion is typical for revealed theology (ie. the one found in religion).

So you're saying there only two ways of accessing knowledge of God, natural theology, or religion?

Without religion, scripture is merely a text, even classified as "literary", along with "The Lord of the Rings" and such.

As I said earlier, either you accept the concept of God, or you don't, and from there you set your path.
The consequence of non acceptance requires mental boundaries.

We cannot conceive of the divinity (and thus normative relevance) of scripture if we do not relate it to religion.

I get it now.

If you are told a story where the events do not correlate with day to day experience, and you do not accept it because you cannot conceive it. You will
not get the full picture. And that is what has happened.

Granted, without relating the scriptures to religion, we can still appreciate them and take lessons from them, much like from The Lord of the Rings".

What kind of lesson can you take from them, because while I enjoyed
Lord of the Rings very much, I didn't take any lesson from it.

But scripture divorced from religion also means practice of scriptural instruction divorced from the association of fellow believers, which can bring about many problems for such a practitioner (not to mention that such a practitioner is ignoring the scriptural instructions that one ought to associate with those people).

''Scripture divorced from religion'' doesn't make sense as ''religion' is not what the scriptures are about. This is why nothing makes any sense to you.
You are equating one thing with another out of some kind of necessity, not
through any real understanding.

For all practical intents and purposes, we do have to posit that concepts of God (along with definitions of God) are man-made.
Not because there would be "excellent evidence" that such is the case, but because this is the only way we are used to perceive things.

We can rule out ''excellent evidence''.
So we're left with ''this is the only way we are used to perceive things''.
Can't you step outside of that perception?
Or do you need to be in control of how you access things.

From the philosophical perspective, this is the predicament of having merely jnana, ie. theoretical knowledge.
Both atheists as well as aspirant theists share this predicament. The main difference is that atheists are more consequent in this regard.

Very interesting, thanks for that.



jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It would help if you two (and anyone else) would clarify where on the spectrum between sectarianism and ecclecticism you stand in how you understand the fact that there exist different religions.

See the chart and explanation here.

It would seem that Yazata is coming from a perspective of exclusivism if not extreme exclusivism (ie. each religion is essentially completely different from all others), whereas Jan is very much in the inclusivistic part of the spectrum.

Simply put, it's a matter of acceptance without fear.
You guys are fearful of accepting God because you might believe in Him.
I don't have that fear because I don't have to believe in Him if I choose not to.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Simply put, it's a matter of acceptance without fear.
You guys are fearful of accepting God because you might believe in Him.

See, this is where communication between us keeps breaking down, because you keep making assumptions about our intentions and other internal states (which you know little or nothing about), and then you elevate those assumptions to the level of fact. Or you simplify things about us to the point of inanity.

This strategy is fairly common for theists. It is also extremely unproductive.

We can't have a conversation this way. :shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

See, this is where communication between us keeps breaking down, because you keep making assumptions about our intentions and other internal states (which you know little or nothing about), and then you elevate those assumptions to the level of fact. Or you simplify things about us to the point of inanity.

This strategy is fairly common for theists. It is also extremely unproductive.

We can't have a conversation this way. :shrug:

You've just given an explanation of how you see things, my assumptions are based on that.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Because religion is generally the only source of what is considered "revealed knowledge of God".

Two questions:
Says who?
What are scriptures for?

Generally, most people who think or believe they know something about God, do so because other people told them (things that are supposedly) about God.
Generally, on our own, we don't know anything about God, but are completely dependent on others.
Being dependent on others for knowledge of God is one of the main things that religion is about.

(And we are dependent on others in numerous other issues, from learning language to practical skills.)


From what you are saying, I think you underestimate the role that being a functional member of a religious/spiritual society plays in understanding what scripture says.
While there are certainly many things that we can understand on our own merely by reading and reflecting on scripture, there are many scriptural points that can become clear and functional only if we are members of a religious/spiritual society that is built around those scriptures.

Anyone can do natural theology ("the God of philosophers"), but this kind of theology lacks the notion of being obligatory/normative, while this notion is typical for revealed theology (ie. the one found in religion).

So you're saying there only two ways of accessing knowledge of God, natural theology, or religion?

As I said, natural theology lacks the notion of being obligatory/normative, and as such, it cannot be considered a way of accessing knowledge about God, it is merely speculation about God.

Theoretically, there is the possibility of direct access to God, but it's not clear how a person can intentionally pursue that.

Without religion, scripture is merely a text, even classified as "literary", along with "The Lord of the Rings" and such.

As I said earlier, either you accept the concept of God, or you don't, and from there you set your path.
The consequence of non acceptance requires mental boundaries.

Will you read the book I suggested?

We cannot conceive of the divinity (and thus normative relevance) of scripture if we do not relate it to religion.

I get it now.

If you are told a story where the events do not correlate with day to day experience, and you do not accept it because you cannot conceive it. You will
not get the full picture. And that is what has happened.

Question is, how long you will remember this point.

What kind of lesson can you take from them, because while I enjoyed Lord of the Rings very much, I didn't take any lesson from it.

Plenty. I mostly appreciate it for the sense of privacy that it helps me develop.

But scripture divorced from religion also means practice of scriptural instruction divorced from the association of fellow believers, which can bring about many problems for such a practitioner (not to mention that such a practitioner is ignoring the scriptural instructions that one ought to associate with those people).

''Scripture divorced from religion'' doesn't make sense as ''religion' is not what the scriptures are about.

It is through religion that we get scripture at all. It is religion that compiles, translates, comments on, publishes, sells scripture.

There is no independent institution that would publish scriptures.

This is why nothing makes any sense to you.
You are equating one thing with another out of some kind of necessity, not
through any real understanding.

I am equating religion and scripture?

Do you know of any scripture that exists independently of religion, independently from a body of believers?

The closest to that would be secular academic translations and commentaries of scripture. But it's not clear how those translations can be considered authoritative, given that they are divorced from actual religious practice.

Note: The standard argument that SP's BG As It Is is authoritative is that it was translated and commented on by a pure devotee, someone who has actually practiced the path of bhakti and obtained its fruits - as opposed to so many other people who have translated and commented on it, while themselves not being practitioners.

For all practical intents and purposes, we do have to posit that concepts of God (along with definitions of God) are man-made.
Not because there would be "excellent evidence" that such is the case, but because this is the only way we are used to perceive things.

We can rule out ''excellent evidence''.
So we're left with ''this is the only way we are used to perceive things''.
Can't you step outside of that perception?
Or do you need to be in control of how you access things.

Why do you keep making this personal like this, taking the discussion away from the philosophical course?

From the philosophical perspective, this is the predicament of having merely jnana, ie. theoretical knowledge.
Both atheists as well as aspirant theists share this predicament. The main difference is that atheists are more consequent in this regard.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

It isn't just interesting, it's important to understand theist/atheist exchanges, as well as exchages among theists themselves.

 

[wynn]

You've just given an explanation of how you see things, my assumptions are based on that.

They are not accurate though, but you keep doing as if they were accurate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Generally, most people who think or believe they know something about God, do so because other people told them (things that are supposedly) about God.
Generally, on our own, we don't know anything about God, but are completely dependent on others.
Being dependent on others for knowledge of God is one of the main things that religion is about.

(And we are dependent on others in numerous other issues, from learning language to practical skills.)

It doesn't begin or end there.
Knowing about God in the way you say, confirms things.
It is not just a case of reading a book and believing.

When I first got the BG, it made absolutely no sense to me.
The book was disgarded by me for a few years. During that time I looked into
other things. Then one day I happened to come across a minature BG, not the ISKON one. And for the next month it totally blew my mind. At that time I picked up the BG I had.

What happened was during those years I learned things that put me in a position so I could access BG.

To believe something is true on the basis of someone telling you is very unstable. It not only ends in confusion but also resentment, drawing one further away from the target.

From what you are saying, I think you underestimate the role that being a functional member of a religious/spiritual society plays in understanding what scripture says.
While there are certainly many things that we can understand on our own merely by reading and reflecting on scripture, there are many scriptural points that can become clear and functional only if we are members of a religious/spiritual society that is built around those scriptures.

Yes it is important to be a member of a society, but it goes deeper than a religious institute. You can be part of something without actually being physically present. Of course it's good to asociate with like minds, and one can benefit from it, but it's not absolutely necessary.

As I said, natural theology lacks the notion of being obligatory/normative, and as such, it cannot be considered a way of accessing knowledge about God, it is merely speculation about God.

The term ''natural theology'' has been coined, so now that's what it is?
You've allowed that term to be the be all end all.
As for me, I see nothing wrong with the way I think. And as I stated earlier, if I make mistakes, then I trust I will realise the error of my ways, and make a decision to put them right, or I will igore them. That is my choice.

Even speculation about God is better than conforming wholeheartedly to this terminology. At least one will have the freedom to develop, and learn for themself, rather than be spoonfed data as and when it comes in.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss what is being said, I just don't accept it
as truth right off the bat.

Will you read the book I suggested?

I will try, but time is of the essence.
Is this link related to the book? If so I tend to agree with the speaker.

Question is, how long you will remember this point.

I don't understand the question.

Plenty. I mostly appreciate it for the sense of privacy that it helps me develop.

You don't need to watch or read ''Lord of the Rings'' for that.
The scriptures are beyond our mundane sensory aparatus. You have to be
of a certain character to really understand them. As human beings we are qualified to change our characteristics if we choose.

It is through religion that we get scripture at all. It is religion that compiles, translates, comments on, publishes, sells scripture.

There is no independent institution that would publish scriptures.

Similiar thing can be said about water.
Yet water still remains pure and necessary.

I am equating religion and scripture?

You are equating a type of religion with scripture, not religion itself.
Scripture is the religion, and is the source of religions. ''Religions'' however, will undoubtedly fall into disrepute over time whereas the scripture will not.

Do you know of any scripture that exists independently of religion, independently from a body of believers?

That's not the point.
The scripture is the source of information regardless of religious institutes.

The closest to that would be secular academic translations and commentaries of scripture. But it's not clear how those translations can be considered authoritative, given that they are divorced from actual religious practice.

Academic translations are only good if the academic is properly positioned.

Note: The standard argument that SP's BG As It Is is authoritative is that it was translated and commented on by a pure devotee, someone who has actually practiced the path of bhakti and obtained its fruits - as opposed to so many other people who have translated and commented on it, while themselves not being practitioners.

Which is why his commentary is particularly important.

Why do you keep making this personal like this, taking the discussion away from the philosophical course?

Because you have put limits on the concept of God.

''...we do have to posit that concepts of God (along with definitions of God) are man-made''.

I'm merely interested in why you make these limitations, hence my question to you.

And how is your limitation philosophical?

It isn't just interesting, it's important to understand theist/atheist exchanges, as well as exchages among theists themselves.

There you go again putting yourself in the position of observer.

Intellectually I understand the divisions between atheist/theist/agnostic, and so on. But I don't regard these divisions as reality anymore than I regard music as being genre related.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They are not accurate though, but you keep doing as if they were accurate.

Maybe ''assumptions'' is not the right word.
It is my opinion. And don't tell me you haven't made some opinions which
take for granted.

So if my opinion is incorrect, then why is it you don't accept the concept of God?

jan.

 

[Rav]

We can rule out ''excellent evidence''.

Grow some balls and put your refutation of this evidence in the relevant thread.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grow some balls and put your refutation of this evidence in the relevant thread.

I suggest you back up the OP of that thread explaining why you regard
that sermon as evidence and not some kind of fundamentalism.

jan.

 

[Rav]

I suggest you back up the OP of that thread explaining why you regard
that sermon as evidence and not some kind of fundamentalism.

If it's so easy to refute as such, then go and do it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If it's so easy to refute as such, then go and do it.

Erm.. present the evidence otherwise there's nothing to refute. :shrug:

jan.

 

[Rav]

Erm.. present the evidence otherwise there's nothing to refute. :shrug:

That lecture is based on several peer reviewed scientific studies. Do you understand what that means? It means that there is actual science in there. Address it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

That lecture is based on several peer reviewed scientific studies. Do you understand what that means?

Yes I do.

Then present something that shows how the concept of God originated, then we'll take it from there.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Then present something which show how the concept of God originated, then we'll take it from there.

Try here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Try here.

I was refering to the scientific papers you mentioned.

jan.

 

[Rav]

I was refering to the scientific papers you mentioned.

I have presented a lecture. The lecture references and presents the relevant research. Now have the intellectual integrity to address the content of the lecture itself (which ties it all together). And do it the right thread.

If you don't have the character to take the bull by the horns and deal with it, then your implied assertion here that the concept of God couldn't have originated as a result of the evolution of natural cognitive mechanisms that aided our survival in other ways is nothing but an argument from complete and utter ignorance (or alternatively and possibly more likely the result of not actually wanting to pull your head out of your arse).