If the only true theism is the one given to mankind by God Himself, then natural theology is not theism.
Reasons not to believe in God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
If the only true theism is the one given to mankind by God Himself, then natural theology is not theism.
I think its more the case that the only true theism is the one that delivers god himself. Given the complex nature of the problem, the goal and the participant's capacities, there may be several bridging exercises involved
But the point of all existing organized theisms is that these people believe that they already are in possession of the only true theism and that they have God delivered.
On the whole, they don't think it's complex at all.
And the bridging exercise is simply a leap of faith.
There is the sutta with the simile of the experienced elephant hunter:
"Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'
I don't know of any theism that would allow for that kind of skepticism. Instead, all that I know of basically expect that simply based on some footprints, people are supposed to conclude that that's the real thing they were looking for.
And all those who don't, apparently deserve to be ridiculed, abused and even killed.
Thats basically the essence of kannistha-hood
I would agree however that all organized theisms have at the very least the potential to develop a strong kannistha element
That is an example of the ascending process.
The ascending process has its uses but as far as the perfectional level of religious practice goes, it will not help one.
IOW there are constitutional aspects of being conditioned and limited that render the process ineffective.
In the vaisnava version of that sutta the elephant hunter would be talking about what he has heard about elephants from others in the field, as opposed to being the self-affirmed expert already at the perfectional stage of knowledge
If one is born into the Vaisnava system, then I suppose one can take the "descending" process. Being born into it, one is
1. already a member and doesn't have to worry about the ordeals of trying to begin to belong to a social group as such,
and
2. already primed to believe whatever one is supposed to believe.
An adult outsider faces a significantly different task.
How can an adult outsider possibly join, unless they either take a leap of - blind - faith, or because they are already sure that brand of theism is the real thing?
That rules out me and about 80% of the people I know so I cannot answer that question
You joined. You went from being an adult (legally, at least) and an outsider, to being a member.
Hence my question:
How can an adult outsider possibly join, unless they either take a leap of - blind - faith, or because they are already sure that brand of theism is the real thing?
I imagine that before joining, you had full certainty that this religion is the one and only true one, and you were sure of the veracity of all it teaches.
How else could you have joined?
You don't seem to be someone who would have taken a leap of faith. But perhaps you are ...
desired aspects of the said community on offer vs tools of discrimination etc etc
all these things that you say don't exist
:shrug:
What things don't exist?
Unless you expect me to believe that sugar tastes like salt, what's your point?
I admit I am jumping in late here, but I am not following LG's response to your question either.
Lightgigantic, what does "community on offer vs tools of discrimination" mean?
If one has tastes ("I like sugar and I don't like salt") and one has discrimination ("this is sugar and this is salt") one can then go about finding individuals to meet one's needs
It certainly looks like a sick trick that God is playing on those who are born outside of organized religion.
As far as God is concerned, I think the descending process is the only one. I've made this clear many times, noting how the alternative is effectively solipsism.
But it's not clear how a person who hasn't been born into such a system, can join it in a sane way. We assume here that they are joining for the purpose of "improving their spiritual life", and not for political, social, economical or psychopathological reasons.
You might sound believable, if only you wouldn't be a member of a religion that condemns everyone who doesn't join it.
I think he is advocating a selectiveness as to whom to associate with and how, and suggesting that this selectiveness is valid.
Of course, in religions, this typically goes one way: members being selective about outsiders is alright; outsiders being selective about religions and their adherents is condemned - "If you don't join us, you're a rascal!"
Its a summary of a final point that many of my discussions with wynn falls on. Its a bit complex with a few ommitted details and clauses but in brief .....
Basically it revolves around the question how do we adjust to a community (since a community will be presenting not only many benefits but also many adjustments on account of the numerous individuals involved).
I explain that according to the value we give to the benefits on offer by the community measured against the tools we use of discrimination (IOW our ability to nous out who is who or what their role is, etc) we can make the transition.
So if one has a level of desire to acquire what the community has but isn't sufficiently decked out with the necessary tools of discrimination, one will find the path tougher. IOW whatever one lacks in discrimination one can make up for in desire to make the grade.
I assert this is a general principle for all communities (religious or otherwise)
Wynn asserts that due to the nature of the subject (god), there is no question of bringing tools of discrimination and hence the whole process becomes irrational.
I maintain that for as long as one insists on not bringing tools of discrimination to the problem, it will remain irrational.
I don't know anything about any Vaisnava system, but if any religion can replace that one in the question, I can tell you why I once joined Islam. It was not a matter of conscious trust so much as my understanding of what Islam meant and stood for was in line with what I already believed to be true. I have never had an issue with not being able to trust my own ability to reason. Though in hindsight, there should have been plenty of reason to question it at times. But I have always been a person of confidence. Sometimes I even feel a strong sense of confidence in accepting that I cannot know everything. Maybe it is just my nature. I know others that second guess themselves constantly. I have had a few short lived phases where I also second guessed myself. My doctor has declared those times to be when I was in my deepest levels of clinical depression. But generally I have always been raised to "trust my gut". In terms of that which is subjective or unknown, If it FEELS right it probably is, and if it FEELS wrong it probably is. Like that old phrase goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I have found that throughout my life the worst mistakes i ever made was when I second guessed my instincts and went against what I felt was the best decision in favor of what faith in something outside of myself demanded. And anytime I just trusted my instincts and forsake all faith in outside sources, I usually came out ok if not highly successful.
But when I first learned about Islam it was from a textbook and an atheist world religions teacher. He spoke of the religion in terms of it's scripture only. He presented the various interpretations of the verses and said we were free to glean from it what our experience suggested the text to mean. My view of th e world is very pragmatic. I don't tend to read very far into things and so I took the scriptures and dissected them word for word to gather what I believed they meant, much like a lawyer would when studying a new law in order to know how it actually applies in the world. My pragmatic disposition did not lead me to the interpretations held by the majority of muslims. So I unwittingly made the faith one of logic and reason, even if the true intent of the words meant something far removed from what I understood.
So I viewed the faith through the veil of my own experiences and my own inclination of pragmatism. I basically created a religion that only existed for me, and I am willing to bet that is what every person does when they approach or accept a faith. They have created a version of the religion for themselves, customized it to their own tastes and because they have done that, subconsciously, the religion does not contradict their personal brand of logic and reason. And so it gives them no reason to doubt the faith.
I left faith all together when I started learning more about Islam and was presented with scriptures and hadith that I could not in anyway possible interpret to be logical or reasonable according to my own nature. So then I started questioning the logic of faith in God at all and questioning why I ever accepted blindly that there was one. And the only reason I could discern for my acceptance of a creator is because when I was a child ,people that loved me told me there was one. and as a child we instinctively trust those who take care of us.
I'm sorry if this is way off base of what you have been asking. I don't mean to waste your time.
being born inside a religion brings other problems - usually of complacency ..... but that aside, yes, it is often seen as a consequence of previous pious activities to take birth in such families ... not because it automatically gives one the visa, but because it is the opportunity to start work early without the usual detour into maya (but then it is said the detour into maya provides realization .. etc etc and so the argument goes on )
It may take a while to realize, after having "joined" to realize what "improving one's spiritual life" entails.
and so on and so forth ....
I maintain that as long as I am expected to join a community that encourages me to "bring tools of discrimination to the problem", but despises me when I do it,
then joining such a community would be irrational.
hence :
I explain that according to the value we give to the benefits on offer by the community measured against the tools we use of discrimination (IOW our ability to nous out who is who or what their role is, etc) we can make the transition.
So if one has a level of desire to acquire what the community has but isn't sufficiently decked out with the necessary tools of discrimination, one will find the path tougher. IOW whatever one lacks in discrimination one can make up for in desire to make the grade.
For those who don't already have faith in God, yes.
If God would really love me or want me, then why have me be born outside of religion and without faith in Him?
as I said, I can't answer that since its not applicable to me or most people I know ..... but from what I understand its never the case that one "begins" spiritual life by taking birth in an already spiritual family.