Why worship an imperfect God?

heliocentric
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Now if one lacks the necessary skills to verify the claims of direct perception, all one will have to work with is an opinion - in other words it boils down to the hearer's perceived credibility of the speaker .
”
Yes that pretty much is all you have to go on.
Id also ask that the person in question demonstrate knowledge currently outside of the grasp of human understanding, since crediblity in itself isnt really enough to convince me.
Click to expand...
if one holds that all phenomena must be exhibited within the confines of reductionism (in other words every phenomena can be reduced to electrons etc) how would that be possible?
Like for example, how do you evidence that you have a mind and how do you evidence that your next door neighbour has a mind?
“
I would argue that at the moment, due to a lack of standardized knowledge about theistic claims, the perception of the credibility of theistic claims is greatly reduced - this creates an extreme dichotomy, with fools on one hand accepting the claims of any lunatic (with charisma) who says that god speaks to them, and on the other extreme, the flat out rejection of all claims of theism by those staunchly situated in reductionist paradigms

- both however,like virtually all extreme dualities, share the same foundation (in this case an absence of the standards of knowledge for theism)
”
I disagree, i dont think there are any standards within theism, theism isnt really a discipline its more like a collection of attitudes, ideas, and concepts.
Click to expand...
and this is part of the problem - the idea that to be qualified to understand th e attitudes, ideas and concepts presented in theism all that is required is the ability to read - theism is very much a discipline - it is very much dependant on acting in specific outlined ways to grant a perspective on the knowledge presented (for eg, a grossly sinful person would be an extremely unlikely candidate for understanding theistic knowledge)

And i personally dont think knowledge of theists themes and buzzwords will make any difference either way really when it comes down to it.
The only way i can see is by the method i outlined above - a demonstration of knowledge th
at represents a quantum leap of knowledge or information.
Click to expand...
and before that can be demonstrated, it requires a technological break through in perception - like for instance evidencing life on the ocean floor is not possible without deep sea equipment an dthe lik e- similarly for society to be in the grips of low class behaviour (wealth, greed, pursuit of the pleasure of an ephemeral body as the goal of existence etc) shrinks the aperture of perception considerably
 
lightgigantic said:
heliocentric
“
if one holds that all phenomena must be exhibited within the confines of reductionism (in other words every phenomena can be reduced to electrons etc) how would that be possible?
Like for example, how do you evidence that you have a mind and how do you evidence that your next door neighbour has a mind?
Click to expand...
How is that relevant to my proposition of how we should gauge the validity of those in communication with god(s)?
I mean i could answer it but i really dont see what basis it has to anything to do with my earlier comments or the conversation in general.

and this is part of the problem - the idea that to be qualified to understand th e attitudes, ideas and concepts presented in theism all that is required is the ability to read - theism is very much a discipline - it is very much dependant on acting in specific outlined ways to grant a perspective on the knowledge presented (for eg, a grossly sinful person would be an extremely unlikely candidate for understanding theistic knowledge)
Click to expand...
I'll grant the moral framework within religious ideologies could be said to be a discipline, but non-religious people also conform to very strict moral frameworks. So again (and getting back on point) we dont have very much to go on when gauging someone who claims to be in communication with god(s).

and before that can be demonstrated, it requires a technological break through in perception - like for instance evidencing life on the ocean floor is not possible without deep sea equipment an dthe lik e- similarly for society to be in the grips of low class behaviour (wealth, greed, pursuit of the pleasure of an ephemeral body as the goal of existence etc) shrinks the aperture of perception considerably
Click to expand...
Im not quite sure what you mean exactly, youre saying technology might aid holisitic or 'spiritual' states of mind in the future?
 
“
heliocentric
“
if one holds that all phenomena must be exhibited within the confines of reductionism (in other words every phenomena can be reduced to electrons etc) how would that be possible?
Like for example, how do you evidence that you have a mind and how do you evidence that your next door neighbour has a mind?
”
How is that relevant to my proposition of how we should gauge the validity of those in communication with god(s)?

I mean i could answer it but i really dont see what basis it has to anything to do with my earlier comments or the conversation in general.
Click to expand...
if god is transcendental to or beyond reductionist paradigms then explaining the nature of god would bear a similarity to explaining the mind - since we don't see either of them and current (reductionist) standards of info on the topic certainly don't allow for their adequate analysis

“
and this is part of the problem - the idea that to be qualified to understand th e attitudes, ideas and concepts presented in theism all that is required is the ability to read - theism is very much a discipline - it is very much dependant on acting in specific outlined ways to grant a perspective on the knowledge presented (for eg, a grossly sinful person would be an extremely unlikely candidate for understanding theistic knowledge)
”
I'll grant the moral framework within religious ideologies could be said to be a discipline, but non-religious people also conform to very strict moral frameworks.
Click to expand...
however it is unlikely that an atheist would have successful fulfilled th e most essential criteria tht makes all such moral foundations dynamic- worshipping god with humility - the discipline of a theist is more than just a moral thing, since, as you indicate, it is necessary yet not sufficient
So again (and getting back on point) we dont have very much to go on when gauging someone who claims to be in communication with god(s).
Click to expand...
who is the 'we'?
certainly theists have a wide range of resources available to determine the soundness of theistic claims, much like a a physicist has a similar body of work in regard to physics etc et
c

“
and before that can be demonstrated, it requires a technological break through in perception - like for instance evidencing life on the ocean floor is not possible without deep sea equipment an dthe lik e- similarly for society to be in the grips of low class behaviour (wealth, greed, pursuit of the pleasure of an ephemeral body as the goal of existence etc) shrinks the aperture of perception considerably
”
Im not quite sure what you mean exactly, youre saying technology might aid holisitic or 'spiritual' states of mind in the future?
Click to expand...
actually I meant to put 'technology' in inverted commas.
the principle is that if society is grounded in inferior standards of existence (lust, wrath, dedicating the fullness of life's potential to meeting the demands of a temporary body etc) then the ability to see beyond those things will be quite difficult, just like inspecting th e ocean floor will be quite difficult in the absence of the specialized equipment
 
lightgigantic said:
...the principle is that if society is grounded in inferior standards of existence (lust, wrath, dedicating the fullness of life's potential to meeting the demands of a temporary body etc) then the ability to see beyond those things will be quite difficult, just like inspecting th e ocean floor will be quite difficult in the absence of the specialized equipment
Click to expand...
The crucial difference between us and you is that we have really good evidence that the ocean has a floor to inspect. You insist that if we only had a "clearer view" by discarding all of these nasty predispositions that we have, we'd see... what was it? And where's your evidence for "it"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
superluminal said:
The crucial difference between us and you is that we have really good evidence that the ocean has a floor to inspect. You insist that if we only had a "clearer view" by discarding all of these nasty predispositions that we have, we'd see... what was it? And where's your evidence for "it"?
Click to expand...
thats the point- in the absence of the necessary 'equipment' there is no evidence for what lurks on the ocean floor

In the same way as long as the standards of knowldge are rooted in inferior states (wrath,lust, diverting life's energies whole heartedly for the fulfillment of insignificant rewards) upping teh ante becomes a bit difficult
 
lightgigantic said:
“
heliocentric
if god is transcendental to or beyond reductionist paradigms then explaining the nature of god would bear a similarity to explaining the mind - since we don't see either of them and current (reductionist) standards of info on the topic certainly don't allow for their adequate analysis
Click to expand...
Yep i agree, although as far as im aware we're discussing information recieved by god rather than theories related to the nature of god. I feel we're getting a little off track here.

however it is unlikely that an atheist would have successful fulfilled th e most essential criteria tht makes all such moral foundations dynamic- worshipping god with humility
Click to expand...
I dont understand your reasoning, a moral framework without god as the central influence cant by its very nature be dynamic, how do you figure?

who is the 'we'?
certainly theists have a wide range of resources available to determine the soundness of theistic claims, much like a a physicist has a similar body of work in regard to physics etc et
Click to expand...
As far as im aware there are only bodies of work that make theistic claims, ive never come across any body of work that measures the soundness of those claims. I'll if any such work exists that you know of, throw it my way :)

actually I meant to put 'technology' in inverted commas.
the principle is that if society is grounded in inferior standards of existence (lust, wrath, dedicating the fullness of life's potential to meeting the demands of a temporary body etc) then the ability to see beyond those things will be quite difficult, just like inspecting th e ocean floor will be quite difficult in the absence of the specialized equipment
Click to expand...
Ok i see what you mean now (sort of).
 
lightgigantic said:
thats the point- in the absence of the necessary 'equipment' there is no evidence for what lurks on the ocean floor
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I said that we have evidence that there IS an ocean floor, following you analogy regarding what is, in your opinion, beyond us due to our mystical blinders.

So, that's NOT the point. You are deliberately changing what I said. We have evidence that there IS an ocean floor to explore - no mention of what's there. And you have NO evidence that there is a whatever to explore if one somehow ditches their "mystical" burdens.

Get it? Get my point? Read carefully.
 
Why worship anything?

The founder of Buddhism already determined that its a waste of time...2500 years ago.
 
superluminal said:
Sorry, but I said that we have evidence that there IS an ocean floor, following you analogy regarding what is, in your opinion, beyond us due to our mystical blinders.

So, that's NOT the point. You are deliberately changing what I said. We have evidence that there IS an ocean floor to explore - no mention of what's there. And you have NO evidence that there is a whatever to explore if one somehow ditches their "mystical" burdens.

Get it? Get my point? Read carefully.
Click to expand...
the only reason we have evidence of an ocean floor is that we have inspected it with devices - before that we just had big bodies of water and guesses what was down there.
BTW - I am talking about what exists on the ocean floor in the analogy, not about the existence/non existence of the ocean floor

Carcano said:
Why worship anything?

The founder of Buddhism already determined that its a waste of time...2500 years ago.
Click to expand...
therefore in present day society many millions of people worship buddha every day (flowers, incense, prayers, vows, rituals, ceremonies - they even celebrate his birthday)
 
lightgigantic said:
Therefore in present day society many millions of people worship buddha every day (flowers, incense, prayers, vows, rituals, ceremonies - they even celebrate his birthday)
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Buddha himself didnt believe in such things.

Worship, by its nature originates primarily in fear and desire...

flatter flatter flatter...gimme gimme gimme.

This is one of the central differences between Religion and Spirituality.

Religion revolves around the worship of divine entities, whereas Spirituality seeks to cultivate divinity within oneself.
 
heliocentric

sorry
sometimes I lose responses in the maddening crowd
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
heliocentric
if god is transcendental to or beyond reductionist paradigms then explaining the nature of god would bear a similarity to explaining the mind - since we don't see either of them and current (reductionist) standards of info on the topic certainly don't allow for their adequate analysis
”
Yep i agree, although as far as im aware we're discussing information recieved by god rather than theories related to the nature of god. I feel we're getting a little off track here.
Click to expand...
I thought you were querying the old "evidence of god" thing
“
however it is unlikely that an atheist would have successful fulfilled th e most essential criteria tht makes all such moral foundations dynamic- worshipping god with humility
”
I dont understand your reasoning, a moral framework without god as the central influence cant by its very nature be dynamic, how do you figure?
Click to expand...
in short, if one is moral but inimical towards god, it stands to reason that one will fall short of the necessary requirements to understand the nature of his or his pure representatives instructions etc
“
who is the 'we'?
certainly theists have a wide range of resources available to determine the soundness of theistic claims, much like a a physicist has a similar body of work in regard to physics etc et
”
As far as im aware there are only bodies of work that make theistic claims, ive never come across any body of work that measures the soundness of those claims. I'll if any such work exists that you know of, throw it my way
Click to expand...
Isn't scripture packed full of normative descriptions and their examinations?
In other words isn't there lots of recommendations on how to act in order to know god (like the xtians have the ten commandmants) and elaborate commentaries by persons who have fallen into the historical continuum of successful practice ?
At least in indian tradition it is not uncommon for traditions to have an ocean of literature available to negotiate the vedas, which are also ocean like
eg
http://www.bhagavata.org/bn/avadhuta/
 
lightgigantic said:
heliocentric

in short, if one is moral but inimical towards god, it stands to reason that one will fall short of the necessary requirements to understand the nature of his or his pure representatives instructions etc
Click to expand...
We've come around full circle - how do we know these apparent representatives are pure and genuine? you still havent gotten round to really giving an answer or offering a system of guaging the validity of these self-elected mouthpieces of God.
Id also put forward that morality that purely opperates on the say-so of elected individuals sounds like a good way of simply getting out of having to discern what is and isnt moral for yourself more than anything else.
What does God really want here? well trained dogs or individuals that embrace the learning process that is life by atempting to find out how compassion and morality works for themselves?
God telling us what is and isnt moral and us simply following in blind obience would seem like noone is getting anything out of the equation.
Isn't scripture packed full of normative descriptions and their examinations?
In other words isn't there lots of recommendations on how to act in order to know god (like the xtians have the ten commandmants) and elaborate commentaries by persons who have fallen into the historical continuum of successful practice ?
Click to expand...
That isnt a measurement of a claim though thats just the process of religion. If youre using religion to measure the validity of religion then youre going to run into all sorts of trouble i think.
Your entire reasoned process when followed through simply leads back to the source material of your claim in a never-ending continuous loop.
I really dont know why you dont simply invoke the faith argument and be done with the pretense of a scientific process that doesnt exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top