Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spinoza Pantheism Defined
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 61 of 96 (379958)
01-25-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
01-25-2007 8:42 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Hi RAZD... hope your feeling better. I have prayed for you.
Thanks for the spell check on the Nambudiri Brahmin caste. I must say that Mr. Zacharius' lectures have had a profound effect on me.
He studied Hiduism as a visting scholar at Cambridge. But was of course emersed in the culture until moving to Canda at age 20.
His CD lectures on the New Age and Pantheism have added to what little knowledge I had of the subject beyond my own flirting with the concepts in my teens and twenties. Three or four of my close friends growing up are pantheists of one form or another. They continue to live very morally 'progressive' lives, as I once did myself.
It is funny to me, that we have to privatize our beliefs to get along now. What good can come from that in the long run? To be afraid to examine ourselves and allow others to help us question our assumptions.
RAZD:
Perhaps this is evidence that no religion is satisfactory to all people, eh?
Well, that is obvious... It all depends upon what people want does it not? Find the philosophy that suits you is the general concensus that I hear in our Western culture today. I just wonder... what about those who find the Arian Brotherhood a good suit for them to wear. Must we accept them?
It becomes problamatic to apply consistently very quickly, and most self defeating.
What astonishes me most, is that we are now encouraged, that in the name of peace, to believe that none of them are exclusively true. We are told that the truth, is that they are only beliefs.
So does that mean we need to find 'the illusion' that best suits us? That makes no sense to me. Why would we want to put on an illusion if we know it is such? Are our assumptions that vacant?
Does anyone ever stop to question if that premise (that there is no truth) is true? Because if it is, then it is itself only a belief and an illusion that is worn to defend against reality. Isn't that the 'fig leaves' of Genesis? The behemoth hiding among the reeds and Lotus plants in the book of Job?
So what is the truth? That may be difficult to say...
But we can know what it is not...
It is not the idea that tells us that it does not exist. Ideas that don't exist do not speak to us at all. And if they do, then they exist, and are deceptive.
There can be no such thing as nothing... because if there was, it will never cross our minds. What we call nothing is 'the dark'. And it is the Devil who would love to stay there and not be seen.
It is the motive which allows us to believe a lie without our knowledge. And the scary thing is... We like it that way.
It is madness.

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2007 8:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 01-25-2007 11:00 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 7:28 AM Rob has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 62 of 96 (379968)
01-25-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
01-25-2007 10:09 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Rob writes:
So does that mean we need to find 'the illusion' that best suits us? That makes no sense to me. Why would we want to put on an illusion if we know it is such? Are our assumptions that vacant?
I agree. I can't say I KNOW FOR SURE that pantheism is wrong. But, if you are a pantheist, you can say, 'my view allows for other views'. It says, if I am pantheist, I can find my own path, even if it leads away from and opposes pantheism. If you oppose pantheism, you are not pantheist. All is fine while you are a pantheist looking at the world, but if you ARE pantheist, you ARE NOT something else. It is exclusive.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 01-25-2007 10:09 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-26-2007 1:00 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 63 of 96 (379988)
01-26-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
01-25-2007 11:00 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
I'm a little concerned about the easy equation I've seen now on several threads between 'pantheism' and 'religous tolerance.' They are almost being used as synonyms for one another. Pantheism is a belief. One can be accepting of other religions, though, while holding any of a variety of beliefs.
To say a given belief system is 'exclusive' does not mean one must view other belief systems as 'illusions.' All religions present us with pictures. But the task of picturing something that is beyond our perception is literally to try to picture the unpicturable.
Wise people in every religious tradition have recognized this situaiton and reminded others of it. Where is the house we would build?
Illusions come in when one takes a necessarily limited and inadequate picture of a reality for the reality. It's a hazard common to all belief systems. When we know at the outset that we are discussing things that are unlimited relative to us and certainly beyond our powers of perception and comprehension, then that is necessarily something we have to keep in mind all along. No picture can hope to get it all.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 01-25-2007 11:00 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 96 (380021)
01-26-2007 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
01-25-2007 9:15 PM


RAZD spotted in passing while I read anglas thread
Did we ever get a Belief Statement from you, RAZD? You seem like quite an interesting guy and I respect your input here at EvC. ( I see your building blocks of life thread as I type...imna gonna read it.
Edited by Phat, : RAZD link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2007 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 7:34 PM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 96 (380033)
01-26-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
01-25-2007 10:09 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Well, that is obvious... It all depends upon what people want does it not? Find the philosophy that suits you is the general concensus that I hear in our Western culture today. I just wonder... what about those who find the Arian Brotherhood a good suit for them to wear. Must we accept them?
It becomes problamatic to apply consistently very quickly, and most self defeating.
The difference is relatively easy once you accept that the reality is what was created and not what is inside some box: when a belief contradicts reality then it is delusion. Doesn't matter if it is the Arian Brotherhood or your typical ill-considered YEC model for a young earth - there is evidence that these beliefs are not correct, invalid, untrue, and that is enough to distinguish them eh?
I certainly go with anglagard on the evidence of the universe being the most compelling evidence of creation and that the study of it - as it is, unencumbered by beliefs - is a most worthy endeavor of an intellectual mind.
What astonishes me most, is that we are now encouraged, that in the name of peace, to believe that none of them are exclusively true. We are told that the truth, is that they are only beliefs.
Things like a belief in a young earth ARE only beliefs -- they are contradicted by facts. Look outside the box and you will find more treasures than you can ever find inside the box.
Is there anything that MUST be true? I don't think so. Is there a number of things that CAN be true? Of course. Find those that are.
But we can know what it is not...
It is not the idea that tells us that it does not exist. Ideas that don't exist do not speak to us at all. And if they do, then they exist, and are deceptive.
But we don't know, we can't know (according to my beliefs) -- all we can do is proceed on faith that {it} does exist, and KNOW that it is faith.
Thinking that you know something you don't IS madness.
Thinking that something is true when the evidence says otherwise is madness.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 01-25-2007 10:09 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 01-26-2007 9:50 AM RAZD has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 66 of 96 (380073)
01-26-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
01-26-2007 7:28 AM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Things like a belief in a young earth ARE only beliefs -- they are contradicted by facts. Look outside the box and you will find more treasures than you can ever find inside the box.
I don't know if we have a young earth or not. I tend to think we do. I find science more and more lacking of objectivity. All of the stuff I was brainwashed with in school and on the Discovery channel and National Geographic, is now challenged by much evidence that is mysteriously not fed to the public...
An atheist is not 'objective'. They have an agenda. Their agenda is to find a way to explain these things without a need for a creator. And the evidence is plentiful enough to for a man to believe just about anything with ample evidence. I can provide a debate between two scientists that I became aware of through Ravi, that proves this point. I will have to supply it in a follow up reply, as I have to find the source. I'll get on it!
How do you explain Alister Mcgrath at Oxford, and John Polkinghorne at Cambridge? These men are some of the most profound scientific minds in the world, yet are devout Christians. They have a very rational faith. A faith that the Bible reccomends btw, and that the church had abandoned ergo Emanuel Kant.
But we don't know, we can't know (according to my beliefs)
Well then with all due respect (and I mean that) your beliefs are convoluted. How can you know that you can't know? Or... why would you choose to believe that you can't?
And the answer is in discovering the motivation for wanting to believe such an obvious contradiction...
Thinking that you know something you don't IS madness.
My point precisely...
I don't claim to know something I don't. But you do I'm afraid. I claim to know something I do know. And that is the difference.
Did you know that Jesus spoke on this very issue?
John 3:10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
There is no hiding behind contradictions, unless you want to believe in them. You have that right. But it will cost you your intellectual honesty. And I know... and can show why...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 7:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 7:23 PM Rob has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 96 (380192)
01-26-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by anastasia
01-23-2007 8:13 PM


On Topic Response
Anastasia writes:
Would it be correct to say that everything is a part of God? And if so, are there different concentrates of God in different things? Can God be seperated into small pieces and still be totally the same, or are there different 'aspects' of God showing up in different places? Do the mountains show one thing, the trees another? If that is true, I would not understand how the sum of all visible and invisible things would not equal God, unless you say God does not rely on these things for existance. If he doesn't, I would think He must have created them, or they must be seperate from God, and not relying on Him for existance, but on some other force.
Try looking at it this way. All material things are made of atoms, or even more specifically, subatomic particles/waves, yet each category of things, such as mountains, trees, and people are distinct entities. This is roughly similar to saying there is an underlying substance (atoms) and different entities that emanate from that substance (attributes). The analogy is not perfect as substance and attributes in this case means more than just the material, but it may help to explain what Spinoza means by one substance underlying all attributes.
Obviously, but just to be fair, christianity does not presume to say that God has looks or gender, it is just a traditional pictorial image. If you HAD to draw a picture of God in Spinoza's terms, what would it look like? I see the point, though, that having God look like a human would be a non sequitar, while in christianity having a seperate God who 'speaks' thru things in human terms would lend itself to a 'personal' image.
The fact that some people must anthropomorphize their deities tends to diminish both them and their religion IMO. Some people prefer their deities to be more than just human, considering all the anger, violence, and petty jealousies such a false and pathetic caricature of God allows.
In Spinoza’s terms there could be no drawing because one can’t draw everything that is both observed and unobserved.
See, I don't view God as a source of good amd evil. Good is when all things work together in harmony, evil is when they clash, and the only way that evil itself exists is because of free-will. I don't want to get all biblical about it; this is my understanding. If God just winds an eternally running clock, all things which he has made will run smoothly forever, because all things He made were good. Give men a tiny bit of freedom, and some things might not go as smoothly. Since we are not God, we have to learn the hard way what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Give us the intelligence to gain technological advance, and things can go even more hay-wire without the knowledge of right and wrong. So, as I see it, God gave us free-will, and then, conscience...a little nagging that says something doesn't feel right, even if we cover it or don't understand exactly WHAT is wrong. Therefore obeying your conscience in any religion = good. Free-will...brings evil. Knowledge of good and evil, helps temper it. This of course only works if we are SEPERATE from God in essence, or I would think that we would do good by default.
I hold with Spinoza that good and evil are subjective terms. This forum is riddled with threads trying to assert that good and evil are somehow absolute concepts that exist independent of the observer. So far as I know, not once has anyone come close to rationally making a decent case for morality to be anything but subjective.
Also, how could a supposedly all-powerful God permit evil to exist if it is “out there?” There is only one choice if good and evil are objective realities independent of the observer, god created evil and god allows evil to persist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:13 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 6:13 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 75 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:30 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 68 of 96 (380209)
01-26-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
01-23-2007 8:36 PM


Terminology
quote:
anglagard writes:
The business of free-will vs. determinism is one of the few areas where I am not in complete agreement with Spinoza.
and;
quote:
It is for these reasons I consider Spinoza the true prophet of God in a similar manner in which one considers Mohammed the true prophet of God in Islam. Therefore I consider my belief a religion.
Anastasia writes:
This is like saying I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and I am a Christian, but I don't agree with everything Jesus said. It would tell me at first glance that Spinoza is not a prophet but a theologian or theoreticist. He has attempted to explain God, Jesus has said He IS God. There's a paradox...in pantheism we are all part of God, and in christinaity, we are all trying to understand the seperate God. Yet, when it comes to prophets, Spinoza makes a valiant attempt to explain God, and Jesus claims to BE God.
Well, I am not a Christian because I don’t believe Jesus is God, and the son of God, in a literal sense. Spinoza refers to Jesus as “first among men.”
I believe that God is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable. I do not believe that Jesus is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable because when Jesus walked among the people as a person, he became at best, less than all. How could Jesus be Jesus, and Pilate, and Tiberius Caesar and Alpha Centauri? This is the difference between monism and dualism inherent in the difference between Spinoza Pantheism and Christianity.
Just to clarify, one could be a Christian and still have much of their “soul” reunited with God under a pantheistic model. The opposite is not usually considered true, although a few members of this forum have a different and IMO amazingly more tolerant interpretation.
Also, when I use the term prophet, I mean a human and therefore fallible person, not a deity. I am using the term prophet because Spinoza has a far better track record than pretty much anyone else in history at actually predicting the future before such events took place. Also, his “prophecies” were a lot more specific and a lot less horrific.
Of course, Spinoza has proof of existance, and we can't argue that years of tradition have put words into his mouth. but, I can argue that in pantheism, we are ALL prophets, as none of us is empowered by the 'substance' of an Impersonal Nature to 'understand' or proclaim Itself. In this light, we ARE God, in the way Jesus is, as we ALL can personally, perfectly, proclaim God's existance. Well, scratch the perfectly part. But we all would proclaim God if we were part of Him/It/She and yet in theism we do proclaim God indirectly as a creation or a painting.
Spinoza clearly states that there are three levels of knowledge present in humans and that few make it a common practice to reach the third level. Therefore all people are not equal in the understanding or love of God.
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at Spinoza, Benedict De | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote:
With this distinction between adequate and inadequate perception in place, Spinoza introduces a set of further distinctions. He begins with inadequate perception, which he now calls knowledge of the first kind, and divides it into two parts. The first consists of knowledge from random experience (experientia vaga). This is knowledge "from singular things which have been represented to us through the senses in a way which is mutilated, confused, and without order for the intellect"(P40S2). The second consists of knowledge from signs (ex signis), "for example, from the fact that, having heard or read certain words, we recollect things, and form certain ideas of them, like those through which we imagine the things"(P40S2). What links both of these forms of knowledge is that they lack a rational order. It is obvious that knowledge from random experience follows the order of the affections of the human body, but so does knowledge from signs. A Roman who hears the word 'pomum', for instance, will think of an apple, not because there is any rational connection between the word and the object, but only because they have been associated in his or her experience.
When we reach what Spinoza calls the second kind of knowledge, reason (ratio), we have ascended from an inadequate to an adequate perception of things. This type of knowledge is gained "from the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things" (P40S2). What Spinoza has in mind here is what was just indicated, viz., the formation of adequate ideas of the common properties of things and the movement by way of deductive inference to the formation of adequate ideas of other common properties. Unlike in the case of knowledge of the first kind, this order of ideas is rational.
We might think that in attaining this second kind of knowledge we have attained all that is available to us. However, Spinoza adds a third type, which he regards as superior. He calls this intuitive knowledge (scientia intuitiva) and tells us that it "proceeds from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the [formal] essence of things"(P40S2). Unfortunately, Spinoza is once again obscure at a crucial junction, and it is difficult to know what he has in mind here. He seems to be envisioning a type of knowledge that gives insight into the essence of some singular thing together with an understanding of how that essence follows of necessity from the essence of God. Furthermore, the characterization of this kind of knowledge as intuitive indicates that the connection between the individual essence and the essence of God is grasped in a single act of apprehension and is not arrived at by any kind of deductive process. How this is possible is never explained.
Problems of obscurity aside, we can still see something of the ideal at which Spinoza is aiming. Inadequate ideas are incomplete. Through them we perceive things without perceiving the causes that determine them to be, and it is for this reason that we imagine them to be contingent. What Spinoza is offering with the third kind of knowledge is a way of correcting this. It is important to note, however, that he is not proposing that we can have this knowledge with respect to the durational existence of any particular item. As we have already seen, this would require having ideas of all of the temporal causes of a thing, which are infinite. Rather, he is proposing that we can have it with respect to the essence of a singular thing as it follows from the essence of God. To have this kind of knowledge is to understand the thing as necessary rather than contingent. It is, to use Spinoza's famous phrase, to regard it sub quadam specie aeternitatis, under a certain aspect of eternity.
Sorry, I keep thinking about this and editing. It is really neither here nor there that you think Spinoza is a prophet. If that is your opinion only, then that can not detract from the over-all value of the philosophy. I am sure folks have not all agreed with Jesus, maybe doctored things up, or just become so programmed to understanding what He said. Add to that the fact of His divinity, and it would be hard to argue with Him.
I think jar and to some extent you and Phat are doing a decent job of presenting your case for your beliefs, so please keep up the good work. Rest assured I do read and consider your points.
Still, I am curious; could a star be a prophet? If so, to whom? other stars, or people as well? Would it have to deviate from normal star behavior to send the message, and would that be like God interfering in a personal way? Also, do you think that only humans would have prophets, if all things are equal? Or do humans have a special role in the universe wherein prophecy is more relevent?
Don’t get too hung up on my terminology as I am speaking somewhat symbolically in terms that are commonly bandied about on this forum. To me, if a person predicts a lot of what the modern world is like over 300 years before it happens, they must have some insight and should at least be taken seriously.
Btw...christianity is deterministic as well.
Is it as deterministic? Seems like just a bit ago you were illustrating that free will in humans was needed for evil to exist independent of God.
Edited by anglagard, : add subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:36 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:02 PM anglagard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 96 (380214)
01-26-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
01-26-2007 4:53 PM


On Evil
Also, how could a supposedly all-powerful God permit evil to exist if it is “out there?” There is only one choice if good and evil are objective realities independent of the observer, god created evil and god allows evil to persist.
I would like to ask a few questions about "Evil".
When a lion kills a zebra is it being Evil?
When lightning starts a forest fire that burns down homes is it Evil?
When a mosquito bites someone and they get Malaria, is it Evil?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 4:53 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 7:07 PM jar has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 70 of 96 (380225)
01-26-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anglagard
01-26-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Terminology
anglagard writes:
Well, I am not a Christian because I don’t believe Jesus is God, and the son of God, in a literal sense. Spinoza refers to Jesus as “first among men.”
Neither do Jehova's Witnesses, and that is the main reason why they are not considered to BE christian by the majority of the community. Not that I am comparing you to them, of course but just to illustrate that there are varying perceptions of Jesus even in what is self-proclaimed to be christian.
Also, when I use the term prophet, I mean a human and therefore fallible person, not a deity. I am using the term prophet because Spinoza has a far better track record than pretty much anyone else in history at actually predicting the future before such events took place. Also, his “prophecies” were a lot more specific and a lot less horrific.
Yes, there are an awful lot of terms bandied about. Sometimes I am quite sure that the great world religions are so similar at their cores, that if we just got past the terminology and the symbology, we would find such silly differences as 'when does the eternal start' 'how do you reach immortality' or 'what part of us goes on'. Questions which, obviously, have only an answer in faith, and therefore we can't flaut our own.
When I say 'prophet' I think not of prophecy as in prediction. I think of a mere human who has been chosen as the mouth piece of God, and technically Jesus is more. He is both/and. I think of a prophet as a person who has revealed to us the nature of God, or of His plans. Some of the plans do have to do with the future, yes. But I did not mean to be insulting about the star. In a very real sense, a star could be a prophet or revealer of God's plan, even if only accidentally. When I think of a prophet it is with the idea that God must go into the speaker, so therefore I thought that a religion where God was in everyone in actual substance, would make us all prophets.
So, you have said that the third type of knowledge is that which somehow links us to understanding the divine, perhaps through meditation? From this I gather that a prophet may receive knowledge if he properly applies his mind, and he may be distinguishable as slightly superior from those who have not.
The reference you have cited is not in-depth about how to attain this knowledge, but I wish you would apply it to kuresu's thread. This part is ideal;
Problems of obscurity aside, we can still see something of the ideal at which Spinoza is aiming. Inadequate ideas are incomplete. Through them we perceive things without perceiving the causes that determine them to be, and it is for this reason that we imagine them to be contingent
This harks directly back to morality. In the thread 'why do right?' kuresu alleges that religious people do 'right' because God ordered them to, or because of fear of hell. He is working IMO with the 'inadequate ideas' and perceiving things without perceiving the causes that determine them. He repeatedly says "I don't know" when asked why he feels moral obligation. He imagines morality to be contingent on circumstance, or relative, rather than ordained by the forces that be. That is a common thought around EvC in general, but I do see morality as the underlying good that we can indequately perceive, and which is in all things. Our perceptions are relative, but the good is absolute.
Is it as deterministic? Seems like just a bit ago you were illustrating that free will in humans was needed for evil to exist independent of God.
It is called compatibilism. Free-will esists WITH determinism. Things are set to be a certain way, but we can change them via free-will, and thus these changes are 'sin'. That God knew and knows what cahnges we will make is beside the point. He did not 'force' us. This is the premise for the searches for a genetic code which determines homosexuality. If it were found, it would get homosexuals off the 'hook' for choosing to violate what is 'meant to be'. Of course, there are means of discovering if it is anywhere else meant to be, such as in other animal species. The stance of the church now in regards to this is; if a person has a genetic code which causes him this tendency to veer from the path, he must be even more careful to stay on the path. It is rather less satisfactory to state that it is somehow a disorder, so the emphasis it seems is on making a case for it being the natural.
Side note; I think I saw that pantheism holds God to be deterministic as well. I believe that for us christians, He is the only thing not bound by the rules, but I could be mistaken, as it would be impossible for Him to do anything which would oppose Himself. He is bound by His perfection, but not by any outside force, as we are bound by the outside force of God.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 5:55 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 71 of 96 (380227)
01-26-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
01-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
I would like to ask a few questions about "Evil".
When a lion kills a zebra is it being Evil?
When lightning starts a forest fire that burns down homes is it Evil?
When a mosquito bites someone and they get Malaria, is it Evil?
Let's see how it works under the good/bad/indifferent test?
Case 1: Good for the lion, bad for the zebra, and indifferent to the termite.
Case 2: Good for any plants that need fire and/or room to germinate, bad for the homeowner, indifferent to the geese flying nearby.
Case 3: Good for the parasite, bad for the person, and indifferent to the ant.
If course even these determinations are snap judgments based upon assumptions and may lack all the pertinent facts to determine if they are good, bad, or indifferent. For example what if the zebra had rabies, the houses were meth labs, or Mao got the malaria? Could throw the calculations off quite a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 6:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:10 PM anglagard has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 96 (380229)
01-26-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by anglagard
01-26-2007 7:07 PM


Re: On Evil
Let's see how it works under the good/bad/indifferent test?
But those are good/bad/indifferent tests.
How about Evil?
Is Evil simply "Bad"?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 7:07 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 7:25 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 96 (380233)
01-26-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rob
01-26-2007 9:50 AM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and' neither stays on topic
I don't know if we have a young earth or not. I tend to think we do.
Well according to the topic approach we would look at the evidence to make that decision rather than look into a book and to opinions that people have. That you "tend to think" would mean to me that you have not studied the question in any real detail, but are willing to believe based on convenience to your personal opinions. I'd suggest going to a thread to discuss this, however I don't see any real willingness on your part to discuss such things. For instance:
An atheist is not 'objective'. They have an agenda.
Has nothing to do with the discussion to date. You feel you need to introduce this to take the discussion off topic in a direction you are comfortable with instead of the one you are uncomfortable with. It's called a red herring logical fallacy.
How do you explain Alister Mcgrath at Oxford, and John Polkinghorne at Cambridge?
The logical fallacy of the appeal to authority (a favorite for fundamentalists). For who believes things does not matter to how valid the belief is. The evidence for the opinions is what makes them valid. For instance, Dr. Roger C. Wiens is also a christian, but what makes his argument for an old earth valid is the wealth of evidence and knowledge that he brings to the topic:
Radiometric Dating
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
quote:
Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.
According to the thread topic the Spinoza Pantheism approach is to look at the evidence and see where it leads -- for that evidence is the actual word of god made physical.
I don't claim to know something I don't. But you do I'm afraid.
And you just claimed to know what I know? Please save me from your false self-aggrandizing assertions.
Did you know that Jesus spoke on this very issue?
Prove that he was not talking to YOU. You can't, therefore the whole quote is useless in supporting your argument.
And I know... and can show why...
So you believe. But it appears that you cannot do a thing without quoting text and a complete absence of evidence, data, substantiation, ... the touch of reality.
I find science more and more lacking of objectivity.
Is this because you are dismissing the reality for a fantasy - increasingly so as you find it conflicts with your beliefs? It would appear so. The age of the earth is a case in point. It is easy to look at the evidence.
Put the box down and look at the physical word. Or - reflecting on the topic - discuss why looking at the physical world is not a source of answers to what has been created: discuss the evidence, not fantasy about it.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 01-26-2007 9:50 AM Rob has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 96 (380235)
01-26-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
01-26-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
But those are good/bad/indifferent tests.
How about Evil?
Is Evil simply "Bad"?
OK lets see if we can define our terms like all good (not evil) philosophers.
First hit in Google is Wikipedia:
quote:
In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings ” those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction. Evil is sometimes defined as the absence of a good which could and should be present; the absence of which is a void in what should be. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about affliction and death ” the opposite of goodness, which itself refers to aspects which are life-affirming, peaceful, and constructive.
Looks like in religion and ethics, evil requires a human agent to initiate, therefore the actions of lions, fire, and mosquitos can't be considered evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:33 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:36 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 75 of 96 (380238)
01-26-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
01-26-2007 4:53 PM


Re: On Topic Response
anglagard writes:
The fact that some people must anthropomorphize their deities tends to diminish both them and their religion IMO. Some people prefer their deities to be more than just human, considering all the anger, violence, and petty jealousies such a false and pathetic caricature of God allows.
I do not picture God to be like anything. Most images of God were from times when pictures were vital for telling stories, but it was held by the Jewish people that you must not create an image of God or even speak His name. Pictures therefore merely represent a deity, as wrods represent His name, or the dollar represents currency in solid form. As humanity is thought to be the greatest creation, it follows to use a superb human as a reference. Obviously one could not draw the unobservable God.
I hold with Spinoza that good and evil are subjective terms. This forum is riddled with threads trying to assert that good and evil are somehow absolute concepts that exist independent of the observer. So far as I know, not once has anyone come close to rationally making a decent case for morality to be anything but subjective
The only thing it is subject to is our views about it. Our inadequate understandings of what is meant to be gives morality a different flavor from person to person. Evil is nothing, to me. God is everything that was made and How it was made, evil is not absolute in itself, but is only a change in the absolute and pre-determined plan of God.
God allows evil to exist, because He gave us free-will. He tempered free-will with knowledge of good and evil. It does not follow that He must have created evil, or that evil even has any substance. Satan may, and he sort of gives personification to evil, by taking it as his mission to interfere in God's plan. For us who are subject to these forces, there is a dualism between God and Satan, but Satan is not tapping into any 'darkside'. He is for now the dark side that we perceive.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2007 4:53 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024