|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spinoza Pantheism Defined | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"What was your ancestry?" "Orthodox Hindu, from the highest Caste of the Hindu priesthood. We were 'Nambuderies' (note: I have no Idea how that is properly spelled) in southern India" Ravi Zacharias - Wikipedia
quote: Interesting, but not surprising. Conversions happen all the time from any religion to any religion. Perhaps this is evidence that no religion is satisfactory to all people, eh? Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting post anglagard. Thanks.
This definition does not mean that everyone is God, or that God is simply the sum of all observable parts of the universe. It also is not equivalent to Deism, which as best I understand implies a God that is separate from creation and which initially creates the universe and then does not personally interfere with its workings. At it's most basic all Deism requires is that god be uninterested in interfering with what is going on: they could be observing, they could be completely subsumed into creation. This last is close to my belief\concept. I can't help you on your definition quest - I'm afraid you'll need others of similar mind. I can think of one from another forum (screen-name SwanModule) that I can try to contact if you are interested. Mathematician, philosopher and dylan fan. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 DatingRadiometric Dating A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens quote: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did we ever get a Belief Statement from you, RAZD? Nope. You've had hints - and building blocks has some, comments on Deism show others. But, I don't feel it is my place to preach my belief, rather that everyone needs to find their own path. I do see a lot of resonance with anglagards 'spinozan pantheism' in general (and his resonance with taoism\buddism), but an essential difference is that I don't believe {god\essence} currently exists, while being the root cause and the end result of all (universe) existence. Is that clear? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Good vs evil or good at the other end of evil? isn't it a spectrum of behavior that we are discussing? from "saint" to "devil".
What I see these as, is more a reflection of our intellectual belief in a capability to act outside of "natural" behavior, whether that belief is true or not. You say lions can't be evil, but we don't know how they see it. We have seen instances in primates and apes where moral behavior attributes can be assigned and appear to operate:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html So is this moral, or just normal behavior for a social animal? If it is normal, then by your definition for the lions it is not evil. Same for murder etc? Evil would have to be so much more -- as would the other extreme of good behavior (that has so few synonyms in our vocabulary ... interesting?). Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think a better contrast would be tigers rather than lions - loners versus social animals, as what would be "moral" for different kinds of animals depends on the animals eh?
Subjective for sure, but there is another side here, where we consider moral behavior to be {outside} natural behavior, and the problem is in defining the limits of natural behavior. The concept of evil is really behavior that is outside natural behavior. We see empathy in animals so empathy is natural, and thus behavior based on empathy alone is natural rather than moral. I also find it curious that we seem to have an ultimate bad in evil but not an ultimate good in ____ (blank word?). Does that not tell us that "morality" is more about controlling bad behavior than in rewarding good? Wouldn't that be a natural behavior for a social animal? Good only needs to be good enough to keep friends, but unrepentant evil gets ostracized. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am not sure I see a spectrum. ... All I can do is say 'relative to what I HAVE SEEN, this action was worse, or better'. That looks like a spectrum to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There looks to be from a purely sensorial view of life, but in my theology ... But is it your theology or your perceptions? Your theology flavors your view of life, but it is not the sole source and foundation, eh? Your view of life also influences your theology. Do you agree that actions can be classified as {good\bad\indifferent} depending on personal sensorial (ie subjective) views -- with a different view for each person? This is the only way to avoid a spectrum - by having a matrix that is tied to subjective viewpoints. Any reference to an absolute viewpoint would be a spectrum. And only with an absolute viewpoint could there be an absolute evil, and without an absolute there really is no evil ... just the appearance of it? Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024