All Encompassing Philosophy and Religion Thread: Open to all discussions

[Kees_L]

Essentially, this all comes across as a natural (sometimes sad) course of events that people try to create a philosophical basis for that fits into their belief systems. In fact, no. The entire belief systems were constructed around explaining a natural course of events.

I like the sound of that, plus I think there's truth in it.

In the country I live there seem to be people who believe there existed once a Theocratic society, a pivotal or guiding role for churches or clergy and such, but not no more.
It seems very factual that our society or societies are by no means run by churches or clerical faculties in the slightest the way they used to. I think there is truth in that too, just as something factual.
Like even if people wanted to be run by their church they cannot or wouldn't succeed in the current world.

If I was to pick a side myself I'd think me a Heathen. Because if anything I openly revolt and oppose what Makers there'd be. Like it'd be my test to see how true Deities would need to respond. Which should culminate once I'm ready for 'afterlives', if ever I would. It seems to work for me.

[Soubhagya]

I like the sound of that, plus I think there's truth in it.

In the country I live there seem to be people who believe there existed once a Theocratic society, a pivotal or guiding role for churches or clergy and such, but not no more.
It seems very factual that our society or societies are by no means run by churches or clerical faculties in the slightest the way they used to. I think there is truth in that too, just as something factual.
Like even if people wanted to be run by their church they cannot or wouldn't succeed in the current world.

If I was to pick a side myself I'd think me a Heathen. Because if anything I openly revolt and oppose what Makers there'd be. Like it'd be my test to see how true Deities would need to respond. Which should culminate once I'm ready for 'afterlives', if ever I would. It seems to work for me.

That is a dangerous course of action. Isn't it? Let me rebel and see.

If there are no deities there is no problem. But if there are, one is placing oneself at risk.


Many lives concept appears to be difficult to accept. For this one needs to understand the self. When one understands the soul, one makes good progress towards God, as God is all spirit.

Here are some things one can meditate upon. Think about. And one can come to the point of understanding oneself as different from the body.

1. When we were children, we had different bodies. A child's body. Now, the body has changed. But the sense of 'I' has not changed. The body undergoes constant changes, but the sense of self does not change. I am the same Soubhagya who was once a kid. Then the kid's body changed to a teenager. And then to an adult. In the future, the body will change to that of an old man. But i am the same person.

I have read somewhere that within 7 years the body changes completely, down to the cellular level. I am not sure about this particular piece of info, but the fact is, the body constantly changes but the person, the sense of 'self' does not change.


2. If we analyze our bodies, we can find that our bodies are made up of some chemicals. Some cacium, iron, H20, or water and so on. So, are we simply this bag of chemicals?

Someone can take the same chemicals, and that would not be of much worth in the market. Are we not much more valuable then these chemicals? What is it that brings worth to this bundle of chemicals?

People spend so much money to save their lives. If a friend is caught in an accident, we would forget our far more valuable car, and rather save our friend who is but a bag of chemicals not worth more then a couple hundred dollars at most?

What is it that gives value to this bundle of chemicals? So, much so that one is ready to spend a fortune to save a life.


3. We can observe our language too. If i hold a pen on my hand, i say "It's my pen". If i possess a suitcase, i say, "This is my suitcase". Similarly, we always say, "This is my hand","This is my leg". Similarly, we can keep analyzing ourselves. "These are my eyes", "This is my hand". And finally, "This is my body". We don't say, "This is I body". We say, "This is my body". This is meditation.

Just like we possess a pen or a suitcase, we possess the body. This is meditation. One can sit quietly and think about the different parts of the body. Whether that part is me, or that part is mine. Analyzing.


4. Who is the one who is experiencing? We experience pain. We experience pleasure. We can taste a nice sweet. The senses come in contact with the sense objects. And we experience that.

Now a robot maybe designed so that it can respond in the same way. If i touches a hot body, by means of heat sensors it can detect some object's temperature. And it can be programmed to remove the hand and say, "This is hot". But did the robot 'experience' the heat?


5. At the time of death, people say Mr. X passed away. Or Mr. X has left us. But who has left? Mr. X is lying there. Mr. X is right in front if us. How can someone say, Mr. X has left? Who has left?



This subject matter requires intelligence. And by that one can understand onself to be different from the body. Easiest means is to accept it on Krsna or God's authority, that we are not the body but the soul. But one can come to the same conclusion if one is intelligent.

[Kees_L]

That is a dangerous course of action. Isn't it? Let me rebel and see.

If there are no deities there is no problem. But if there are, one is placing oneself at risk.

No. I don't adhere to things people think or to Gods in order to avoid risk. I don't adhere or obey to avoid punishment.

Instead I give creedence or respect whatever genuinely. That's my point.

Heathens will generally be religious and intelligent and likely they meditate better than you or I do, it's simply they might do things differently.

Likewise I will not 'play favorites' not even with Gods standing right in front of me or not. Instead I wish to be genuine, as I already said.

[Rob Allen]

That is a dangerous course of action. Isn't it? Let me rebel and see.

If there are no deities there is no problem. But if there are, one is placing oneself at risk.

This is known in the European philosophical tradition as "Pascal's Wager". The same cartoonist whose work I posted earlier has also done a pretty interesting analysis of it:





(continued next post)

[Rob Allen]

[Carabas]

That was brilliant.

[Powerboy]

That was brilliant.

It was. Bravo to him. It emphasizes the problem that it's not a matter of "Does God exist? Yes or no?" Which god? Maybe in Pascal's time, he didn't consider that part of it but in our society, it's a real question.

Another problem is that the very question assumes that we can just make ourselves believe things we know are not true. Well, okay, unfortunately, the evidence is that people are incredibly adept at mental gymnastics, rationalization and denial not just regarding religion but lots of things. So lots of people are brilliant at believing things they learned when they were young. I can't remember if it was Aquinas who said along the lines of, "Give me the child to the age of seven and I'll give you the man" or maybe "...and then you can have the man" by which he seemed to mean that much older than seven and his beliefs and attitudes will be so set that it will be very difficult to convince him with evidence, fasts and reason.

Still, people do change their opinions based on evidence. So what if a person just cannot make himself believe something he can see is ridiculous? Does he just go through the motions? Just pretend? So, if the God in question really exists, he's stupid? He doesn't know the difference between sincere belief and faking it?

Pascal's Wager fails in every way. Only someone already firmly convinced and looking for a pseudo-argument to convince others would ever come up with it.

[Kees_L]

Thanks to Rob Allen and the swell former CBR member cartoonist, I'm now lamenting there isn't a Forum-made bi-weekly web-articles/cartoons/comics section.

Although that post alone makes up for a lot.

[Kees_L]

Pascal's Wager fails in every way. Only someone already firmly convinced and looking for a pseudo-argument to convince others would ever come up with it.

I personally think that old Blaise addresses stuff with it quite accurately 'though. I'm told Pascal was a Catholic himself and by no means an atheist, like he wouldn't be deterred from his Faith even when his studies into the Apologetics and Church-Fathers pointed out to him that the Catholic Church or the guiding Bible translations in his or our time would be but husks or farces of what it actually was in the time of for instance Augustine of Hippo (400 AD) whose teachings have survived(?).
I'm not familiar with all or most of Pascals' writings but it seems to me his ideas on the Christian Faith or either life in general is that those simply present problems and hardships and stuff to deal with - and that a dude like Augustine or Jesus or any preachery type would present things no differently than that: **** to deal with - no manuals, no solutions per se but just the **** and maybe one or two ideas one way or another.

As if the idea that Faith being simply a set of solutions to adhere to or "believe" in order to get blessed with bliss everlasting wouldn't necessarily be what Faith should or would amount to.

I guessing Pascal was by no means an Atheist because Atheists believe there should be stuff to "believe" in (in) the first place - Pascal did not see things merely that way. Like how religious belief or Faith most usually isn't even voluntary at all.

[Powerboy]

I personally think that old Blaise addresses stuff with it quite accurately 'though. I'm told Pascal was a Catholic himself and by no means an atheist, like he wouldn't be deterred from his Faith even when his studies into the Apologetics and Church-Fathers pointed out to him that the Catholic Church or the guiding Bible translations in his or our time would be but husks or farces of what it actually was in the time of for instance Augustine of Hippo (400 AD) whose teachings have survived(?).
I'm not familiar with all or most of Pascals' writings but it seems to me his ideas on the Christian Faith or either life in general is that those simply present problems and hardships and stuff to deal with - and that a dude like Augustine or Jesus or any preachery type would present things no differently than that: **** to deal with - no manuals, no solutions per se but just the **** and maybe one or two ideas one way or another.

As if the idea that Faith being simply a set of solutions to adhere to or "believe" in order to get blessed with bliss everlasting wouldn't necessarily be what Faith should or would amount to.

I guessing Pascal was by no means an Atheist because Atheists believe there should be stuff to "believe" in (in) the first place - Pascal did not see things merely that way. Like how religious belief or Faith most usually isn't even voluntary at all.

Pascal was 17th century so the idea that "God" meant anything but the god he was brought up to believe in wasn't even on his radar, a term which itself didn't exist yet. It was also before what I'll call the Science Explosion with the discovery of evolution although it's interesting that, even in a world before that knowledge, there obviously were still a number of people who doubted the existence of any god based on logic without necessarily having specific evidence.

Incidentally, Pascal's entire premise is obsolete as he is speaking specifically of the Christian and more specifically the Catholic god. His premise starts with the idea that there is no evidence one way or the other. I don't know about then but, today, there most assuredly is evidence one way or the other. The Bible makes specific claims of God's actions in history. It makes claims of a worldwide flood that all the evidence shows never happened. The genealogies of Jesus would definitely result in a 6000 year old Earth. It also has the Earth somehow magically repopulated within something like three centuries after the Flood. Let's not forget the flaming sword, the talking snake and the magic trees. One can argue that this does not negate the teachings of Jesus but the New Testament hinges on the Old being true and if one wants to argue that the OT is only metaphorically true, well, sure, then the rational result would be that all the mystical elements of the NT are only metaphorically true.

I mean, I'm sorry but it's so ridiculous that it's like having a serious adult discussion about the evidence for Santa Claus. I'm sure we can engage in some wonderful sophistry to make it sound oh so intellectual and philosophical but behind the mask, it's still Santa Claus.

[Kees_L]

Pascal was 17th century so the idea that "God" meant anything but the god he was brought up to believe in wasn't even on his radar, a term which itself didn't exist yet. It was also before what I'll call the Science Explosion with the discovery of evolution although it's interesting that, even in a world before that knowledge, there obviously were still a number of people who doubted the existence of any god based on logic without necessarily having specific evidence.

Incidentally, Pascal's entire premise is obsolete as he is speaking specifically of the Christian and more specifically the Catholic god. His premise starts with the idea that there is no evidence one way or the other. I don't know about then but, today, there most assuredly is evidence one way or the other. The Bible makes specific claims of God's actions in history. It makes claims of a worldwide flood that all the evidence shows never happened. The genealogies of Jesus would definitely result in a 6000 year old Earth. It also has the Earth somehow magically repopulated within something like three centuries after the Flood. Let's not forget the flaming sword, the talking snake and the magic trees. One can argue that this does not negate the teachings of Jesus but the New Testament hinges on the Old being true and if one wants to argue that the OT is only metaphorically true, well, sure, then the rational result would be that all the mystical elements of the NT are only metaphorically true.

I mean, I'm sorry but it's so ridiculous that it's like having a serious adult discussion about the evidence for Santa Claus. I'm sure we can engage in some wonderful sophistry to make it sound oh so intellectual and philosophical but behind the mask, it's still Santa Claus.

The Science Explosion? The evidence for Santa? Dude.

Did you see this thread's title? Have you literally ever discussed before? It requires at least a minimum of sophistry, bub. If that's outside your comfort zone then you know what to do.

[dancj]

I mean, I'm sorry but it's so ridiculous that it's like having a serious adult discussion about the evidence for Santa Claus. I'm sure we can engage in some wonderful sophistry to make it sound oh so intellectual and philosophical but behind the mask, it's still Santa Claus.

Disparage God all you want, but keep your hands of Santa Claus. He's totally real!

[aja_christopher]

Kind of useless to "debate" God's existence if it can't objectively be proven one way or the other -- though the argument as to whether God is "good" is always a decent Rosharch test of where people's heads are at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Anyway, I'm just here to mention Taoism -- something that might help put everything else into perspective.

[aja_christopher]

“Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.”

"Using no way as a way, having no limitation as limitation.”

"All knowledge leads to self-knowledge.”