Hand me some evidence to justify changing it.... I'm not inflexible, its just all the available proof leads me to my current position. Without proof you just have dreams

 

You have proof?

 

Excellent.

Now, have you read Hegel? Spinoza, perhaps? As soon as you've grasped the God-concept to which I'm referring we can have a meaningful discussion. Why not try asking questions instead of mustering-up some Dawkins inspired attack? You swing the Earth a trinket at your wrist as if you have my measure; convinced of your assessment. Well, you don't have my measure, and your assessment is wrong. You absolutely have to be able to make a distinction between theism and speculative theosophy - if you cannot or are not prepared to do that, we can learn nothing from one another.

 

Just giving more of the same is not going to tempt me I'm afraid, and linguistically nuanced slicing of a pile of crap just leaves me feeling dirty rather than enlightened, because its still a pile of crap. Plus the fact I do not accept those terms, so I guess we'll both have to be ignorant of the glories of each others thoughts. And you know what they say about arguing on the internet....

 

Well, ok, but understand the uninitiated, the profane, are ten a penny.

 

I'm sorry, but much of the exchanges in this thread brings to mind this clip, especially the comment from 15 seconds in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swkmd-5SHZI

Go easy on that fart sniffing!

Merry xmas all!

 

I was thinking more of the The Architect scene, what with his, "Ergo..." and "Vis-a-vis...", etc...

 

Generally speaking, not everyone is capable to understand the poetic notion of God and the Godliness in the religions. Focusing on the UK and Christianity, I think there would be about 3% like you in the UK to understand it with the point of view you are offering. Evidently, as you know , most will read everything literally and either argue inanely over something that they don't understand, or "follow it like a Bible".

Postscript: I may be wrong on that 3%. It may need reducing to 1.5% or less. Shame but possible.<shrugs>

 

The reason I asked Warren if he'd read Hegel was that the latter, and this is a very crude interpretation, talked of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. An example would be totalitarianism (thesis)-libertarianism/anarchy (antithesis)-liberal-democracy (synthesis). In other words, to arrive at truth (oneness, the absolute, Geist, spirit, God) one needs to begin at one extreme, then explore the contradictions and fallacies within it, then formulate the opposite extreme and repeat the process until one arrives at the ark that bridges the gap. In simple terms, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. God (of the kind useful to the man in the street) is to be found somewhere between fundamental theism and fundamental anti-theism. God as synthesis, perhaps. Smells good, yes?

 

Good luck convincing Dawkings of that one, mate!

When it comes to religion, he is as misguided as the religious fundamentalists. Both deal in absolutes; it's inherently good/it's inherently bad, You're either in/out etc....

The truth is that religion is a tool of humanity; like any other tool it's neither inherently good or bad - it's all down to the way it is utilised. Dogmatism, whatever context it occurs in, is rarely conducieve with seeing the bigger picture and formulating a balanced overview of an issue. Whether a "moderate person" can ever truely see each end of the 'degree of religious orientation continuum' is open to debate.....

What I do know is that any of us had a really worthwhile contribution to make on this issue, we'd not be wasting our time on SN!

Excuse me, I seem to have suddenly developed a case of verbal flatulence!

 

What do you mean by "suddenly"

*Corner*

 

Fair point! I must admit, I think I prefer the post on ladies bottoms! Hard to be verbose on such subject matter - the drool tends to interfer with the operation of the keyboard!

Well, that and it's also hard to type and w*nk at the same time!

 

He doesn't need convincing, he's read Kant and Hegel et al. and virtually coined the notion of memetics. He simply refuses to entertain the idea of or engage in a conversation around positive 'spirituality' because it doesn't contribute towards the pushback against theism. Additionally, he can't acknowledge a Hegellian God, because the theists will misappropriate his sentiments a few decades after his death as they did with Einstein (who was talking about the God of Spinoza). When you reason it through, Dawkins' positon is the most rational and logical to assume where your raison d'être is to inflict as much damage as possible to superstition. He's one end of the dialectic. Sam Harris is beginning to find some centre ground.

 

My raison d'être??? Hardly . I just question the need to contrive an anti-theist movement because such endeavours invariably start to imitate the characteristics of that which they seek to undermine and are quickly contaminated by those ill-equipped to engage with the movement or those who adopt it and manipulate it for their own ends.

Interesting times we live in: we have religion imitating science (Creationism) and science imitating religion (the militant atheists).

"Isms in my opinion are not good - I quote john Lennon: I dont believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me" Ferris Bueller

I really need to get laid!!!

 

I phrased it badly - I should've typed "one's raison d'être", meaning Dawkins. Apologies. Agree with the rest of your post, fwiw.

 

No need for apologies mate!

Just uncomfortable with the idea of people thinking I cared more about this stuff than....oh, I dunno ladies bottoms!

 

You really do need to get laid.

 

i see so

thesis - The Gnomes at the end of the garden come alive at night when no one is looking

antithesis - you're talking bollox

synthesis - well no one can be 100% sure either way, so i will "believe" anyway

 

 

No. You don't.

 

JT's synthesis: Well, no one can be 100% sure either way, but applying reason, logic and rational thought, one can be so close to an objective certainty that the gnomes at the end of the garden do not come alive at night that the suggestion they do qualifies as bollócks - an objective truth. However, if one imagines the gnomes as symbolising the great unknown or as an allegorical device for explaining how the subconscious stirs while we sleep, but cannot be independently observed; if the garden is the Universe and the gnomes the hidden hand at play, out of sight of man and so forth....... When one speculates about the story subjectively one derives meaning from it - subjective truth. Thus:

Thesis: Objective truth.

Antithesis: Subjective truth.

Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:

Thesis: God is defined as a conceptual, omniscient narrator, can be arrived at via reason alone and bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective.

Antithesis: God is defined and accepted as gnomes who pop in and out of existence and live at the end of the garden, they exist only within the mind of people who arrived at their belief through blind faith or mental illness or knowledge of virtual particles that has not yet been made public.

Synthesis: Ignosticism (with an I, not an A).

 

I get that bit. The absolute truth just is.

Hence what I was saying about physicists in that thread the other day: they think they can know everything about everything using their science as the medium. These people are not stupid, but it's like they're blinded by their own discipline, even though they obviously achieve a lot that is helpful in practical terms!

But their bold statements about why we're here are a bit annoying. It's almost like they reckon they're on to the meaning of life.

 

That seems all wrong, especially around your applied definitions and understanding of "thesis". Have you ever undertaken a dissertation? as that forms the basics of what you are trying to achieve above... but it seems a bit mixed up with some fancy words thrown in for good order..... not rubbishing it, I just don't recognise the construct!

 

They have absolute faith in "no faith". Ironic indeed.

 

I appreciate it's crude, but you need to accept thesis in this instance as being synonymous with position. It's to illustrate the thesis-antithesis-synthesis method of discerning truth via the dialectic - a variation of the Socratic method. In all honesty, if you think I'm going to actually write a thesis and an antithesis rather than give the impression of one to illustrate a point, you must have supped one too many mulled wines.

 

Surely an unfortunate choice of words, if the very truth you're postulating about is whether or not there is a god?

 

It's Scientism. I held the position for a while, but it was ultimately unsatisfying. I found it didn't speak to the soul, didn't allow for an interpretation of life or God in a theosophical sense, ignored the subjective and the speculative. Dogmatic. Ultra-material. I take no issue with the unweaving of the rainbow, but science doesn't like being subordinate to God.

 

The more I read, the less I realise I know.

 

I'm thinking out loud in these posts and trying to convey fairly new (to me), unrefined and complex thoughts via an iPhone at my mum's house; please make an allowance for me.

An "omniscient narrator" describes the space between the subject and the object where a conflicting truth resides within each. "God's eye view" still works in that sense, and is distinct from the theistic, literal God being postulated. That there are two God-concepts in play is indeed unfortunate and thanks for pointing that out.

 

Terrifying and exciting, isn't it? Take the red pill.