Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Bruno

A week or 2 ago I heard that a study has shown that ants recognize themselves in a mirror. It seems they have a sense of self. If that is true then what is the difference between them and us?

Ants are tiny and squashable, that's the difference. Might makes right! (as long as I'm mighty!)

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except for the physical and social differences, and the fact that they lack a significant amount of grey matter, they could be us.

So Adam and Eve were ants. Now what?

Originally Posted by Bruno

If that is true, then why wouldn't an ant have a soul. The most compelling religious reason is 'because it is in this here book' or 'because these very old men (not women obviously) say so'
And if they have a soul, what would that mean for the foundations of religion, not to mention your soul if you squash insects without regard.

God only answers the praying mantis. Maybe the ants do have a soul. I don't think that means anything for the foundations of religion. An ant soul is still not a human soul And hey! Women can be just as dry and crusty in religious dogmatic tradition as men - let's not discriminate based on gender alone

Originally Posted by Bruno

Conversely, if ants do not have a soul despite the fact that they are sentient and have a sense of self, then why would we have a soul. I mean, other than 'because'?

God only knows
It seems like we're coming back to the if-I-can't-make-sense-of-it-myself-then-it-can't-be-true sort of argument. It's a great argument until you realize that your ability to make sense of it really doesn't change what was true before you ever came on the scene.
I'm not saying that's any better or worse than the well-I'm-going-to-believe-it-anyway-regardless-of-what-natural-science-and-man's-logic-dictates argument. Neither have any bearing on what is really taking place, do they?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The soul is an interesting concept...how is that different from the unconscious mind?]

I don't know. I'm always conscious and you can't prove to me otherwise (can you prove to a dead man that he's dead?) - do you mean the subconscious? Either way, my mind would be part of my soul, wouldn't it? Unless my mind is just a collection of electrical signals and hormones washing around responding to each other in completely natural and predictable ways. But what is a decision if not a choice that someone makes? Does every event always have a naturally predictable reason? Or are those signals merely tools I can choose to use to communicate my immaterial ideas and reasons with the natural material world?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

if the claim is that we have a "feeling" that God is amongst us, or a "feeling" that we can "know" God by, then I'd have to ask why he decides to make people "feel" like he exists in the form that is conventional for the region they grew up in. You don't "feel" that the Olympian gods are anything more than folly do you? How about the gods of the Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism?

I just mean that it's incredibly hard to get out of our own cultural biases and that invoking things like nondescript senses is only suitable for affirming personal beliefs, they can't be used for a communal discussion.

It's no different in the case against God. If the claim is that there is no God because there is no feeling that we can know God by, then we have to ask why people claim to feel like he exists in any form. And naturalists have been improving on their answer to that question for centuries, just as theologians have been improving on their answer to why everyone doesn't feel the same thing from God. Neither can disprove the other, and yet either God is or God isn't.

What nondescript senses are you talking about that can't be used for a communal discussion but that are necessary to sense God? Do you know what God feels like? If you don't know, can you assume nobody else does? I don't know but reason alone is an indication to me that I am not just what can be scientifically measured and observed.

I just had a thought:

I'm an Objectivist (or, at least I agree with many of their ideals) and think that there IS an objective truth about the universe, and that with enough study and observation, humanity may eventually learn what that truth is, though it will most likely be a process of gradual refinement. it prolly won't happen during my lifetime.

spiritualists believe that objective truth can't even be known through study and observation, but rather through faith. (at least, not ENTIRELY through study and observation) this is problematic because there are many kinds of spiritualists and many of their belief systems are mutually exclusive. (that is, you can't believe all of them, but there are exceptions to this rule)

so how to pick which spiritualistic belief system to subscribe to? the naturalists and Objectivists are all compatible with eachother, but not so with the spiritualists. many of their belief systems claim that following a different belief system equals eternal suffering or something else undesirable.

again, how can you pick which spiritualistic belief is true? well, rationally, you can't. ever. they are all equally valid or baseless, depending on your views, and cannot objectively be evaluated one over the other. nearly all spiritualists seem to follow the system that they were raised on, although there are exceptions to this rule. the only other criteria is that one system may "feel more right" than another, and i don't think it's wise to make decisions like that based only on fleeting emotions.

so, to all the spiritualists out there, apart from your emotions, why do you think that your particular system of belief is more correct than everyone else's?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It seems like we're coming back to the if-I-can't-make-sense-of-it-myself-then-it-can't-be-true sort of argument. It's a great argument until you realize that your ability to make sense of it really doesn't change what was true before you ever came on the scene.
I'm not saying that's any better or worse than the well-I'm-going-to-believe-it-anyway-regardless-of-what-natural-science-and-man's-logic-dictates argument. Neither have any bearing on what is really taking place, do they?

Your absolutely right, we cannot ever determine the exact nature of a god, and our attempts have no meaning to the rest of the universe.

To quote Jennifer Hecht, a renowned poet and award winning intellectual, "we, as humans, live in a 'meaning rupture' within an impartial universe", or something like that.

But the point is that human's have an inescapable notion that all things ought to have a purpose, because we cannot separate "purpose" from our own actions. The ever present question "Why?" is the manifestation of our intellectual bias. As far as we know, empirically, no other entity in the unfathomably large Universe places any rationality on actions going one way or the other, but it is historically cited that we "see purpose" in the Universe.

One has to ask whether this is anthropomorphism in action.

Yes, one has to ask and I think everyone is compelled to decide for themselves what the best answer is, and even possibly admitting they can't empirically know whether or not it is the right answer

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

God only answers the praying mantis. Maybe the ants do have a soul. I don't think that means anything for the foundations of religion. An ant soul is still not a human soul And hey! Women can be just as dry and crusty in religious dogmatic tradition as men - let's not discriminate based on gender alone

Well women can have an opinion. It just doesn't count in many of the institutionalized religions.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

God only knows
It seems like we're coming back to the if-I-can't-make-sense-of-it-myself-then-it-can't-be-true sort of argument. It's a great argument until you realize that your ability to make sense of it really doesn't change what was true before you ever came on the scene.
I'm not saying that's any better or worse than the well-I'm-going-to-believe-it-anyway-regardless-of-what-natural-science-and-man's-logic-dictates argument. Neither have any bearing on what is really taking place, do they?

Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
My point was that we cannot know one way or the other. It may be true that we have an immortal soul but it may just be that only the ants have souls. We don't know either way, until we find out what the afterlife is all about.

I think we can know, but as Russell seemed to me to be indicating, we can't prove it by natural material proofs. So people who will only accept that kind of proof will never be able to know, but that doesn't discount those who can know in their heart

Natural proof itself is at its core no more reliable than any other kind because it is filtered through human perception and tested by human interaction. Unless man is God, then we have to admit man can make mistakes and errors, even in rigorous scientific observations and judgments. You can say that all the evidence points to one conclusion but when the question is presented, you must still choose whether or not to agree to that conclusion based on the evidence. Your agreement is based on your faith in how strong the proof is

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I think we can know, but as Russell seemed to me to be indicating, we can't prove it by natural material proofs. So people who will only accept that kind of proof will never be able to know, but that doesn't discount those who can know in their heart

I was indicating that, but my belief goes a step further to say that if a divine creator were to have created us and givin us this powerful drive to investigate things and to use our reasoning, then he should be just as happy with us dedicating ourselves to what can be done with that capability as he "is" with blind faith acceptance of his pressence.

Which leads to the question of how do we know he doesn't want us to reject blind faith and spend our entire existence playing an intellectual "hide and seek" in an effort to provide that ultimate reward at the end of an extremely long a tiring search? It's just as likely as being rewarded for throwing in the towel and taking it easy for the rest of your life. (not that that's what anyone here's doing necessarily)

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I was indicating that, but my belief goes a step further to say that if a divine creator were to have created us and givin us this powerful drive to investigate things and to use our reasoning, then he should be just as happy with us dedicating ourselves to what can be done with that capability as he "is" with blind faith acceptance of his pressence.

Which leads to the question of how do we know he doesn't want us to reject blind faith and spend our entire existence playing an intellectual "hide and seek" in an effort to provide that ultimate reward at the end of an extremely long a tiring search? It's just as likely as being rewarded for throwing in the towel and taking it easy for the rest of your life. (not that that's what anyone here's doing necessarily)

Really? I don't think that ought to be the case. Maybe so. Although I have noticed this curious idea in my own life: I love my son all the time. I want the best for him, and when he gets something right or does the right thing (he is just a young tyke), I am happy for him, and quite pleased with myself for having helped raise him. And what really tickles me pink is when I know he doesn't know I'm watching, but he takes something I've shown or taught him and he discovers how to use it for himself to do whatever it is he's trying to do. It really brings a special pleasure for a father to see his kid using what he's given his kid. I love him regardless and am happy for his progress whether he uses what I've given him or not. But when I've taken the time and effort to invest something into him without even requiring a return and then he uses that it makes something of it, it really is a wonderful feeling.

So it doesn't seem out of place to me that if the Creator gave me something by which to discover him, then he would be delighted if I used it to do that. And it doesn't seem out of place to me that he wouldn't enjoy me accepting him blindly either. But yes it still should lead you to that question - does he want me to spend my life's efforts trying to find him a certain way if the end will be no different than if I hadn't? Well like in my analogy I like to think my son does certain things because he loves, respects, admires, and learns from me. But even if he doesn't, I'll still be daddy to him and will gladly enjoy whatever time and effort he chooses to spend with me

Why? Because I see myself in him

Yes... it's the daddy anthropomorphism

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know. I'm always conscious and you can't prove to me otherwise (can you prove to a dead man that he's dead?) - do you mean the subconscious? Either way, my mind would be part of my soul, wouldn't it? Unless my mind is just a collection of electrical signals and hormones washing around responding to each other in completely natural and predictable ways. But what is a decision if not a choice that someone makes?

The unconscious mind is the same thing as, or the precurser to, the subconscious mind. unconscious mind.

I think we are making the same point, only there is an opinion on what we call the end result. The mind works on electrical impulses and hormones, true, but that intangible part is what causes problems. It can be called any name you choose.

The brain works in interesting ways; the right hemisphere is only concerned with sensing the world around us in as much detail as possible, our perception of the world comes from the left hemisphere categorizing all of that raw data into a usable collection of specific entities. This is pretty neat if you have time to watch the whole thing.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...f_insight.html

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It's no different in the case against God. If the claim is that there is no God because there is no feeling that we can know God by, then we have to ask why people claim to feel like he exists in any form.

Ah, I was hoping we could talk about this, it's one of my particular interests within this topic , ( as I mentioned a bit earlier). It could be said that a person's seemingly innate ability to "sense" divinity is no different from the tendency of people of all nationalities and creeds to have a set of "Archetypes" that govern their unconscious (or subconscious) actions. Such archetypes as "the hero", "the father", "the villain", "the nurturer" are characters that occur in some form or another within every person and act as a set of examples, to which we can look to when in need of guidance (or other mundane actions that may apply).

The Archetypes that make up the theoretical "collective unconscious" could be the same place that people develop their feeling that there must be a supreme "father" to all of creation. But it's just a theory that I like to think about, doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What nondescript senses are you talking about that can't be used for a communal discussion but that are necessary to sense God? Do you know what God feels like? If you don't know, can you assume nobody else does? I don't know but reason alone is an indication to me that I am not just what can be scientifically measured and observed.

I just meant that it's common to hear people say that they just "feel" that a god is with them, not that there is a particular physical feeling associated with that. It's a subjective notion, so it's fine if a person wants to reaffirm their beliefs based on that "feeling", but it can't be said that "because one person has a feeling, God exists for all others". Therefore it's not acceptable in public debate until you put some details on it like we have done above.

Great points, btw!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...our perception of the world comes from the left hemisphere categorizing all of that raw data into a usable collection of specific entities...

I hold that the opposite is true. my left hemisphere's categorization of all the raw data I am observing is a result of how I am perceiving it. You'll say my decisions are a result of what is around me, I'll what is around me is a result of my decisions. You could take away my decisions and say what is around me is still going on as usual (but then once again there is the problem of proving that to me since my decision-making has been taken away), but then I could take away what is around me and -oops! well then I guess you wouldn't be around to see what happened to me If God presents himself and nobody recognizes it, is it necessarily because he is unrecognizable?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It could be said that a person's seemingly innate ability to "sense" divinity is no different...

It certainly could be said, and many people say it. If two people sense two contradictory things though, you have to either agree that one or both of them are wrong or that your idea of contradiction is wrong. How could you or I trust someone else's sense for divinity though? You'd have to do that by faith and wonder why you don't have that sense yourself. (I guess?)

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It can't be said that "because one person has a feeling, God exists for all others"

Sure it can! It just won't be the case I think I understand your point though, that the usual way we like to prove or disprove theories is not very useful for making a really strong case for or against God in a setting such as this. But it's still fun and interesting to talk about and who knows maybe the reader and the writer learn a little bit along the way