Introduction,
Paul and I have had -- and still have -- our differences of opinion mainly on the issue of 'freewill vs. determinism' but I enjoy his counter-arguments and differences of opinion just the same. Here is a sample of his style and content of philosophical argument. Also, I thank Paul for keeping up with his emails not only for the content of his feedback, and the development of his own ideas, but also -- and yes this is a 'narcissistic reason' -- partly because as in this case, I have accidently lost or deleted one of my essays, or an old version of one of my essays and then been able to recover it again through our emails. db
.....................................................................................
Hello Dave,
Whoa, I think you need a break!!!! Just kidding. You asked more
questions
than I believe you answered for sure. I have read it once, and will
read it
again. I can follow this, mostly at least, because I am not as
intimately
familiar with the works and teachings of these philosophers and such as
you
are. Even though I have only a partial understanding, I can grasp the
concepts rather easily and can understand the dilemma that you are
questioning. And in that light I would like to respond in my own rather
simplified way of reasoning and understanding of man and our existence.
Of
course you know my position, and I know yours, contrasting styles in
many
ways, not only in presentation but also conceptually.
You reference God in such a variety of ways that you definitely are
struggling with the concept of his existence. You even to some extent
question his existence. God is alive, God is everything, God is dead,
and
God is nothing. Does that clear it up for you????? Let me explain if I
can
in a more detailed way.
God is alive in the sense that he plays a very important role in our
society. God(s) has/have been the explanation for everything that man
in his
limited wisdom has been unable to explain. If I don't know, it must be
God
sent, or created by God, or at the hands of God, or the work of God.
God has
also been associated with everything that man considers good, just as
the
Devil is associated with evil. Blind faith in God is a very strong
influence
for man. A belief, especially a strong one, no matter what the source
is, or
its verifiability, its origin, SP, IP, religion or whatever, is real to
man
and drives man's actions. Based on the fact that he exerts such a
strong
indirect influence in society, he is very much alive.
God is everything. God is responsible for everything that we know,
everything we see, feel, dream, every experience, and every event in
our
lives. God is responsible for the evolution of everything in man's
existence, good, evil, finite, infinite, pleasure and pain, physical
and
mental, therefore being the creator, his is everything that evolution
has
produced. He is all positive and negative energies. Polar concepts just
like
so many other things in our lives. God is also the energy that drives
it
all, the light, electromagnetic, sound, and every other influence that
the
scientists have been able to discover, conceptualize and those they
have yet
to imagine. It all ties together to form our existence. God truly is
everything. God is Nature, not just earthly nature, but the natural
order of
things, physics laws, etc.
God is dead. In man's limited understanding of our existence, God is
totally
an indirect influence, he is a creator, but not a controller. By not
having
direct influence, he could easily be considered dead. We can not
imagine his
being, we can not understand his power or influence. We truly do not
know
God for what he really is. Failing to understand, failing to define,
failing
to find any verifiable evidence of his existence, in human terms God is
dead. Do we have any physical evidence to support anything that has
been
conceived to be God?
God is nothing. There is no God except as having been defined by
scripture.
His influence is only imaginary, that is, being only an influence
because
man has defined him as an influence in many ways through the
scriptures. He
has basically only been defined in man's mind. God neither controls nor
manipulates anything. He is purely creation, that is all. By
definition,
things without influence of any kind are deemed non-existent, for every
other known thing in our existence exerts influence of some kind. A
vacuum,
void of any element of any kind is considered sterile, nothingness,
much
like the vast majority of space found in our universe.
Religion is philosophy, both are based on pure beliefs, faith,
conceptualizations of the unproveable. Politics and law are man created
philosophies, but based on the individual IP's of those that created
them,
similar to religion except that religion is based on perceptions of an
unknown, while politics and law are based more upon a democratic
process of
creation. Science is also based on perceptions, but grounded in
empirical
evidence, thereby differentiating it from religion which is based upon
conjecture. Lacking in many ways a democratic process of creation, it
also
differs from politics and law. They are similar in the respect to the
influence they carry on our beliefs, our IP, and SP in general. All are
intricate to the creation of all other philosophies, individual and
social.
Man's is an emotional and mental mess, driven by so many humanly
natural
desires which are all based on what we consider polar concepts. The
internal
struggle is very real for it is based on our beliefs, real or
imaginary, and
they are what drive our IP and our resulting actions and our paths in
life.
This is the basis of all human existence. To say that any one is better
or
worse than another is purely subjective, for they are all natural and
all
purely human desires and emotions. To grade them as good or bad is to
measure them in light of SP. SP exists in all forms with extremely
varying
concepts. To Americans, SP is grounded in totally different
fundamentals
than anywhere else in the world. All SPs are developed from collective
IP of
their creators, so each is based on equal ground. So how can we stand
in
judgment of SP's that are different from our own? Were they not created
from
the same source, from the same creator, God, since he is ultimately
responsible for our entire existence? Does he judge one over another?
Does
he not influence the creation of all, dare I say through the natural
evolution of everything? So how can we judge what he does not? Man is
the
embodiment of all desires, yes I agree with you on that, and that is
such a
natural thing that we dare not argue with that, but is that bad or
wrong? I
say not!!!!!!
Does that mean I have to accept everything that is against what I
believe?
No again. My IP is my personal guide, just as with everyone else. If I
perceive injustice, it is my choice to react or to let live. If the
injustice is such that I feel the need to react, to counteract the pain
created for others, then that is my prerogative, just as everyone has
the
choice to act according to their own IP.
Humans are perfect. Humans are terribly flawed. Humans are everything
that
we are, nothing more or less than we were created to be. We live as we
must,
and die when we will. We have little control over our birth and almost
as
little control over our death. We live, we breathe, we learn, we
develop, we
are inhabited by an IP that is created and formulated from genetics and
environment, and it guides our actions until one day we live no more.
This
totally natural process occurs mostly with minimal control. We suffer,
we
rejoice, we feel for others while ignoring most of what happens around
us,
we exist in a world that could end through no fault of our own. Our
time is
limited, highly controlled by nature, and in that respect we are
terribly
flawed.
I have read your poem, "God is the Bridge." You basically admit to the
fact
that everything is connected. You talked about an absolute, a meaning
to it
all, the essence of our existence, which is basically the concept that
I
have tried to impress upon you from the beginning. Everything is
connected
through nature. Man, earth, God and the entire universe. There is a
bridge
and it is a very simple concept, the absolute meaning of it all.
Everything
you wrote is true, you just can't seem to take the final leap and give
up
the notion of control. To be totally connected, to be totally equal, to
be
totally bridged, we must come to a single thread of truth about our
existence. All men were created equal, in fact, everything in our
existence
was created equally, all emotions and desires are equal, all are
evolved,
all are uncontrollable (in a very basic sense), and all interact in a
way
that drives our existence, our evolution, our creation and our demise.
If
you take away any single part of our existence, things will change, the
evolution will be altered and forever cast in a new light. It doesn't
matter
what that thing is, it impacts. Our thoughts will change, our beliefs
will
be altered, our actions will shift, and all this shifts the evolution
for
everyone. Every single action is accounted for, every single thought is
accounted for, every single physical/natural event is accounted for and
it
all occurs in the same natural environment known as the evolution of
our
existence.
But you are wrong about one statement you made. It takes two to start a
war,
not just one. If I have something you want, and I am not willing to
give it
to you voluntarily, then I am contributing to the war. If I have
beliefs
that make it impossible for me to cede control or to give up, then I am
also
creating the war. For if you hit me, and I do not hit back, there would
be
no war. So to say that one person can create war is wrong. Many people
tried
to create war on Jesus, and his apostles, but without retaliatory
efforts,
there was no war. This sometimes leads to an extermination effort, such
as
the Jews in Germany, or the Crusades, or many other similar actions by
insane humans, but that is not war. Just like they say it takes two to
tango, it takes two to start a war. I could go much deeper into this,
but
time does not permit that here.
You fear that you may be considered an evangelist (maybe an
exaggeration),
but when you consider that you are attempting to influence people
concerning
concepts that are highly personal in nature, the way we feel, what we
believe, then yes you could be considered in that light. When you try
to
tell others that what they are doing or what they believe or feel is
wrong,
then you are seen in a very similar light. If you hold yourself to a
strictly objective level and present facts without judgment (for that
is a
very personal and subjective thing) then you will be okay. You can
influence
without criticism, for people get defensive when you tell them that
what
they believe is wrong, or bad. Do not insult someone's intelligence by
telling them that their personal beliefs are wrong, let them figure it
out
for themselves. If I read what you write and am influenced by it, then
that
is okay, but don't ever tell me what to believe or that what I believe
is
wrong, at least not directly. Stay objective, present facts and let
people
do with that information what they want, or what they will.
God and nature are one in the same, man is a byproduct of those forces
that
were created billions of years ago, by whom, or what I do not know. But
I do
believe that everything has all evolved and is continually evolving,
being
and becoming. We never will be, we are always becoming.
Personally, I rather enjoyed reading through your personal dilemma. Is
that
morbid for me to enjoy your personal struggle? I think it is wonderful
that
you are curious enough to push the envelope of our limited
comprehension,
seeking enlightenment. You crave knowledge and understanding and that
is a
great personal attribute to have. The struggle of comprehension is the
pain
which makes the gains all that more enjoyable, for without
understanding
suffering, we know not joy. I, like you, understand the connection
between
conflict, the challenging dialectic that builds bridges of
understanding.
The greater the bridge, the closer we get to the "absolute". Keep up
the
construction, one day you may find what gives you peace, the inner
peace
that comes from an ultimate understanding of our existence. In that
search
somewhere, you will realize the importance that acceptance of the
uncontrollable plays in that. I may hold different beliefs, but my
level of
inner peace is very high, and that is what all humans seek, for with
that
comes the ability to be happy, to grow, expand and reach our true
potential.
The negatives surrounding the unknown fade and all energies are focused
on
positive growth and greater peace.
Did I grasp your concepts well enough, I could have addressed each
statement
individually, but I felt that I understood enough to cover my response
in a
broader sense. Was I right or did I miss the whole point?
Good luck and back to you,
Paul
.....................................................................................
The main purpose of any humanistic religion -- as I see it -- is to counter-balance man's propensity for selfishness, greed, excess, egotism and narcissism with the opposite characteristics such as altruism, caring, love, generosity, helping people who are struggling, moderation, ethics and morality. Much of this is supposed to be taught in families and at school as well being demonstrated by good role models in society such as politicians. But as religion loses power and narcissism gains power - espcially when kids see narcissism rampant at home with parents who are not getting along and/or not spending enough time at home, all of the characteristics designed to counteract human narcissism start to lose their power as well. Humanism dies the more narcissism prevails. There are two types of 'anti-humanism'. One is the anti-humanism of 'self-denial'. The second is the anti-humanism of 'narcissistic excess'. Both need to be balanced in the middle by a combination of 'self-assertiveness' and 'social sensitivity'.
Religion is still feeling the fallout of Nietzsche. Nietzsche bombarded Christiianity and Judaism with his criticisms of a 'religious herd morality' and 'the preaching of self-denial' in this life in order to atone for 'original sin' and to be accepted by God into a much better 'afterlife'. Nietzsche in particular and humanists in general protested that this was all 'balderdash' - and a waste of human life. Individualism and enjoying this life should be the ideal; not the condemned. Gradually, people took more and more heed, and orthodox religion lost more and more power.
However, as Hegel has written, and I am partly paraphrasing, 'Any theory, any philosophy, any lifestyle, any religion carries with it the seeds of its own destruction'. The limitations, weaknesses, hypocrisies, and anti-humanism of religion was exposed by Nietzsche but so too is the philosophy of Nietzsche and current Western culture and society showing all the limitations, weaknesses, hypocrisies, and anti-humanism of too much Nietzsche and too much narcissism. Ethical narcissism is leading us to to the brink of ethical nihilism.
The solution to the problem is simpler in theory than it is in practice: balance. I will try to capture the spirit of this balance and the spirit of 'humanistic religion, spirituality, deism, and/or pantheism' in the following poem that I wrote a few years ago and have been updating ever since. It is called: 'God Is The Bridge'. It idealizes balance as the 'bridge and the zone of health between pathological extremes'.
No comments:
Post a Comment