neo-existentialism

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Socius
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:50 am

neo-existentialism

Post by Socius » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:07 pm

Does anyone know about or can tell me more about neo-existentialism? I found this http://maritimelogotherapy.org/wp-conte ... ialism.pdf but am looking for more info
socius

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge" - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Metacrock » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:18 pm

Socius wrote:Does anyone know about or can tell me more about neo-existentialism? I found this http://maritimelogotherapy.org/wp-conte ... ialism.pdf but am looking for more info

never heard of it. I really don't see why he uses the term existentialism. I see this as more of an era of reductionism.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by sgttomas » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:42 am

Life is inherently meaningful. We necessarily search for a meaning for our existence. We are compelled to it. We resolve it somehow. The most spiritually healthy resolution is in God.

I don't know about this person in particular, but this is a principle at the core of my beliefs if you want to explore it further.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:35 pm

sgttomas wrote:Life is inherently meaningful. We necessarily search for a meaning for our existence. We are compelled to it. We resolve it somehow. The most spiritually healthy resolution is in God.
I agree with very little of you wrote. I take difference on two main points:
  • 1) I think meaning is self-determined, not externally imposed. Thus we can search for a meaning all we want, but until we get it in our heads that we are our own meaning, and that we choose our meaning, we'll be searching in vain;

    2) Stating that "the most spiritually healthy resolution is in God" says nothing: what is God? Which particular God/gods? Why not the recognition that we are all energetic beings vibrating at certain frequencies that may or may not match up with universal resonance (à la James Redfield's Celestine Prophesy)? What are you referring to when you refer to "God"?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Metacrock » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:51 am

The question "which particular God" is really the question of traditions. Which participial Take on God, or which religious tradition?

they are relative. They are right and they are all wrong. There is one true reality behind them all that can only be experienced it can't be understood. All our understanding is metaphor. We the metaphors do point to the reality which can be experienced.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:59 pm

Metacrock wrote:The question "which particular God" is really the question of traditions. Which participial Take on God, or which religious tradition?

they are relative. They are right and they are all wrong. There is one true reality behind them all that can only be experienced it can't be understood. All our understanding is metaphor. We the metaphors do point to the reality which can be experienced.
This goes back to your concurence with Tillich's "ground of being." That is, I know you of old to promote the notion that "God" is the ground of being. I don't have a problem with that definition per se, but such a notion really doesn't differentiate God as you see God from God as, say, New Agers who view God as the all-source; or Hindus and their Atman-Brahman; or Deepak Chopra-ists who envision God as an infinite, yet singular quantum source.

So we're right back to where we started when I originally critiqued sgttomas's post: which particular God? What are you defining as God? And why should I accept your definition as in any way more correspondent to reality than anyone else's? And by "you" and "your", I mean people in general.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by met » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:16 pm

Kane Augustus wrote:
Metacrock wrote:The question "which particular God" is really the question of traditions. Which participial Take on God, or which religious tradition?

they are relative. They are right and they are all wrong. There is one true reality behind them all that can only be experienced it can't be understood. All our understanding is metaphor. We the metaphors do point to the reality which can be experienced.
This goes back to your concurence with Tillich's "ground of being." That is, I know you of old to promote the notion that "God" is the ground of being. I don't have a problem with that definition per se, but such a notion really doesn't differentiate God as you see God from God as, say, New Agers who view God as the all-source; or Hindus and their Atman-Brahman; or Deepak Chopra-ists who envision God as an infinite, yet singular quantum source.

So we're right back to where we started when I originally critiqued sgttomas's post: which particular God? What are you defining as God? And why should I accept your definition as in any way more correspondent to reality than anyone else's? And by "you" and "your", I mean people in general.
What exactly distinguishes those different envisionings of God, KA? How compatible/incompatible are they? (before u critique Meta for imposing HIS version of God, i think u have to demonstrate why it's incompatible, in its core essence, with those others...)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Metacrock » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:30 am

Kane Augustus wrote:
Metacrock wrote:The question "which particular God" is really the question of traditions. Which participial Take on God, or which religious tradition?

they are relative. They are right and they are all wrong. There is one true reality behind them all that can only be experienced it can't be understood. All our understanding is metaphor. We the metaphors do point to the reality which can be experienced.
This goes back to your concurence with Tillich's "ground of being." That is, I know you of old to promote the notion that "God" is the ground of being.
not exactly but they do fit together.

I don't have a problem with that definition per se, but such a notion really doesn't differentiate God as you see God from God as, say, New Agers who view God as the all-source; or Hindus and their Atman-Brahman; or Deepak Chopra-ists who envision God as an infinite, yet singular quantum source.
since the real thing is beyond our understanding, metaphor is the best we can do for talking about it, what's the big deal? maybe we should get together on our metaphors, but talk to them about it.


So we're right back to where we started when I originally critiqued sgttomas's post: which particular God? What are you defining as God? And why should I accept your definition as in any way more correspondent to reality than anyone else's? And by "you" and "your", I mean people in general.
[/quote]


Not exactly. The point about the turth of God is that it is to be experienced.It's not about words on paper. It doesn't' matter if our concepts differ or if we get something wrong. The real dividing line is Jesus. Becuase Jesus was a concrete guy who lived in history then him we can discuss.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:47 am

met wrote:What exactly distinguishes those different envisionings of God, KA? How compatible/incompatible are they? (before u critique Meta for imposing HIS version of God, i think u have to demonstrate why it's incompatible, in its core essence, with those others...)
No. Seeking clarification on whose God we're talking about doesn't require that I demonstrate the incompatibility between competing metanarratives. Your first question -- "What exactly distinguishes those different envisionings of God...?" -- is exactly what I was asking. It may be a matter of semantics, yes. However, semantics are necessary for understanding and parsing information. As I'm fond of defining it to my children: semantics let us know we're up to the same antics.

Cheers!
Kane

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:53 am

Metacrock wrote:not exactly but they do fit together.
Okay.
since the real thing is beyond our understanding, metaphor is the best we can do for talking about it, what's the big deal? maybe we should get together on our metaphors, but talk to them about it.
If the real thing is beyond our understanding, how do you point to it even in metaphor? My experience could simply be that the all-pervading Inclacle made me feel warm and fuzzy. The difference between what I felt in that experience and what I state motivated that experience (the all-pervading Inclacle) is quite vast. There has to be some kind of information objective to myself that links my experience to the all-pervading Inclacle, doesn't there? If not, how does one distinguish between the subjective claims of one individual from the next?
Not exactly. The point about the turth of God is that it is to be experienced.It's not about words on paper. It doesn't' matter if our concepts differ or if we get something wrong.
I addressed this above with my example of the all-pervading Inclacle. However, I will ask, why does it not "matter if our concepts differ or if we get something wrong"?
The real dividing line is Jesus. Becuase Jesus was a concrete guy who lived in history then him we can discuss.
The Budda existed in history, too. As did Mohammed. Why aren't those two individuals the dividing line? Why Jesus above them?

Post Reply