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

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by met » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:40 pm

Kane Augustus wrote:
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
I think - as someone like Urbie would say -- there may be a difference between the essential qualities of 'Being' and it's accidental qualities (ie whether Jesus and/or Krishna embodied it as people ). Meta's "ground of being' args aim to establish only those essential qualities. ... The subtler thing. ... The essense. ... The gist ot it. (Therefore, sensibly leaves questions like whether Mohamed, Buddha or Jesus best represent it aside until the thing itself - the ground of Being -is established.)
Kane Augustus wrote: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?
Coulsd that be like asking "why does 2+2= 4?"

If Being really does have depth, then it does.
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

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:37 pm

met wrote:
Kane Augustus wrote:
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
I think - as someone like Urbie would say -- there may be a difference between the essential qualities of 'Being' and it's accidental qualities (ie whether Jesus and/or Krishna embodied it as people ). Meta's "ground of being' args aim to establish only those essential qualities. ... The subtler thing. ... The essense. ... The gist ot it. (Therefore, sensibly leaves questions like whether Mohamed, Buddha or Jesus best represent it aside until the thing itself - the ground of Being -is established.)
Kane Augustus wrote: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?
Coulsd that be like asking "why does 2+2= 4?"

If Being really does have depth, then it does.
You seem to be having a monologue, met. Can you tell me how what you've written relates to my original concerns, and my continued repetition of those concerns?

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by met » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:19 pm

.... IOW, do those various religious traditions and subjective individual opinions you're bringing up all point - in any way at all - to the same thing?
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

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:43 pm

met wrote:.... IOW, do those various religious traditions and subjective individual opinions you're bringing up all point - in any way at all - to the same thing?
According to some of those traditions I've listed: yes. For example, Hinduism may see all other interpretations of God/gods as an augmentation of their own narratives and pantheon. For the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the answer is certainly "no." Written into the fabric of monotheisms is the claim to exclusivity: their god and no other.

So, again, which God or gods are being referred to? Unless that can be established, this conversation has no lift. Capice?

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by met » Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:23 pm

Kane Augustus wrote:
met wrote:.... IOW, do those various religious traditions and subjective individual opinions you're bringing up all point - in any way at all - to the same thing?
According to some of those traditions I've listed: yes. For example, Hinduism may see all other interpretations of God/gods as an augmentation of their own narratives and pantheon. For the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the answer is certainly "no." Written into the fabric of monotheisms is the claim to exclusivity: their god and no other.

So, again, which God or gods are being referred to? Unless that can be established, this conversation has no lift. Capice?
Hmmmm. But that 's not how knowledge works, not even knowledge of (relatively) simple, earthly topics, much less knowledge of the transcendent. Eg, in science does every theory have to be 100% correct and conclusive or completely invalid? All our knowledge is partial and provisional. Including our knowledge of God(s).

... (and there are millions of peeps on the planet who disagree with you about the exclusivity of the fabric of monotheism too, btw)
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

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:46 pm

met wrote:Hmmmm. But that 's not how knowledge works, not even knowledge of (relatively) simple, earthly topics, much less knowledge of the transcendent.
What theory of knowledge are you using to manage your thoughts? What is your epistemology?
met wrote:Eg, in science does every theory have to be 100% correct and conclusive or completely invalid? All our knowledge is partial and provisional. Including our knowledge of God(s).
No, scientific theories do not all "have to be 100% correct and conclusive or completely invalid." The difference between comparing the sciences with what you termed "transcendent" earlier in your response to me is that you are comparing what is known (science) to what is self-confessedly -- and essentially -- unknown (transcendent). Science can derive knowledge from combining and subtracting from what is known, or observable. But how can what is transcendent become in any way, even partially, knowledge? Or to put it anecdotally, I can run a test with the carrots on the table to determine the rate of movement of water molecules within its cells, but I can't test anything at all about the alleged existence of a super-being that is testified as transcending detectability (i.e., God is transcendent).
met wrote:... (and there are millions of peeps on the planet who disagree with you about the exclusivity of the fabric of monotheism too, btw)
I appreciate that people have beliefs. I don't want to demean the meaningfulness of those beliefs in people's lives. I do have some questions that, at least to me, seem relevant. Nevertheless, I cannot gain gain understanding when appeals to popularity, such as the one you stated above, are given as reasons to reconsider my position. It doesn't matter that millions of people would disagree with me about the exclusivity of their religion; it matters what the religion itself states; the official dogmas. Christianity has a few different views on salvation, for example: inclusivism, exclusivism, and universalism (with some shades of variance between those positions). However, Christian holy writ is decidedly exclusivist, and the major Western traditions of Christianity (Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinist theologies) promote exclusivism despite their soft-spoken pew warmers who may have speculations between friends around the salad table.

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:57 am

No, scientific theories do not all "have to be 100% correct and conclusive or completely invalid." The difference between comparing the sciences with what you termed "transcendent" earlier in your response to me is that you are comparing what is known (science) to what is self-confessedly -- and essentially -- unknown (transcendent). Science can derive knowledge from combining and subtracting from what is known, or observable. But how can what is transcendent become in any way, even partially, knowledge? Or to put it anecdotally, I can run a test with the carrots on the table to determine the rate of movement of water molecules within its cells, but I can't test anything at all about the alleged existence of a super-being that is testified as transcending detectability (i.e., God is transcendent).

we have talked about different aspects of theological method that allow us to discuss "the unknown." The aspect of science being used as the gate keeper of all reality and kicking out anything that doesn't conform to the appellation "scientific knowledge" is just setting up preconceived categories that enshrine the subject/object dichotomy and that in itself is what Heidegger calls "metaphysics."

Science is a social construct. The universe doesn't come with little labels on it, we should allow the phenomena to suggest it's own categories.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:19 am

Kane Augustus wrote:I appreciate that people have beliefs. I don't want to demean the meaningfulness of those beliefs in people's lives. I do have some questions that, at least to me, seem relevant. Nevertheless, I cannot gain gain understanding when appeals to popularity, such as the one you stated above, are given as reasons to reconsider my position. It doesn't matter that millions of people would disagree with me about the exclusivity of their religion; it matters what the religion itself states; the official dogmas. Christianity has a few different views on salvation, for example: inclusivism, exclusivism, and universalism (with some shades of variance between those positions). However, Christian holy writ is decidedly exclusivist, and the major Western traditions of Christianity (Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinist theologies) promote exclusivism despite their soft-spoken pew warmers who may have speculations between friends around the salad table.
Everyone forgets the orthodox church. From what I have read there is a somewhat universalist tendency in that church.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7 ... vation.php
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by met » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:25 pm

Metacrock wrote:" The aspect of science being used as the gate keeper of all reality and kicking out anything that doesn't conform to the appellation "scientific knowledge" is just setting up preconceived categories that enshrine the subject/object dichotomy and that in itself is what Heidegger calls "metaphysics."
Meta, great answer!! :D Thanks for doing that. U made it easy for me.

mdsimpson92 wrote:
Kane Augustus wrote:I appreciate that people have beliefs. I don't want to demean the meaningfulness of those beliefs in people's lives. I do have some questions that, at least to me, seem relevant. Nevertheless, I cannot gain gain understanding when appeals to popularity, such as the one you stated above, are given as reasons to reconsider my position. It doesn't matter that millions of people would disagree with me about the exclusivity of their religion; it matters what the religion itself states; the official dogmas. Christianity has a few different views on salvation, for example: inclusivism, exclusivism, and universalism (with some shades of variance between those positions). However, Christian holy writ is decidedly exclusivist, and the major Western traditions of Christianity (Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinist theologies) promote exclusivism despite their soft-spoken pew warmers who may have speculations between friends around the salad table.
Everyone forgets the orthodox church. From what I have read there is a somewhat universalist tendency in that church.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7 ... vation.php
I'm also not sure the 'offical pulpit' version of xianity should be blaniketly considered the 'official' one - assumed to hold the definite position of the faith - as our true founder, Christ, neither wrote any of the writs nor founded any of the institutions. Also, what both the 'writs' and the traditions say (about redemption/salvation/reconciliation or what-have-you) is far more complex than u suggest here, Kane. We've been arguing amounst ourselves about those kinds of things since the very beginning. ( And if I wasn't feeling so summery and lazy, I might even cut 'n paste some stuff to demonstrate that to you...) :o
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

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

Re: neo-existentialism

Post by Kane Augustus » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:09 pm

mdsimpson92 wrote:Everyone forgets the orthodox church. From what I have read there is a somewhat universalist tendency in that church.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7 ... vation.php
I didn't forget the Orthodox church. I purposefully included the dominant Western traditions because I'm not very familiar with the Eastern Orthodox church. I do know that, like you suggested, the EOC tends toward universalism, which is expressed through their concept of the divination of humanity. As a non-Christian, I can say that that concept is far more appealing than what is taught in the other denominations I listed.

Post Reply