The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
No more so than the idealism that religious fanatics are pushing in their incessant pursuit of perfection and atonement.

Yes, I agree with you on this, as my prior posts also indicate - all such beliefs are idealistic, separative, and therefore potentially destructive, whether such beliefs are materialistic or theistic.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Could you define "Great Other" and "Elsewhere" according to the context in which you've used those terms? And you phrased "even the Unconditional God" as though you believe in the existence of multiple gods or multiple forms of a god. Please explain this.

When I say "Great Other" I am referring to the myth or idea of a Creator-God that is separate and elsewhere - apart from this world. The same Creator-God idea that you have criticized so much on various threads.

Unconditional Reality is not separate from any conditions but also is not causally related to conditions nor caused by any conditions. Conditions are modifications of the unconditional Reality or absolute conscious light-energy in which conditions arise moment to moment.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'm not just talking about the senses, I'm talking about science in general. Surely I don't need to explain the interaction of science and the five senses? We can create better versions of our senses and abilities using science. I'm not going any further than that because I'm hoping you graduated high school and know this stuff already.

I have already responded to this matter of the limits of science and the senses in my prior posts, and I would appreciate you actually reading them rather than my having to always repeat things for you - such as you asking me at least 3 times in the past what I mean by the "Great Other". You even just asked me to read a post by Wandering Scribe in which he was responding to me and I responded back but did not hear from him again. So you seemingly did not read my responses then, only his.

reply to post by bb23108


Most gods defy the laws of physics. Hence, they are irrelevant to the realm in which such physics exist, i.e. this one. What is this "Great Other" you speak of? I'm pretty sure you invented that term, so forgive me if I'm not exactly educated in your particular branch of religious whackamole.

I'm convinced that the Objective Meta Reality is so far removed from anything we can possibly imagine that ultimately both positions Theist/Atheist are virtually the same. It's like arguing that your left pocket is closer to Proxima Centauri than your right.

At the end of our lives it won't matter what you believed in. All that matters is what you've done with your life. For some people the theistic way is the best path to live a full life, and for some it's the atheist way.

Things get iffy when a certain party claims absolute knowledge/wisdom and tries to forcefully make everybody else believe in their "reality". The beautiful thing is that nobody's reality is the same. Each of us experiences reality differently and therefore Theism and Atheism are empty shells that get filled with your personal weltanschaung and affinity for certain concepts.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
When people speak of their notion of a Creator-God it is always in terms of a Great Other, some Super-Entity, apart from everyone and everything, and always elsewhere. So I call that the myth of the Great Other because such a God does not exist - it is just a myth based on emotional childish needs. In other words, there is no such God in charge of everything, elsewhere and other.

If the Unconditional Reality (in which all conditions are a modification of) could be measured by conditional means, it would not be unconditional. Unconditional Reality cannot be objectified, as conditional objects seemingly can be by a knowing subject. But even that knowing subject of conditional objects cannot ever know what an object actually IS nor what it actually and exactly looks like in reality. Doesn't that make you suspicious of the senses and/or science as some ultimate method of knowing reality or truth?

Are we just going to let our very limited senses and/or scientism dictate what our inherent potential is for recognizing Truth? Is there no possibility that we may have more profound potential inherently for recognizing what science cannot? That is sad indeed, if we allow our lives to be limited and dictated in such a closed and fixed manner. Ah, but I guess that is what the great Religion of Scientific-Materialism fully expects us to believe these days!

And if people here actually think that even discussing such matters, that cannot be proven by science, is irrelevant to this consideration, that is fine too - I am not interested in wasting anyone's time nor mine.

You are thinking of it much to literally, Not realms but demeansions. Quantum physics explains how it works, parallel universes, string theory ties in as well. You don't think anything happens after you die? Please explain to me how you know this because you have never been in an unconscious state of mind once in your life, even when sleeping, Because of this you do not know what not having consciousness is. So you think that when you die that you're consciousness just seizes to exist? explain to me what that is like please?

We'll just leave all this up to interpretation. Nothing gained. Nothing lost.

reply to post by bb23108

If the Unconditional Reality (in which all conditions are a modification of) could be measured by conditional means, it would not be unconditional. Unconditional Reality cannot be objectified, as conditional objects seemingly can be by a knowing subject. But even that knowing subject of conditional objects cannot ever know what an object actually IS nor what it actually and exactly looks like in reality. Doesn't that make you suspicious of the senses and/or science as some ultimate method of knowing reality or truth?

Are we just going to let our very limited senses and/or scientism dictate what our inherent potential is for recognizing Truth? Is there no possibility that we may have more profound potential inherently for recognizing what science cannot? That is sad indeed, if we allow our lives to be limited and dictated in such a closed and fixed manner. Ah, but I guess that is what the great Religion of Scientific-Materialism fully expects us to believe these days!

Do you have a better technique? In the end, we're doing the best with what we have. But some prefer to ignore what we have in favor of what we can imagine. And some versions of reality are more easily verified than others. It's a tricky thing, reality - it's only as reliable as the one who perceives it. And no matter who you are, your reality is always affected more by what's inside of your head than what's outside of it, regardless of what is actually real.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Do you have a better technique? In the end, we're doing the best with what we have. But some prefer to ignore what we have in favor of what we can imagine.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
It seems to me that you haven't fully considered the entirety of what Scribe posted. I believe s/he made direct mention of the senses. If we are unable to conclusively identify the actual existence of a deity with the aid of our five senses, then it bears no relevance to our reality.

I understand this is what Wandering Scribe was stating. But what I am saying about such an attitude or position, which is the one taken by scientific-materialism and generally atheism, is that it is very limited because it assumes that what is external to the being is reality, and then dismisses the rest. As I have said several times, the scientific method has its merits as a means to gain knowledge of external objects, etc. - but as a world view it is very limited, and flawed even.

To only assume the external world is real or relevant is to dismiss the processes of conceptualization and perception - which are actually the only means we even have for experiencing the external world! No one experiences the world of objects directly - but only through the processes of conceptualization and perception, and so, even as science has also found, such processes cannot be fully eliminated from the scientific method.

And to also dismiss as irrelevant one's very being or consciousness itself, in which such processes occur, is another example of how the authority of science is propagandizing its process of dehumanization, or giving relevance, even reality, to only the material world by abstracting our actual internal processes out of the picture.

Science and matters of being, and even of the spirit, need not be in conflict, and actually are not when science is relegated to its rightful place as a useful tool for the discovery of knowledge about external matters. But in terms of truth, the whole being must necessarily fully participate! To only assume the position scientific-materialism promotes is to deny what is essential for the discovery of reality - our self-evident being or consciousness itself.

So why limit oneself in one's consideration of reality by assuming that the materialistic model is truth, when materialism is simply a useful method for the discovery of knowledge (not truth) by science?

reply to post by bb23108

is that it is very limited because it assumes that what is external to the being is reality, and then dismisses the rest.

That's not quite right.

It doesn't dismiss imagination or intuition or conceptualization. It only seeks to explain these phenomena in concrete rather than abstract or euphemistic terms, for clarities sake.

What imagery does "consciousness" or "God" or "soul" or "spirit" conjure? They conjure up nothing, except perhaps some artistic depiction of such things—tangible, visible depictions. It is because they are empty of meaning and are not tied to any concrete perceptible thing or object, and do less to help with understanding reality because they have no connection to anything in reality.

These are why such words are personal and defined personally, because there is no concrete object we can look at and say "look, that's God." They can only serve as empty placeholders for objects or actions we cannot see or understand. They are abstract concepts without concrete reality.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
The point is that scientific-materialism does seek to eliminate one's actual being from the consideration of truth by methodically dismissing the self-evident processes of conceptualization, perception, consciousness, and being itself. This is the very method of science.

Scientific-materialism is simply a technique for discovering knowledge, not truth. Materialism is an enclosed logical argument that allows this dismissal by assuming everything "internal" is dependent on (and even subservient to) external conditions. And yet we already know this logic is inherently flawed in terms of actual truth - as one's being is self-evident and is the only context in which we even experience anything.

Why allow this elimination of one's self-evident being from the discovery of what is actually the truth?

reply to post by bb23108

Materialism is an enclosed logical argument that allows this dismissal by assuming everything is dependent on (and even subservient to) external conditions as the only reality.

What internal conditions do you feel these views exclude?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Thank you. That's exactly what I am saying, in regards to this exact application of religion.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
What internal conditions do you feel these views exclude?

Scientific-materialism seeks to eliminate all "internal" processes of the being - e.g., conceptualization, perception, consciousness - as such processes might interfere with the study of the external object(s). This complete elimination has been found to be impossible, and also that such "internal" processes can and do affect results.

No one is actually ever directly knowing any external object - we only experience objects via these so-called internal processes, which cannot even be said to be truly internal because it is the only reality we actually experience. And why do we presume a casing of bone around the brain determines what is internal versus what is external? It is just arbitrary, and in fact your so-called internal processes to you are just as external to me as any other external object is.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
What imagery does "consciousness" or "God" or "soul" or "spirit" conjure? They conjure up nothing, except perhaps some artistic depiction of such things—tangible, visible depictions. It is because they are empty of meaning and are not tied to any concrete perceptible thing or object, and do less to help with understanding reality because they have no connection to anything in reality.

It is imageless, it is nothing so the words used describe it do so quite well in my opinion.
Words are used when we point at 'things'. We look at 'things' And we see 'things'.
But what is it that is observing, seeing, noticing? Have a look - does it have an shape or form, an image?

The image is constantly changing, 'things' come and go, noises come and go , thoughts arise and flow. The existence that is experienced is transitory. Apparent existence is a flowing formless form that appears to get shaped and formed by words and concepts, ideas and beliefs.
However, that which is noticing is always the same - it is constant. Have you ever know a time when it wasn't?

reply to post by bb23108

The point is that scientific-materialism does seek to eliminate one's actual being from the consideration of truth by methodically dismissing the self-evident processes of conceptualization, perception, consciousness, and being itself. This is the very method of science.

Surely you realize that this is to preserve objectivity by eliminating subjectivity? Subjectivity taints scientific processes in that it allows room for what we believe or what we want or what we think we know, rather than what actually is. An art teacher I had once said, "Draw what you see, not what you know."

That's what science is. Facts based purely on objective critical observation, pushed to the absolute limits of human capability. What you're suggesting is allowing facts to be tainted by our desire to ignore that which doesn't fit, or assume something that would be nice if it were real. That's not science, that's make-believe.

Scientific-materialism is simply a technique for discovering knowledge, not truth. Materialism is an enclosed logical argument that allows this dismissal by assuming everything "internal" is dependent on (and even subservient to) external conditions. And yet we already know this logic is inherently flawed in terms of actual truth - as one's being is self-evident and is the only context in which we even experience anything.

If science, our most objective and critical method of investigation, does not reveal truth...then nothing will. Again, you are preferring a more convenient and manipulative method of defining our reality, and that's not what science is about. Science isn't about feeling good. It's about knowing what's real and what isn't.

sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Definition of SCIENCE
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Everything that exists has some sort of physical trail or trademark. That's called the laws of physics. If you aren't satisfied with the science we have, then reinvent it. As a wise man once said: "If you want the world to beat a path to your door, build a better mouse trap."

Why allow this elimination of one's self-evident being from the discovery of what is actually the truth?

Quite simply, because humans aren't known for preferring the truth over a convenient lie. Surely you don't need an explanation for that one.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Why do you insist on believing that the scientific method can possibly discover real truth? It simply discovers factual knowledge about various objects and processes. Certainly you do not equate such knowledge with truth, do you?

Science will never tell us what anything actually IS. Science can only describe what some thing's characteristics, processes, and properties are, but not what it actually IS, in reality altogether. So science clearly has its limits - and that it is about the discovery of knowledge, not of the real truth of all arising.

Truth must encompass all - not just some objectification of objects into various categories of knowledge, as science does. So truth is beyond the conventions of knowing an object as some kind of external something. If you can objectify truth or reality, it means it does not include you, and thus cannot be truth. Nothing can be separate from truth ultimately. And so it takes what is beyond the scientific method to discover actual truth.

All that I am criticizing about scientific-materialism is that people are assuming it as the best grounds for discovering actual truth, when in fact it is only taking into account one aspect of our reality, the so-called external world - and is basically a motivated search to gain knowledge and control due to man's fear of the unknown, rather than as a means for actually discovering truth. And yes, I do recognize that science has its place and has made great and helpful discoveries, but unfortunately, man has also used such discoveries in terribly destructive ways.

To eliminate being and consciousness from the equation will never allow the truth beyond scientific-materialism to be discovered - so why dismiss being and consciousness when they are self-evident to you?

reply to post by bb23108

Science will never tell us what anything actually IS.

Neither will anything else.

Is science an answer? No. It is concerned with the naming and classification of objects and events. It observes, it doesn't know, nor does it claim to. It is a tool.

Science is limited because we are limited.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Neither will anything else.

How can you know this? Why presume that? That is the limit of scientific-materialism but not necessarily the limit of being or consciousness. You have to go beyond the limits of materialism, subject over against object knowing, etc., to understand this. Even if you don't understand this now, why assume that you never can?

This self-imposed limit is the main thing I am criticizing here - and seems to be a direct result of people assuming scientific-materialism as truth rather than what it actually is - simply a method of gaining some knowledge about objects.

reply to post by bb23108

How can you know this? Why presume that? That is the limit of scientific-materialism but not necessarily the limit of being or consciousness. You have to go beyond the limits of materialism, subject over against object knowing, etc., to understand this. Even if you don't understand this now, why assume that you never can?

The same way you presume the opposite—through experience, language, the senses, reason and the tools of understanding. Except I have understood my senses and the appearances they bring to be more valid than perhaps you have. I don't rely on intuition, hopes and desires, because they have only ever led me astray. The apparent world has always been there for me; I don't choose to deny it because of mere possibility, or because I favor something that appeals more to my emotions.