Views on Christianity

[FatVin]

To jet_king:

No, I got your point. I simply disagree. Existentialism was fine in the 19th century. It had it's own, dogma of sorts, "Don't believe in what you can't experience" but here in the 21st century, there is too much out there that we know to be real but can't be experienced by the average person for existentialism to hold water. It is IMO far too simplistic to lump in the idea of spirituality with superstition, which is what existentialism attempted to do, for the record, Nietzsche was syphlitic, Heidegger was a raging drunk and Blake abused morphine.

I find it stunning that a person can believe that the chair upon which you sit is nothing more than a whirling mass of particles. You can't see these particles, as individuals, nor can you, with the naked eye, detect the electromagnetic bonds that science claims to hold them together, yet with out thinking, you walked into the room and sat in the chair confident of it's ability to suspend gravity, That's faith, my friend.

We believe in lots of things we can't see. You flick a light switch with absolute certainty that the light will come on, you can't even see the wires that connect the switch to the light bulb, let alone the process of electricity that makes the filiment inside the bulb glow, yet you flick th switch with absolute confidence and the light comes on.

Yet the existentialists would have me believe that life is, in and of itself an accident, a curious anomoly of chemical processes, without order or purpose and that human intelligence is the be all, end all.

The best human intelligence once said that man would never fly, then it said that man could never breech the sound barrier, then it said that man could never walk upon the moon (or are we gonna dispute THAT?) all were wrong and so are the existentialists.

It is IMO more logical to believe in some greater intelligence, some power greater than man (or woman, I say this to head off the PC bullshit). In fact, and I think I've made this point earlier, if people get too involved in the definition of spitiual thought, they foul it up with Dogma.

[FatVin]

Sorry to douple dip here but let me expound:

This is NOT to say that atheism for whatever reason is not to be tolerated. Some Supreme Court justice or other once said that "Freedom OF religion presumes Freedom FROM religion" and I would think that applies to any mode of spritual thought. What I am saying is that having read ol' Freddy and a few other existentialist thinkers, IMO existentialism represents 19th century thinking and simply doesn't hold much philosphical water. However I will say this:

"There is a principle that is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that principle is contempt prior to investigation" - Herbert Spencer

[jet_king]

Both you guys are great! It's fun to talk philosophy with people who are passionate and relatively well informed.

Be careful, Bassist_25, of over-generalizing (I too fall prey to this!). Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist because he never denied existence; in fact, he championed it. And Heidegger wasn’t a phenomenologist because he wasn’t totally void of “spiritual essence;” it was Edmund Husserl who was responsible for that.

And Vin, I totally respect your views. I don’t, however, find Existentialism to be archaic or irrelevant in modern times; in fact, as science continues to stretch its boundaries, mysticism becomes less and less plausible from my vantage point . . . but touché: we could talk this to death (in circles), hence the beauty of the human mind and of the unknown. May some semblance of it survive in tact for all time (the unknown, that is!).

By the way, a nice quote from Spenser. It's very appropriate to your position as Spenser was always unable to totally let go of what he couldn't see and deal with what he could (exclusively).

Peace ~

[bassist_25]

I guess existentialism speaks to me for two reasons. The first would be the "Existence Preceeds Essence" maxim and the second would be the emphasis on empiricism over rationalism.

I currently have no evidence that suggests that life has any intrinsic meaning. I'm not denying that life has meaning. It very may well. Actually, I hope that life has meaning. Hell, I actually died when I was younger and came back. I hope that I came back to do something worthwhile. But all I can be sure is that I currently exist right here in this moment. If I live my life according to something that I can't empirically verfiy, then I may be denying myself a satisfying experience. Trying to rationalize the world and its "meaning" just proves how "absurd" it is. For example, a guy I know just lost a bunch of friends in an auto accident. Two kids thought it would be fun to play Fast and Furious on a highway and wound up either killing or clinically harming his friends who were in another car. If you try to look for any spiritual meaning in that, it just seems absurd.

I wrote a paper that was Existentialism vs. Rationalism. I once posted it here in the "Monkeys" thread, but I'll post it again. Take into account that I don't claim to be a philosopher. I'm sure a grad student could tear this thing apart. I wanted to embellish a lot of the thoughts, but I was under a tight dead-line, and it was just for an undergrad course (which wasn't even a philosophy course anyways). So anyways......

EDIT: The reason the footnotes start on "6" is because this is just part of the paper. The first part was just an objective look at the history of some schools of philosophy.

The Argument Against Deterministic Objectivity
By Paul Rainey

Scientific deduction has always relied on rationalist theory to help predict relationships occurring in an external reality. Determinism asserts that event B is contingent on object A, so therefore an objective truth can be concluded from the assumption that things are the cause of other things. The purpose of the argument against deterministic objectivity is not to dismiss causal-relationships (as they can be widely observed, David Barash even synergized existentialism and biology(6); science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive.) but to prove the irrationality of attempting to predict material behavior.

Events and objects often do not come into being through simple linear cause-and-effect relations but are the result of multiple factors interacting to create a large interwoven system of causes. Rather than have one event conceptually cause another event, there are many spurious variables working in tandem towards an eventual termination. Each variable is exclusive unto itself and only shares universality with other variables insofar as their mutual result. Of course, each variable can also be considered an end, as it is too contingent on preceding factors.

Chaos theory provides an explanation as to why the chances of predictability diminish as a system is rationalized. Once any conceptual architecture is brought into realization it becomes vulnerable to miniscule, extrinsic fluctuations acting upon its compulsion. As the number of variables grows, larger errors impede one’s ability to predict an accurate outcome of the system – in other words, the system is chaotic. The only way the system’s behavior can be predicted is by knowing the initial conditions’ state to an infinite degree, which is impossible(7).

Descartes’ method of attacking foundational beliefs exemplifies the flaw of linear thinking that is found in many rationalist arguments. He contended that knowledge was based on a vertical structure of proven truths; if a cause were found to be untrue, the effect residing above it must also be untrue. Much like the chaos theory’s explanation of external variables instigating changes in a system, an external variable could also account for a change in Descartes’ model. The next logical step would be to view his model not as a set of independent strands of contingencies, but as a series of linear systems interconnected by auxiliary pathways. Still again, the infinite existence of external causes creates a problem when attempting to acquire thorough knowledge of a system. While in this case rationalism still maintains its objectivity, it fails at providing enough relevant information for the statement of a truth.

Theoretical platforms only provide information pertinent to a static reality; humans, on the other hand, exist in a dynamic reality. Rational maxims cannot explain absolute knowledge for they do not take in account the entirety of complex systems. Since knowledge exist (according to the rationalist view) a priori, one is left facing his or her own finite being. That is since all determinist models are prone to unpredictability, the individual loses his or her free will in enacting change upon an external reality simply because they still believe in the theoretical laws governing causal relations.

There does seem to be an existentialist antagonism toward rationality( 8 ), but it is at this critical juncture that rationality resolves into existentialism. Even from an existentialist point of view, natural laws still exist – it’s the perception of where the individual stands in relation to the laws that changes. One begins to realize the indifference of the external world and then forges a personally unique reality. Instead of operating against the world, the existentialist now operates within the world. Since objective phenomena can no longer be quantified or qualified, it’s up to the individual to define his or her own external reality. Objects no longer possess measurable properties but are now things insofar as they exist within the perceivers mind. For example, a brick wall is no longer thought of as having the property “red”; rather, red is simply a construct of interconnected things (i.e. light rays), which then are perceived as being “red” by the cones and brain of the individual looking upon it. If one looked at the wall in a low-light situation, it would probably appear to be blue or black due to his or her rods instead of cones synthesizing the texture. Therefore, it would be foolish to say that the wall, as an external object, has the color “red”, since the color is simply a property perceived and given subjective meaning by internal factors. If a color-blind person said that the wall looked green, would he be wrong?

Understanding how the unfathomable objectivity of Rationalism concludes to existentialism is rational in itself – one has to hypothetically reason towards his or her own realization of existence. Some may even say that it’s human nature to try and understand the world, that we are all innate rational beings. But, as stated before, the worth of any theory is found in its tangible results, not its design. With that in mind, existentialism provides infinite freedom, while rationalism creates self-imposed barriers. It has always been the individual and not the world that defines reality – And once man realizes this, he will truly see things for what they are.

6. Barash, David P (2000). Evolutionary existentialism, sociobiology, and the meaning of life. Bioscience, Vol. 50, Issue 11.

7. Lorenzen, Michael (2005). Chaos Theory and Education. Retrieved on April 2, 2005 from http://www.libraryreference.org/chaos.html.

8. Solomon, Robert C. (1992). Existentialism, emotions, and the cultural limits of rationality. Philosophy East & West, Vol. 42, Issue 4.

[Ron]

Everyone has to believe in something... I believe I'll have another beer.

[lonewolf]

Getting warmed up for the upcoming semester, Paul?

[lonewolf]

Everyone has to believe in something... I believe I'll have another beer.

There are 24 hours in a day and 24 beers in a case...coincidence? I think not!

[FatVin]

Interesting reading, and Lone Wolf's question is a fair one but here's something to consider......

Events and objects often do not come into being through simple linear cause-and-effect relations but are the result of multiple factors interacting to create a large interwoven system of causes.

Agreed, the universe is a large interwoven system of systems of cause, Chaos theory as I understand it is helpful with some of that but why does that leave no room for spirituality?

Objects no longer possess measurable properties but are now things insofar as they exist within the perceivers mind. For example, a brick wall is no longer thought of as having the property “red”;.....

Here's where ya lose me....
Of course the guy who percieves the brick wall as green isn't wrong but so what, the brick wall, whatever color, is still there. It will still impede the progress of the blind man attempting to walk through it, he doesn't care what color it is, he knows only that it impedes his progress and he must either go around, under, over or find a doorway through it. The brick wall must be negotiated.

You can't make a brick wall go away because you refuse to recognize it's existence, it must be negotiated. However delusional the blind man might be, he still must deal with that brick wall.

having said that, you can't pray the brick wall away either but with the peace and serenity that come with the practice of prayer and meditation, even the blind man will eventually find the doorway through the brick wall or feel the flaws in it's mortar and be able to push it out of his way.

With that in mind, existentialism provides infinite freedom, while rationalism creates self-imposed barriers.

Existentialism provides nothing, however, you percieve that brick wall, whatever properties you asign it, it is still there and must sill be negotiated.

What spirituality enables one to do is to drop those internal factors, frustration at the presence of the brick wall, desire to have it removed, fear of what the brick wall represents, ego that would prevent one from simply changing course to avoid the brick wall and simply deal with the wall, some forms of spirituality even teach how to punch through the wall itself, nevertheless, refusing to believe in it's existance is moot and pointless. The wall is there and must be negotiated.

True spirituality, IMO, is about the self and those barriers, the relationship with God (for lack of a better word), the relationship with the self, with others and with the Universe. Once those barriers are put into perspective, as they are never truly conquered, then and only then can things be seen as they truly are.

while spirituality isn't perfect and can be, as history has shown us perverted, but it has been my observation that, those on a truly spritual path don't seem to run into as many brick walls.

[YankeeRose]

...but it has been my observation that, those on a truly spritual path don't seem to run into as many brick walls.

Ya wanna bet? Maybe not in the sense that it stops them, but many Spiritual people of very strong Faith, not necessarily of any particular "Religion", mind you, have had more than their fair share of figurative brick walls to deal with. While speaking to one of them about the reason why it seems those who without a doubt believe there IS, as Vin said, for lack of a better word, a God, as well as something more than this existance, just can't catch a break, they replied, "because we can handle it"...I'd never considered that before. I'm ready to step aside and let someone else be able to "handle it"!



...and Ron, if you're starting a new "Church", can I be a Charter Member?

[Ron]

...and Ron, if you're starting a new "Church", can I be a Charter Member?

No problem. And I seriously think about it every year around April 15th.
Hmmm.... Rastafarian sacrament anyone?

[bassist_25]

Here's where ya lose me....
Of course the guy who percieves the brick wall as green isn't wrong but so what, the brick wall, whatever color, is still there. It will still impede the progress of the blind man attempting to walk through it, he doesn't care what color it is, he knows only that it impedes his progress and he must either go around, under, over or find a doorway through it. The brick wall must be negotiated.

You can't make a brick wall go away because you refuse to recognize it's existence, it must be negotiated. However delusional the blind man might be, he still must deal with that brick wall.

You missed the point of the argument. The argument wasn't whether the wall existed or not, but whether you could assign objective metaphysical properties to the wall. It's red becaues you percieve it as red. It's absorbing and reflecting certain bands of light that the cones in your eyes are telling you it is "red". If you only had rods in your eyes, you would have no idea that the wall was "red".

Things exist, metaphysically speaking, insofar as they affect your life, either directly or indirectly. Nietchsze said that things lose their value when we forget about them, but I disagree with him there. I think that things can still have value in their potential.

[bassist_25]

Getting warmed up for the upcoming semester, Paul?

Two more days and then it's back to the grind.

[Punkinhead]

Getting warmed up for the upcoming semester, Paul?

Two more days and then it's back to the grind.

Word...

[HurricaneBob]

All these paragraphs and no one told me if it was the chicken or the egg?

[YankeeRose]

ROFLMAO! The "chicken or the egg", how EXISTENTIAL!

Hmmm.... Rastafarian sacrament anyone?

Aaaah yesss mon, de blesed sacremen of de beans...and beer...me tinks your church might have a LOT of "Charter Members"!





Peace,
YankeeRose

[FatVin]

First of all I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion, When do you ever get to use this part of your brain, eh?

Secondly,

objective metaphysical properties

What!?

You'll have to forgive an old man who hasn't taken a philosophy course in a while.....but it seems to me that the word OBJECTIVE and METAPHYSICAL, don't really belong together kinda like Military and Intelligence or Honest and Politician. But my definition of those words in conjunction could be different from yours so please define this term.

Thirdly:

Things exist, metaphysically speaking, insofar as they affect your life, either directly or indirectly. Nietchsze said that things lose their value when we forget about them, but I disagree with him there. I think that things can still have value in their potential.

I actually agree with you here but if you think about it but the problem with that statement is, that if you look at the world as a whole, what doesn't affect your life in some small way or another? The whole point of spirituality is that everything is connected, here's a rough example:

in some remote corner of Africa, an insect get crushed under the wheels of a jeep. That's as a far away from life here in Central PA as you can imagine right?

Well, microbes and germs begin the process of eating the remains of the insect immediatley after death, but 3 or seconds later a bird swoops down and eats the insect, and all the germs and microbes and gets a disease, local villagers shoot down the bird with a sling shot and eat it, causing them to catch the bird's disease, so what has that got do with me?...wait for it.

The villagers who ate the bird die and spread the disease among their friends and relations...soon it is an epidemic and somebody in africa calls the west for help, the US sends people from the CDC and US troops to help stamp out the epidemic, somebody's gotta pay for that so congress slips in a tax hike to pay for it plus by the time they get there, the epidemic is now all over Africa and beginning to affect workers on oil wells in Arabia and that pushes up the price of oil and that affects everyone's life.

Now that's a crude quickie example but you get the point. Everything is connected or potentially connected , often in some remote small way, to your life and mine. It's not about whether or not you choose to assign it objective metaphysical properties or not it's connected or could potentially be connected to you and me somehow, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

What color the wall is or why the wall is that color doesn't matter, what really matters is how I deal with the wall, I can't change the wall but I can change how I react to it and that makes all the difference in the wall and the world.

Lastly, As YankeeRose pointed out, I misspoke there it's not the people on a truly spiriutal path hit fewer brick walls than the rest of us it's more like they are plerplexed by the wall for a shorter period of time than someone not a spiritual path.

Oh one more thing, You wanna start a new church...count me in but No Guilt, No Shame, No Jihads, Rastafarian Sacraments? Okay, by me, but they can't be mandatory and no hymns like this:

Oh Lord, please don't burn us,
Don't grill or toast your flock,
Don't put us on the barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don't braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok...

Oh please don't lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don't fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick thy servants Lord,
In a big Rotissomat...


Amen.

[E-Rokk]

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

that's the link to my church
his noodley love will save you

[FatVin]

I love it, I shall sacrifice some tomatoes and Parmesan in honor of The noodley one!!!! all this talk of pasta has made me hungry.