When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Or will you seek a moral religion to replace the immoral one you now follow, if you happen to be Christian or Muslim?
Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Regards
DL
Or will you seek a moral religion to replace the immoral one you now follow, if you happen to be Christian or Muslim?
Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?
Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Regards
DL
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
how much artillery does reason have?
reason needs evidence. belief speculates.
living in the box of 'this is all there is', in an infinity of existence, I'd say reality isn't very well known.
if you want to leave everything to reason, you may find you can't get out of the box.
reason needs evidence. belief speculates.
living in the box of 'this is all there is', in an infinity of existence, I'd say reality isn't very well known.
if you want to leave everything to reason, you may find you can't get out of the box.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
And if you think supernatural and delusional living is living, you may as well live in a box because intelligent people will thing you stupid or delusional.osgart wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:16 pm how much artillery does reason have?
reason needs evidence. belief speculates.
living in the box of 'this is all there is', in an infinity of existence, I'd say reality isn't very well known.
if you want to leave everything to reason, you may find you can't get out of the box.
How deep do you delusions go? Share with us.
Regards
DL
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
I don't believe in anything supernatural. hypotheticals are important.
could be created by something. is that a delusion your looking for?
do you hate all religious people?
could be created by something. is that a delusion your looking for?
do you hate all religious people?
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
That's the problem right there underlined. When God becomes your/our/someones God.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:48 pm
Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?
When God is someones God. God becomes an institutionalised idol.
God cannot reveal his infinite unlimited being while being contained in the box of limitation.
Think bigger. Stand out here in the vast wide open infinite space to receive his presence. It's a present thing.
This present doesn't belong to anything - it is everything.
It doesn't claim - it just IS
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
No. I am one.
I hate the idol worshipers because idol worship leads to Inquisitions and Jihad.
If you love them, tell us why, given that that Christianity and Islam have created such immoral ideologies that include intolerance, homophobia and misogyny?
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
God is a title.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:30 amGod cannot reveal his infinite unlimited being while being contained in the box of limitation.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:48 pm
Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?
Who are you talking about?
Regards
DL
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Can you name anything that is not a title?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:58 pm
God is a title.
Who are you talking about?
Regards
DL
That's who I'm talking about.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Any given name. But if you want to remain ignorant of that fact, it suits your character.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:12 pmCan you name anything that is not a title?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:58 pm
God is a title.
Who are you talking about?
Regards
DL
That's who I'm talking about.
Regards
DL
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Humans are the cancer cells of the earth.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:55 pm
I hate the idol worshipers because idol worship leads to Inquisitions and Jihad.
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
These quotes need to be taken in a much larger context.Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
The epistemology of faith has a very long tradition. The root of the problem is that the human brain has certain functions that we can either include or exclude when defining and using the term "reason". If "reason" is defined broadly then these statements are simply wrong. But, as anyone familiar with the tradition knows, the term "reason" can be used to exclude faith as a matter of distinction and then "reason" - the term - is being used -without the knowledge of the user usually - to distinguish one function of the brain from another.
If you look at Russel's program, or the logical positivists, or the work of Goedel, or the definitions of computability, you can even see within mathematics human knowing that can be distinguished from "reason" if "reason" is very narrowly construed.
His inclusion of "sense" and "understanding" broadens his claim. There are traditions in Zen that go that far and more.
All of this needs to be understood as reflective phenomenology of the experiencing that occurs as a result of human neurological systems doped by hormones. One day we will be able to parse it neurologically and endochrinologically as well as by using a reflective phenomenology and be able to correlate the two.
But what mustn't be done is to assume that the call for an abandonment of "reason, sense, and understanding" is meant to say "stop reasoning, sensing and understanding". Luther was an intellectual and a very deep one. It's just that the intellect in reflection can detect that some of what it knows cannot be founded rationally. As Wittgenstein says there is a point where explanations need to stop. Some religious experiencing is of that area. The term "faith" itself is not well defined. There are many things that surpass reason.
Being itself is inherently irrational. You can see this like this: Consider a physical law, like Newton's law of gravity. Now consider a proof of mathematics, like the Pythagorean theorem. Now try to derive Newton's law of gravity from it. You will find it impossible. Therefore *in a sense* all science has an irrational basis. But it still has a sensory one. If you through out "sense" you loose science.
What is left is pure metaphysics. To my mind that term "understanding" is the hardest. Because it refers to foundations. If you throw out that you loose even metaphysics. This is what Luther is referring to I think. Then what is left is a kind of naked man whose will is responding to the will of God.
That there are such states in human religious experience and that in particular Luther was subject to them is very probable if you read his history. Exposed to potential execution "with prejudice" if you know what I mean, (pain), he submitted and it is probable that he did so not by any form of what to him were "reason, sense, or understanding". In fact, he probably thought what he was doing was crazy when analyzed within what he thought of as "reason sense or understanding". Crazy and recklessly dangerous to his physical well being and comfort. I think it is probably that he went against all of those, and offered his actions and life up to what he knew - somehow - that he must do.
If Luther had not done this none of us would know his name or be quoting him. Soldiers of all kinds know this I think. Lives at stake. Instinct takes over. Another way of knowing. Not easily explainable to those who have not been there. Perhaps even profanation to attempt a description! "About that which nothing can be said (perhaps) one should remain silent".
You must read everything in the context of his life. Very powerful people were trying to kill him so they could collect money. At the time it was not easy to conclude he would escape them. In fact a betting man would have bet against him. But he still, for "reasons" (broad sense) in his own mind that he chose to categorize as beyond "reason, sense and understanding" he took very significant risks to his life and in a sense more importantly - his comfort.
In addition you must understand the use of the word "whore". It looks to me that our sexuality is very involved in this epistemology. That use of the word "whore" is not something you can just blow off if you want to understand the range of human intellectual experience. You must understand the relation between sex-war-knowing. It is based in instinct. Even the fact of not talking about it is a form of sexual embarrassment. It is related to why we do not shit in front of each other if you look carefully at it. You need to parse the whole instinctual apparatus/basis of the sacred and profane.
A very profound understanding of human instinctual knowledge in the biological sense is required to understand these statements. They are not trivial. They are a kind of phenomenological description of the operations of human cognitive biology.
Those who eternally replay Copernicus are doomed to be always looking over their shoulders backward and will never realize the future of our attempts to build a better understanding of the future.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
??Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:07 pmHumans are the cancer cells of the earth.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:55 pm
I hate the idol worshipers because idol worship leads to Inquisitions and Jihad.
Yet you spout so much B.S. about Jesus while ignoring that he said we were the light of the world.
You are one conflicted dude.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
It seems that you are adding quite a bit to what Martin Luther said. All speculation.Justintruth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:50 pmThese quotes need to be taken in a much larger context.Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
The epistemology of faith has a very long tradition. The root of the problem is that the human brain has certain functions that we can either include or exclude when defining and using the term "reason". If "reason" is defined broadly then these statements are simply wrong. But, as anyone familiar with the tradition knows, the term "reason" can be used to exclude faith as a matter of distinction and then "reason" - the term - is being used -without the knowledge of the user usually - to distinguish one function of the brain from another.
If you look at Russel's program, or the logical positivists, or the work of Goedel, or the definitions of computability, you can even see within mathematics human knowing that can be distinguished from "reason" if "reason" is very narrowly construed.
His inclusion of "sense" and "understanding" broadens his claim. There are traditions in Zen that go that far and more.
All of this needs to be understood as reflective phenomenology of the experiencing that occurs as a result of human neurological systems doped by hormones. One day we will be able to parse it neurologically and endochrinologically as well as by using a reflective phenomenology and be able to correlate the two.
But what mustn't be done is to assume that the call for an abandonment of "reason, sense, and understanding" is meant to say "stop reasoning, sensing and understanding". Luther was an intellectual and a very deep one. It's just that the intellect in reflection can detect that some of what it knows cannot be founded rationally. As Wittgenstein says there is a point where explanations need to stop. Some religious experiencing is of that area. The term "faith" itself is not well defined. There are many things that surpass reason.
Being itself is inherently irrational. You can see this like this: Consider a physical law, like Newton's law of gravity. Now consider a proof of mathematics, like the Pythagorean theorem. Now try to derive Newton's law of gravity from it. You will find it impossible. Therefore *in a sense* all science has an irrational basis. But it still has a sensory one. If you through out "sense" you loose science.
What is left is pure metaphysics. To my mind that term "understanding" is the hardest. Because it refers to foundations. If you throw out that you loose even metaphysics. This is what Luther is referring to I think. Then what is left is a kind of naked man whose will is responding to the will of God.
That there are such states in human religious experience and that in particular Luther was subject to them is very probable if you read his history. Exposed to potential execution "with prejudice" if you know what I mean, (pain), he submitted and it is probable that he did so not by any form of what to him were "reason, sense, or understanding". In fact, he probably thought what he was doing was crazy when analyzed within what he thought of as "reason sense or understanding". Crazy and recklessly dangerous to his physical well being and comfort. I think it is probably that he went against all of those, and offered his actions and life up to what he knew - somehow - that he must do.
If Luther had not done this none of us would know his name or be quoting him. Soldiers of all kinds know this I think. Lives at stake. Instinct takes over. Another way of knowing. Not easily explainable to those who have not been there. Perhaps even profanation to attempt a description! "About that which nothing can be said (perhaps) one should remain silent".
You must read everything in the context of his life. Very powerful people were trying to kill him so they could collect money. At the time it was not easy to conclude he would escape them. In fact a betting man would have bet against him. But he still, for "reasons" (broad sense) in his own mind that he chose to categorize as beyond "reason, sense and understanding" he took very significant risks to his life and in a sense more importantly - his comfort.
In addition you must understand the use of the word "whore". It looks to me that our sexuality is very involved in this epistemology. That use of the word "whore" is not something you can just blow off if you want to understand the range of human intellectual experience. You must understand the relation between sex-war-knowing. It is based in instinct. Even the fact of not talking about it is a form of sexual embarrassment. It is related to why we do not shit in front of each other if you look carefully at it. You need to parse the whole instinctual apparatus/basis of the sacred and profane.
A very profound understanding of human instinctual knowledge in the biological sense is required to understand these statements. They are not trivial. They are a kind of phenomenological description of the operations of human cognitive biology.
Those who eternally replay Copernicus are doomed to be always looking over their shoulders backward and will never realize the future of our attempts to build a better understanding of the future.
I did pull these out that I disagree with.
"There are many things that surpass reason."
Perhaps but you did not name them and I think that faith without facts is for fools.
All that faith has given us are idol worshiping cults, like Christianity and Islam which have gifted us 5,000 years of war.
"Being itself is inherently irrational."
Not to a rational person or nature.
Regards
DL
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:01 pmJustintruth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:50 pmThese quotes need to be taken in a much larger context.Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
The epistemology of faith has a very long tradition. The root of the problem is that the human brain has certain functions that we can either include or exclude when defining and using the term "reason". If "reason" is defined broadly then these statements are simply wrong. But, as anyone familiar with the tradition knows, the term "reason" can be used to exclude faith as a matter of distinction and then "reason" - the term - is being used -without the knowledge of the user usually - to distinguish one function of the brain from another.
If you look at Russel's program, or the logical positivists, or the work of Goedel, or the definitions of computability, you can even see within mathematics human knowing that can be distinguished from "reason" if "reason" is very narrowly construed.
His inclusion of "sense" and "understanding" broadens his claim. There are traditions in Zen that go that far and more.
All of this needs to be understood as reflective phenomenology of the experiencing that occurs as a result of human neurological systems doped by hormones. One day we will be able to parse it neurologically and endochrinologically as well as by using a reflective phenomenology and be able to correlate the two.
But what mustn't be done is to assume that the call for an abandonment of "reason, sense, and understanding" is meant to say "stop reasoning, sensing and understanding". Luther was an intellectual and a very deep one. It's just that the intellect in reflection can detect that some of what it knows cannot be founded rationally. As Wittgenstein says there is a point where explanations need to stop. Some religious experiencing is of that area. The term "faith" itself is not well defined. There are many things that surpass reason.
Being itself is inherently irrational. You can see this like this: Consider a physical law, like Newton's law of gravity. Now consider a proof of mathematics, like the Pythagorean theorem. Now try to derive Newton's law of gravity from it. You will find it impossible. Therefore *in a sense* all science has an irrational basis. But it still has a sensory one. If you through out "sense" you loose science.
What is left is pure metaphysics. To my mind that term "understanding" is the hardest. Because it refers to foundations. If you throw out that you loose even metaphysics. This is what Luther is referring to I think. Then what is left is a kind of naked man whose will is responding to the will of God.
That there are such states in human religious experience and that in particular Luther was subject to them is very probable if you read his history. Exposed to potential execution "with prejudice" if you know what I mean, (pain), he submitted and it is probable that he did so not by any form of what to him were "reason, sense, or understanding". In fact, he probably thought what he was doing was crazy when analyzed within what he thought of as "reason sense or understanding". Crazy and recklessly dangerous to his physical well being and comfort. I think it is probably that he went against all of those, and offered his actions and life up to what he knew - somehow - that he must do.
If Luther had not done this none of us would know his name or be quoting him. Soldiers of all kinds know this I think. Lives at stake. Instinct takes over. Another way of knowing. Not easily explainable to those who have not been there. Perhaps even profanation to attempt a description! "About that which nothing can be said (perhaps) one should remain silent".
You must read everything in the context of his life. Very powerful people were trying to kill him so they could collect money. At the time it was not easy to conclude he would escape them. In fact a betting man would have bet against him. But he still, for "reasons" (broad sense) in his own mind that he chose to categorize as beyond "reason, sense and understanding" he took very significant risks to his life and in a sense more importantly - his comfort.
In addition you must understand the use of the word "whore". It looks to me that our sexuality is very involved in this epistemology. That use of the word "whore" is not something you can just blow off if you want to understand the range of human intellectual experience. You must understand the relation between sex-war-knowing. It is based in instinct. Even the fact of not talking about it is a form of sexual embarrassment. It is related to why we do not shit in front of each other if you look carefully at it. You need to parse the whole instinctual apparatus/basis of the sacred and profane.
A very profound understanding of human instinctual knowledge in the biological sense is required to understand these statements. They are not trivial. They are a kind of phenomenological description of the operations of human cognitive biology.
Those who eternally replay Copernicus are doomed to be always looking over their shoulders backward and will never realize the future of our attempts to build a better understanding of the future.
"There are many things that surpass reason."
Perhaps but you did not name them and I think that faith without facts is for fools.
Ok. I will name one. The science of physics. It cannot be derived like a mathematical proof but rather has as its basis in sensory phenomena. Sensory phenomena are not rational - they are sensory. You cannot reason to the content of a sensory experience That is only one of many, many, examples that can be given.
All that faith has given us are idol worshiping cults, like Christianity and Islam which have gifted us 5,000 years of war.
Fact not in evidence. This is just factually wrong. Christianity and Islam both temper the instincts to domination. War is not based on the same instincts that religion is. There is a solid biological reason we go to war. There is a solid biological reason we experience religiously. They are not the same instincts. There has been progress in restraining the will to power. One instinct fighting another. Religion is one of the few restraints on the instinct to war.
It is fundamentalism not religion that causes war. Secular fundamentalism is just as bad as religious fundamentalism. You fail to see that religious instincts are manipulated by the non-religious to attain power and you identify their propaganda with genuine religion. Genuine religion is based on religious experience and not on the will to power. Without religious experience you cannot understand religion and will identify it either with fundamentalism or with social religious organizations. Religious hierarchies are not necessarily practicing or experiencing religion. You should not identify Islam with what happens in the mosques or Christianity with what happens in churches. Many mosques and churches and temples and ashrams are used for purely political purposes by people without religious experience or by those who have had it and reject the good. You confuse the soap with the soap salesman.
"Being itself is inherently irrational."
Not to a rational person or nature.
A truly rational person can use his rationality to understand the limits of the rationality he is using. To say that being is rational to a rational person or nature is inherently irrational. To prove me wrong just take any sensory experience and try to derive its content mathematically.
Regards
DL
Re: When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:49 pm??Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:07 pmHumans are the cancer cells of the earth.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:55 pm
I hate the idol worshipers because idol worship leads to Inquisitions and Jihad.
Yet you spout so much B.S. about Jesus while ignoring that he said we were the light of the world.
You are one conflicted dude.
Regards
DL
Cancer cells just want to live life like everything else does.
Who are we to murder them?