Philosophy of Religion Begins Here

[henry quirk]

Jade,

if you're talkin' to me...

Not seein' why mystics get a privilliged seat at the table...seems to me god is available to any and all with a mind to find him...thing is: he won't be found in 'religion' but in religion (not in the church you go to, but the one you 'are').

Of course, I'm just a dumb atheist, so what do I know?

[Jaded Sage]

Here is a passage from Lecture 3 of The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James on communion:

"These meetings [...] seemed to consist merely in the temporary obliteration of the conventionalities which usually surround and cover my life. [...] What I felt on these occasions was a temporary loss of my own identity, accompanied by an illumination which revealed to me a deeper significance than I had been wont to attach to life."

He also mentions that the experience is quite enjoyable. That is usually a criteria, tho not always, if memory serves. Also, the only thing that might meet the "noetic" (understanding) criteria is a "deeper significance (of life? of self?) revealed." I suppose that counts. I'll have to double-check.

[Jaded Sage]

Jade,

if you're talkin' to me...

Not seein' why mystics get a privilliged seat at the table...seems to me god is available to any and all with a mind to find him...thing is: he won't be found in 'religion' but in religion (not in the church you go to, but the one you 'are').

Of course, I'm just a dumb atheist, so what do I know?

Well, I wouldn't consider them special. I just mean that to interact first-hand with the divine is what it means to be a mystic, and that to interact first-hand with something other people have knowledge of second-hand provides unique insight unavailable to the latter.

Someone once said that God is like a great elephant, and the world's religions are all blindmen placing their hands on different parts of the elephant, describing it. The mystic sees the whole elephant. But I have also heard that mystics are not like those who infer the existence of fire from the appearance of smoke, but like those who infer smoke from the visual sensing of smoke—that is, like those who see the smoke directly.

Isn't that what you were getting at with the Meister quote? Or were you talking more about like the collective unconscious, in which case we ought to study Jung!

Yes, of course. I believe that everyone, at least in theory, and barring birth defects or injuries, is born with the capacity for mystical experience, or direct interaction with the divine.

Based on my experience, it is my opinion that God can be found both inside and outside the church. Khalil Gibran describes doctrine as a window that shows us the truth while separating us from it. I view the doctrines of the various religions like the different lenses of the Hubble Telescope that show us visual representations of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma waves to radio waves. Mysticism, then, is looking up at the sky with a naked eye; and I suppose philosophy, then, is viewing all of them together.

I consider it a mistake to judge a person's intelligence based on their position, theological, political, or otherwise. It provides a more accurate assessment to wait until you hear them speak (about almost anything). I do, however, if I must confess, tend to judge philosophy professors for being either theistic or atheistic—it seems lazy, and unbecoming of anyone who professionally spends their days steeped in contemplation. Other professors, sure. But philosophy professors? They should be leading the rest of the pack of professors. Surely, given all the information out there, the most reasonable position, indeed, the most philosophical position, must be agnosticism. But I can't defend that opinion now.

Also, yes. Surely our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. I am only just now questioning whether that is true of all human beings by nature or whether Paul was addressing a specific group of elites that have cultivated themselves into temples capable of housing something that might be worthy of being called "Holy Spirit." That is only because of who I am reading at the moment.

[The Inglorious One]

Question begging means using circular logic. I haven't done that.

This is not the first time someone called Watts' argument flawed and then proceed as though the assertion did not need elaboration (the conclusion is among its premises: Watts argument is flawed because it's flawed). It is the first time I've seen it said that

• “heads” is meaningful without a “tails” (self-consciousness is possible without other-consciousness)
  
  a philosophy of religion should begin with William James' lectures only to agree that religion and religious experience cannot be studied, which is to say understood, from the outside
  
  a university magically makes someone credible (especially odd given the climate in today's universities)

"where should philosophy of religion begin?"

With this: "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.".

It starts with the (comm)union, not the gap.

I think this is getting a little (and only a little) ahead of ourselves. It is a conclusion, and a logical one, derived from consciousness is. It is not a premise.

Not seein' why mystics get a privilliged seat at the table...seems to me god is available to any and all with a mind to find him...thing is: he won't be found in 'religion' but in religion (not in the church you go to, but the one you 'are').

I agree, but it's circular: that's "mysticism."

[henry quirk]

"Isn't that what you were getting at with the Meister quote?"

My point: don't look around the room for the elephant, just look in the mirror.

[The Inglorious One]

"Isn't that what you were getting at with the Meister quote?"

My point: don't look around the room for the elephant, just look in the mirror.

Good point, very good. I accept that. But how do you convey what Eckhart means to an outsider if they do not first acknowledging the validity of the Watts excerpt? And if it's flawed, I'd like to see where.

[henry quirk]

Well, if a dumb, shallow, atheist like me can get it, it shouldn't be too hard to communicate.

It ain't rocket science.

[The Inglorious One]

You didn't answer my question.

If you understand as much as you say, then you must admit that much of what passes for philosophy of religion in this forum, especially amongst atheists, is utterly absurd. Questions like how many gods there are and whether it's moral for God to punish us is just meaningless trivia.

I empathize completely with Howard's Crom, which is a kind of existentialism. But 'Crom' is what you want him to be. Looking outward from a physical and quantitative point of view, it does indeed look as though 'god' is “grim, distant, unreachable.” But unless your understanding acknowledges the inner, qualitative side of life, where logic dictates 'Crom' also resides, then you understand nothing; you are still reducing God to a "sky-father." You have lots of content, but no depth.

[henry quirk]

"You didn't answer my question."

You're right...sorry...here you go...

But how do you convey what Eckhart means to an outsider if they do not first (acknowledge) the validity of the Watts excerpt?

Got no clue.

#

"...you must admit that much of what passes for philosophy of religion in this forum, especially amongst atheists, is utterly absurd"

I agree.

#

"But 'Crom' is what you want him to be.'

Er, Crom is fiction...never said I 'believe' in Crom.

#

"You have lots of content, but no depth."

Yeah, I know.

[The Inglorious One]

Er, Crom is fiction...never said I 'believe' in Crom.

No kidding? Gee, I thought you believed Conan the Barbarian was holy script.

"You have lots of content, but no depth."

Yeah, I know.

Then we both do.

[Jaded Sage]

get it?


Well, you live up to your name, Inglorious One.

Now I have to waste my time correcting you instead of doing something more productive.

I didn't claim, "Watts is wrong, therefore Watts is wrong." Which part of what I said has confused you into thinking that?

Again, you are misrepresenting. Hot exists without cold, and cold exists without hot. Some contraries exist independently and some exist dependently. Self-Awareness and Other-Awareness are like the contraries that exist independently. You have your theory that they do not, but I have my experience that they do. By disregarding my experience are twisting fact to suit theory, instead of suiting theory to meet fact.

If you want to trust wikipedia over universities I can't stop you from embarassing yourself. But I can stop you from wasting my time. You can play politician and try to make things seem other than they are, but I'd rather discuss something of merit.

We read the same material to be on the same page, so nobody starts out with a mistaken understanding of what we are discussing. Mr. James' Harvard lectures are famous beyond the academic community for a reason.

After I point out Watts' mistakes I will ignore you until you say something that isn't a waste of my time to respond to, unless of course the rambunctious part of me just wants to get into an argument.

The worst part is you don't even know why we are studying this topic. You would if you read James.

Also, one of the things you pointed out as circular was actually just an apparent inconsistancy. There is a difference. We can't all afford a university, but we can all avoid talking out of our asses.

[Jaded Sage]

"Isn't that what you were getting at with the Meister quote?"

My point: don't look around the room for the elephant, just look in the mirror.

Yeah, but you can't look with the lights off. I think there is a whole lot you're supposed to do before you can. Actually, I wonder if by spreading that around, we ruin the punchline of a really good joke.

[Jaded Sage]

"Isn't that what you were getting at with the Meister quote?"

My point: don't look around the room for the elephant, just look in the mirror.

Good point, very good. I accept that. But how do you convey what Eckhart means to an outsider if they do not first acknowledging the validity of the Watts excerpt? And if it's flawed, I'd like to see where.

I must admit, people do seem to need a whole lot of unlearning to get to the right place.

[Jaded Sage]

You didn't answer my question.

If you understand as much as you say, then you must admit that much of what passes for philosophy of religion in this forum, especially amongst atheists, is utterly absurd. Questions like how many gods there are and whether it's moral for God to punish us is just meaningless trivia.

I empathize completely with Howard's Crom, which is a kind of existentialism. But 'Crom' is what you want him to be. Looking outward from a physical and quantitative point of view, it does indeed look as though 'god' is “grim, distant, unreachable.” But unless your understanding acknowledges the inner, qualitative side of life, where logic dictates 'Crom' also resides, then you understand nothing; you are still reducing God to a "sky-father." You have lots of content, but no depth.

Some of the trivia is good exercise. Some of it isn't just trivia. I can see you need to do a lot of unlearning too.

[Jaded Sage]

That it is ridiculous to discuss whether judgements are true or not is itself ridiculous.

The claim that conscious beings could not have been created by anything other than a self-conscious cause is also ridiculous.

I see what he is trying to do. I'm just saying that the way he is trying to do it doesn't agree with me. But I don't know that his audience here isn't so confused that they need to hear ridiculous things in order to arrive at a view isn't ridiculous.

Again, I am a fan of Watts. I recommend youtubing "Alan Watts is God for 10 minutes" and somewhat ironically, "The wisdom of the ridiculous."