Philosophy of Religion Begins Here

[Arising_uk]

Spinoza's pantheism leaves too many unanswered questions; i.e., the plurality of consciousness and the appearance of free will (Spinoza believes human beings are determined).

What is 'plurality of consciousness '?

Why do you need a 'free' will, why not just a will?

I thought Spinoza said he wasn't a pantheist?

From the article link you posted I'd have the thought the author was a pantheist?

[Arising_uk]

... But Watts' argument doesn't say anything at all about God, only that God is. ...

And yet in the first line 'it' appears to be male?

It suggests, however, something that is objectionable to both atheists and theists: that Meister Eckhart was spot-on when he said, “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.”

Let's hope so as then 'God' doesn't see me, sweet!

[The Inglorious One]

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."

Done it. I don't like Watts on YouTube. As a showman I think he sucks. He's a much better writer than a speaker.

Also, the world would be a better place if all the people who have faith in universities were shot.

From the article link you posted I'd have the thought the author was a pantheist?

The author of the article is an atheist reviewing a book written by a theist whose intent is to inform atheists what is really meant by the word "God."

[The Inglorious One]

A human being is the only creature that has to learn how to identify with universe realities and conform to nature. To negate the self by “unlearning” is to do just the opposite: it is to oppose nature and set oneself apart from the fullness of life's gifts. Simply put, it is a way of escaping from the duties and responsibilities that come with being human.

A human being can truly love nature and enjoy the lessons and comfort one can get only from a pet, but a person can truly commune only with other persons. For all his genius, Spinoza, like so many philosophers before and since, failed to understand that man's hopes, beliefs, aspirations, devotional labors and inspirational genius do not stand apart from his fears and longings. A passion for unity and totality, coupled with a scrupulous fidelity to the integrity of the individual are not enough to bring about “the brotherhood of man.” No matter how “strong” or “rational”a person supposes himself or herself to be, no matter how deeply buried the image, there is always the knowledge that a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed that the only reward for one's devotional labor is a pitiless doom that serves as the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good. Without supreme trust in and communion with a superior and sustaining personality, such knowledge can only have a detrimental effect on the human psyche, and in the end, it matters not whether that faith proves to be true. What brings people together in peace and joy is not just reason, but far more importantly, compassion, tradition, ritual, art and the desire to belong. Without religion's supporting structure, a philosophy, no matter how sublime, can never be more than an exercise in futility. “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

A human being is the only creature that has to learn how to identify with universe realities and conform to nature.

I have not been able to read the last pages but wanted to make one small comment on the above. It is a curious, and I think a crucial fact, that man is the only animal that can make a choice that is contrary to Nature's dictate. Every other creature, it seems, can only function within Nature's control.

Man thusly can conceive of patterns that are contrary to Nature's design, or Nature's 'will', or the limiting force of Nature. I think this is one reason why (referring to previous conversations) it is unwise to simply reject, or totally reject, as many do, Christianity as an imposition on himself and in a sense against Nature. True, any religion is similarly an imposition and a decision as-against Nature, but Christianity has been such a part of occidental man that its rejection (it seems to me) inevitably results in a necessary reversion to Nature and to Nature's dictates. In the absense of the 'imposition' even reason must come under the sway of Nature once again.

It seems to me that man's struggle - and our struggle - is to understand better how Christian doctrines worked to separate us from Nature, to create a schizm between man and Nature, and thus alienated him from his very matrix. There is a radical element in Christianity which leads to a certain extremism in man's relationship to himself and his world. This is both the basis of very many good and valuable achievements and activities, as well as a source of angst and pain.

As the strength of Christian doctrines began to become undermined, there has occurred an inevitable 'return to the body'. This means both one's natural matrix - where we live and where we must live - but also to man as sensual creature. To have pulled away from sensuality, or states of being dominated be our sensuality, nearly all that we term 'civilisation' has been created. And this loops back around to the notion of Christianity as 'imposition' and as anatural imposition.

[The Inglorious One]

It is in man's nature to transcend nature—at least in part. This makes us a god-like species, giving us the ability to have a huge impact on our environment. It also makes us vulnerable. Every time we strike a match, we are in a sense “playing God.” Yet, the vast majority of human beings would perish if their lives depended on making their own fire. We can upset nature's balance and degrade our environment to the point it can no longer sustain our way of life. It happened in the past and it's happening now, only this time on a global scale.

Unless we learn how to identify with universe realities and conform to nature, reality and nature will overwhelm our mode of existence.

Someone mentioned Spinoza in a previous post. I'm glad because Spinoza was right in so many ways. If he had not failed to understand human nature, had he understood that reason alone is not enough, that it is what one believes rather than what one knows that determines conduct and dominates personal performances, his philosophy might have weighed much more heavily on man's conscious. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence upon the average man unless it becomes emotionally activated.

Here is an interesting essay: A THEOLOGY BASED ON DAVID BOHM'S HOLOMOVEMENT METAPHYSICS

[Jaded Sage]

Good to know you are so unbiased, TIO.

[The Inglorious One]

We all have biases.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We all have biases.

There are biases and wilful self deceptions, though.

WIthout a bias you could never hold an opinion. The trouble comes when you think an aspiration the something must be the case, or must exist, gets confused with reality. And that sums up the whole thread.

[The Inglorious One]

This is a philosophy of religion forum. Religion is not a specific function of life or belief system; rather is it a mode of living. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. True religion is a wholehearted devotion to some reality which the religionist deems to be of supreme value to himself and for all mankind. This religious devotion to supreme values is shown in the relation of the supposedly irreligious mother to her child and in the fervent loyalty of nonreligionists to an espoused cause.

You might be satisfied with walking around with your thumb up your ass, Hobbes, and JS might be content with "unlearning," but we live in a participatory universe and we are integral to its evolution. We are co-creators. The question is, can you handle the duties and responsibility that come with being human?

[Jaded Sage]

I'm pretty sure it's better not to have any opinions.

[Jaded Sage]

To negate the self by “unlearning” is to do just the opposite: it is to oppose nature and set oneself apart from the fullness of life's gifts.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that unlearning is becoming more natural and less conventional.

[Hobbes' Choice]

To negate the self by “unlearning” is to do just the opposite: it is to oppose nature and set oneself apart from the fullness of life's gifts.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that unlearning is becoming more natural and less conventional.

You can't unlearn, can you? How would you do that?

[Jaded Sage]

To negate the self by “unlearning” is to do just the opposite: it is to oppose nature and set oneself apart from the fullness of life's gifts.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that unlearning is becoming more natural and less conventional.

You can't unlearn, can you? How would you do that?

You return to the state you were in prior to learning. Forgetting, I guess, is similar, if not synonymous.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that unlearning is becoming more natural and less conventional.

You can't unlearn, can you? How would you do that?

You return to the state you were in prior to learning. Forgetting, I guess, is similar, if not synonymous.

Impossible.
First you cannot turn back time, and you cannot consciously forget something.
Try this. Think of a pink teddy bear, with a bow tie for 20 seconds.
NOW.
Forget that bear!