Understanding the religious mindset

[seeds]

Seeds, I refer to your latest diagram featuring a ladder. an ascending soul, and an eye at the top of the ladder. My comment is that it is not at all certain that mind is superior to matter.

Actually, Belinda, I am hard-pressed to imagine a situation where mind...

(the thing that uses and confers meaning upon matter)

...and matter...

(the infinitely malleable essence through-which life, mind, and consciousness expresses itself)

...could exist independent of one another in any logical context.

In other words, mind and matter seem to be two inseparable aspects of the singular "oneness substance" proposed by Spinoza. And like the particle/wave duality of a photon or an electron, they are simply two complementary features of the same primal essence.

However, if I were forced to assign importance to one of them, I would give a slight edge to life, mind, and consciousness, for all of reality would be utterly meaningless without them.
_______

[seeds]

And this highly speculative guesswork, which, in fact, could be utter nonsense, is what you feel gives you the right to sarcastically belittle the rest of us? Really?

No, I just belittle you for not understanding that

you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to comprehend that the Creator of this universe could not only be its living foundation,...

...but could also be as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above amoebas...

is of course a very simple and obvious idea. Of course I've considered it, but I'd say it's highly improbable to be correct. What is probable is that it's just another desperate psychological attempt to try to explain how God is around even though we can't find him.

As ironic as it may seem to be (in light of the fact that I am insisting that God exists), I have explained in many alternate threads why any "finding of God" in any literal sense could be detrimental to maintaining the illusion of objective reality, therefore, it is forbidden.

Furthermore, if you truly understood what I was saying about God being the "living foundation" of the universe,...

(in that the universe is the mind of God)

...then you would realize that as you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are seeing God.

I suggest that you are seeing God in precisely the same way that you would have seen your own mother had you opened your eyes and looked around while you were still suspended in the amniotic water of her womb.

But the observable world sure doesn't seem to behave like a God, and we need to add as little extra stuff to the observable world as we can, so extrapolating from the observable world we just get more of the same.

If you make an effort to understand my previous statement, then you will realize that the "observable world" is behaving precisely in accordance with the way a "womb" is supposed to behave.

In other words, it is conceiving (awakening into existence) the literal offspring (us) of the living entity (God) to whom the womb belongs.

You need to stop visualizing God based on the nonsense handed down to us in the world's religions.

Are you open to investigating the idea that you, Atla, are imbued with the potential of literally becoming a universe like the one in which you were born?

Of course but put in this way, this is also improbable. Don't you mean that every time such a new "God" being is created, a new universe or realm or whatever is added? So as time goes on, there are more and more such beings/universes/realms or whatever? Which spirals out into infinity which is logically impossible. Unless logic is irrelevant.

Tell that to the physicists who promote the "multiverse" theory.

I'm talking about the ones who propose the probable existence of a near infinity of individual universes that have merely "popped into existence" from a vacuum.

Or how about physicists such as Sean Carroll or Max Tegmark who push the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (MWI), where it is alleged that trillions of copies of you, me, and this entire universe just now sprang into existence in the time it took you to read this sentence - all because of the quantum events that took place between your eyes and that of the particles of light that sprang-off of your computer screen.

The point is that, apparently, even materialists have no problem with an infinity of "new realms" being constantly added to what already exists.

And seeing how that right at this very moment there are 7.8 billion of these "new realms" (new embryonic universes) riding on this tiny planet we are standing on...

(new realms [minds] that are every bit of what seems to be internally infinite [yet finite] as the mind in which they have been conceived)

...then it appears that size is relative.

Which means that our minds and the mind of God (the universe) could actually be the same size, and merely exist as parallel dimensions of reality whose inner-workings do not collide or interfere with one another.

I tell you what, Atla, because we both seem to be just a couple of lunatics with crazy theories,...

...why don't you simply continue to promote (in your nihilistic and mean-spirited way) your purposeless and hopeless outlook on life, and, in turn, I will continue to promote my purpose-filled and hope-filled outlook on life, and we'll both go on our merry (but separate) ways.
_______

[attofishpi]

I'm starting to really appreciate U seeds. I don't need your allegiance, just - well said.

[seeds]

I'm starting to really appreciate U seeds. I don't need your allegiance, just - well said.

Thank you, atto, your kind comment is much appreciated.
_______

[Atla]

And this highly speculative guesswork, which, in fact, could be utter nonsense, is what you feel gives you the right to sarcastically belittle the rest of us? Really?

No, I just belittle you for not understanding that

you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to comprehend that the Creator of this universe could not only be its living foundation,...

...but could also be as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above amoebas...

is of course a very simple and obvious idea. Of course I've considered it, but I'd say it's highly improbable to be correct. What is probable is that it's just another desperate psychological attempt to try to explain how God is around even though we can't find him.

As ironic as it may seem to be (in light of the fact that I am insisting that God exists), I have explained in many alternate threads why any "finding of God" in any literal sense could be detrimental to maintaining the illusion of objective reality, therefore, it is forbidden.

Furthermore, if you truly understood what I was saying about God being the "living foundation" of the universe,...

(in that the universe is the mind of God)

...then you would realize that as you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are seeing God.

I suggest that you are seeing God in precisely the same way that you would have seen your own mother had you opened your eyes and looked around while you were still suspended in the amniotic water of her womb.

But the observable world sure doesn't seem to behave like a God, and we need to add as little extra stuff to the observable world as we can, so extrapolating from the observable world we just get more of the same.

If you make an effort to understand my previous statement, then you will realize that the "observable world" is behaving precisely in accordance with the way a "womb" is supposed to behave.

In other words, it is conceiving (awakening into existence) the literal offspring (us) of the living entity (God) to whom the womb belongs.

You need to stop visualizing God based on the nonsense handed down to us in the world's religions.

Are you open to investigating the idea that you, Atla, are imbued with the potential of literally becoming a universe like the one in which you were born?

Of course but put in this way, this is also improbable. Don't you mean that every time such a new "God" being is created, a new universe or realm or whatever is added? So as time goes on, there are more and more such beings/universes/realms or whatever? Which spirals out into infinity which is logically impossible. Unless logic is irrelevant.

Tell that to the physicists who promote the "multiverse" theory.

I'm talking about the ones who propose the probable existence of a near infinity of individual universes that have merely "popped into existence" from a vacuum.

Or how about physicists such as Sean Carroll or Max Tegmark who push the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (MWI), where it is alleged that trillions of copies of you, me, and this entire universe just now sprang into existence in the time it took you to read this sentence - all because of the quantum events that took place between your eyes and that of the particles of light that sprang-off of your computer screen.

The point is that, apparently, even materialists have no problem with an infinity of "new realms" being constantly added to what already exists.

And seeing how that right at this very moment there are 7.8 billion of these "new realms" (new embryonic universes) riding on this tiny planet we are standing on...

(new realms [minds] that are every bit of what seems to be internally infinite [yet finite] as the mind in which they have been conceived)

...then it appears that size is relative.

Which means that our minds and the mind of God (the universe) could actually be the same size, and merely exist as parallel dimensions of reality whose inner-workings do not collide or interfere with one another.

I tell you what, Atla, because we both seem to be just a couple of lunatics with crazy theories,...

...why don't you simply continue to promote (in your nihilistic and mean-spirited way) your purposeless and hopeless outlook on life, and, in turn, I will continue to promote my purpose-filled and hope-filled outlook on life, and we'll both go on our merry (but separate) ways.
_______

That's what I addressed. Just because we evolved to this point, doesn't mean that the observable world behaves like a womb. The kind of God you're talking about, is a popular and common idea, but unlikely to be the case, and you have provided no arguments to actually support it.

Also, reality is nondual, mental and physical are the same thing, you are just wrong about the nature of the individual mind. No, a mind is not a new universe.

And this spiraling out into infinity is just as wrong in your theory, as it is wrong in the version of the MWI where the universe splits and multiplies. (I've seen Sean Carroll talk about it btw, he notes that this isn't supposed to be taken literally, the universes or branches have been there all along.)

Now you may be a lunatic but stop trying to drag me down to your level. If you can't handle a little debate on a debate forum, where your weak-minded, wishful thinking theory gets put to the test, then put me on ignore.

But to actually imply that just because you couldn't handle the world as it probably is, which may be often hopeless and purposeless, gives you the moral highground? While those who didn't delude themselves, when faced with the real world, are mean-spirited? This is why you deserve contempt beacuse you are the mean-spirited one, everyone wants life to be purposeful, meaningful. And then the guy is surprised that he gets belittled heh how pathetic.

[Belinda]

Seeds, I refer to your latest diagram featuring a ladder. an ascending soul, and an eye at the top of the ladder. My comment is that it is not at all certain that mind is superior to matter.

Actually, Belinda, I am hard-pressed to imagine a situation where mind...

(the thing that uses and confers meaning upon matter)

...and matter...

(the infinitely malleable essence through-which life, mind, and consciousness expresses itself)

...could exist independent of one another in any logical context.

In other words, mind and matter seem to be two inseparable aspects of the singular "oneness substance" proposed by Spinoza. And like the particle/wave duality of a photon or an electron, they are simply two complementary features of the same primal essence.

However, if I were forced to assign importance to one of them, I would give a slight edge to life, mind, and consciousness, for all of reality would be utterly meaningless without them.
_______

I am glad to hear it, Seeds! But I am not as sure about mind's slight edge over matter. Matter did very well for itself long before there were any mind to pursue meanings, and matter is likely to continue to exist in its meaningless manner after man has helped to destroy the biosphere. I'd like it if you could put me right about this but I don't see how you could.

[seeds]

I am glad to hear it, Seeds! But I am not as sure about mind's slight edge over matter. Matter did very well for itself long before there were any mind to pursue meanings, and matter is likely to continue to exist in its meaningless manner after man has helped to destroy the biosphere. I'd like it if you could put me right about this but I don't see how you could.

I'm not suggesting that I cannot be wrong, but come on now, Belinda, based on what I have been saying in just this one thread alone (never mind all of our past conversations), surely you should know that my response will be that all matter throughout the universe is simply a highly resolved and extremely ordered version of the same substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

In other words, all matter is "mind stuff."

I mean, if it is possible that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness (God), then what else would matter be if not God's mental essence?

What do you think I have been trying to point out in my fanciful illustrations?...





The blurry captions read as follows:

...just as that fly, way down on a rung below ours, could land on our arm and never even begin to comprehend that it is walking on the living physical body of a being that is so far and away above it in scope and consciousness that there is no comparison, so it is with us as we stand on the earth...

...In a higher metaphorical sense, we are walking on the "living physical body" of a being that is so far and away above us in scope and consciousness that we do not recognize what he is or the situation he has us in...

...It is almost impossible for us to comprehend that everything we are and that everything we see throughout the universe is all part of God's "spirit body." It is all completely alive, but it just does not present itself to us as a living being as we understand living beings to be.

Again, Belinda, I'm not suggesting that I cannot be wrong, but I propose that everything we call "matter" is simply the infinitely malleable substance that life, mind, and consciousness uses to express (and replicate) itself.
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

my response will be that all matter throughout the universe is simply a highly resolved and extremely ordered version of the same substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

In other words, all matter is "mind stuff."

Then you are not a follower of Spinoza, but you are another sort of monist - an idealist(immaterialist).Timothy Sprigge has worked on an ontology that combines a form of idealism with the philosophy of Spinoza , however I have not read it.

The author of The Vindication of Absolute Idealism (1984), Sprigge defended a panpsychist version of absolute idealism, according to which reality consists of bits of experience combined into a certain kind of coherent whole. His work presents several new arguments in favor of the plausibility of such an account. He also defended a version of determinism in which all moments of time are intrinsically present and only relatively past or future. Time is unreal, he argued. What we experience as temporal transition is an illusion. Though a skeptic of traditional theism, Sprigge considered himself a believer in an impersonal God. He would eventually become a Unitarian. In his last book, The God of Metaphysics (2006), he argued for the existence of a "God of Philosophers" worthy of worship.[2] Sprigge's metaphysics is a creative synthesis of Spinoza, F. H. Bradley, William James, George Santayana and Alfred North Whitehead. Because of his metaphysical monism, panpsychism and rigid determinism, he has been called "Spinoza reincarnated in the twentieth century."[3]

(Wikipedia)

[jayjacobus]

The religious mindset is God is infallible but here is what God said about wisdom:

“Man does not comprehend its worth;
it cannot be found in the land of the living.
The deep says, "It is not in me";
the sea says, "It is not with me."
It cannot be bought with the finest gold,
nor can its price be weighed in silver....
It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air. (Job 28:13�15, 21)

Yet this not true. Wisdom has always existed in the minds of some men and some women.

Is wisdom hidden from God?

Let’s hope not.

[Belinda]

The religious mindset is God is infallible but here is what God said about wisdom:

“Man does not comprehend its worth;
it cannot be found in the land of the living.
The deep says, "It is not in me";
the sea says, "It is not with me."
It cannot be bought with the finest gold,
nor can its price be weighed in silver....
It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air. (Job 28:13�15, 21)

Yet this not true. Wisdom has always existed in the minds of some men and some women.

Is wisdom hidden from God?

Let’s hope not.

I like the description of faith from the Book of Job.It tells me to try to rise above the temporal and ephemeral when grief strikes.

Mystical experience of God is questionable and perhaps safer to omit mysticism from philosophical investigations. True, some people do have mystical experiences , and these often lead to reasoned metaphysics, so it is good that they do so. However mystical experiences in themselves cannot be communicated,and philosophy depends upon communications in language or other arts.

[Walker]

Mystical experience of God is questionable and perhaps safer to omit mysticism from philosophical investigations.

Omit is a rather harsh and unforgiving, though unexpected concept from a mostly peaceful and provocative source of commentary, and the reason is simple. Philosophy is unavoidable in those who ponder, and although the same unavoidability applies to mystics, the preponderance of ponderers as compared to mystics mysticisizing points to philosophy being the wider umbrella to cast a broader shadow of inclusiveness, with perhaps even a bonus of tolerance that will see fit to omit, omit.


(It appears that revisiting the Downton Abbey Saga as uncomplaining escort to mylady has grown yet another earworm.)

[jayjacobus]

The religious mindset is God is infallible but here is what God said about wisdom:

“Man does not comprehend its worth;
it cannot be found in the land of the living.
The deep says, "It is not in me";
the sea says, "It is not with me."
It cannot be bought with the finest gold,
nor can its price be weighed in silver....
It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air. (Job 28:13�15, 21)

Yet this not true. Wisdom has always existed in the minds of some men and some women.

Is wisdom hidden from God?

Let’s hope not.

I like the description of faith from the Book of Job.It tells me to try to rise above the temporal and ephemeral when grief strikes.

Mystical experience of God is questionable and perhaps safer to omit mysticism from philosophical investigations. True, some people do have mystical experiences , and these often lead to reasoned metaphysics, so it is good that they do so. However mystical experiences in themselves cannot be communicated,and philosophy depends upon communications in language or other arts.

Faith can be defined as "the universal quality of human meaning making”. Faith describes the underlying meaning-making process used by all people regardless of their beliefs.

Job's faith came from his understanding and experiences and is not yours.

[Belinda]

jayjacobus wrote:

Faith can be defined as "the universal quality of human meaning making”. Faith describes the underlying meaning-making process used by all people regardless of their beliefs.

Can faith exist unless it is faith in something? For instance some people have faith in the teachings of their church and its priests: others have faith in human reason: others have faith in some philosopher's arguments: others have faith in their wives: some people have faith in what pleases them to believe in.

I am not sure that it's helpful to reify faith. On the other hand, analysing faith helps to understand the varieties of experiences.