God + Allah = ?

[ShaSha1]

If I define "god" as "nature", as apparently the philosopher Spinoza did, I still don't think anybody knows very much about god.

Drishtantoism is different from Spinozism. In Drishtantoism, God is not neglected but avoided. Here avoidance doesn’t mean opposing God but staying at a distance from the being. As God can never be proven, man has to be in the earth by the might of man-made philanthropic ethics. Shobuj Taposh acknowledges certainly that by opposing/neglecting traditional religion, it is not possible to have worldly peace. And again by giving importance to it, it is not possible to have worldly peace too.

[chaz wyman]

Thanks, chaz! Your information about Spinoza agrees well with what I picked up in a class this semester. It would be a stretch to view nature as a single, grand conscious entity, even though nature apparently contains conscious entities, such as people and apes. Ants and bees? Not sure, but they appear clever enough.

The evolution of the Universe is is come sense a trial or order against the tendency to chaos. But on a thin layer of blues green scum, mainly made of water, a remarkable thing has happened, and that is the emergence of consciousness. Matter is, in a very limited sense now aware of its-self.
It is probably only a temporary condition and not likely to change much in the vastness of space, but I think you will agree that it is unlikely to have been the first thing that happened, and it is an act of human hybris to assume that consciousness is bigger and more important that it actually is.

[chaz wyman]

I like the God = Nature equation too.

Nature might be defined as everything that human beings can come to know, through the five senses, aids to those senses (e.g. radio telescopes, geiger counters, microscopes, blood hounds, etc.), and with the aid of the scientific method.

You've just reduced God/Nature to the scale of human beings, one species on one planet, in one of billions of galaxies, and that's just the stuff this one little species knows about. Gotta go thumbs down on this one, sorry.

I believe people have only scratched the surface of "Nature".

Agreed, this is very easy to demonstrate. Thus, the notion that nature is merely a bunch of stuff driven by mechanical processes should be considered a very speculative conclusion.

Are there extant things that human beings cannot come to know, because of the inherent limitations of homo sapiens?

To argue that humans are not limited in ability would be to argue that humans are gods. However, I would agree the scope of what we can know will surely be expanded dramatically over time, and that humans will probably not always take the same form as they do today.

Of course, by definition, people could never find out about that part of "God" which is humanly unknowable (if any): the "mystery" aspect that is dear to many theists' hearts.

First, we can examine what we mean by "know". Typically we mean "have created an accurate symbolic representation of some aspect of reality in our heads". This may be too limited a definition.

Second, mystery, the unknown, is what makes being human fun, so it's dear to people's hearts for a very good reason. We are free to pursue science with wild abandon only because it's most likely impossible we will ever reach the end of that inquiry, thus destroying the mystery.

What afflicts our culture today is that we are still a very young science culture, and we suffer from the illusion that we've already conquered the mystery, or will shortly. Thus we see silly conclusions such as, science has not discovered a god, thus there isn't one, and so on...

You can accuse people of reducing the universe to the limits of human experience and sense, but that is all we will ever have to go on.
But it is true that nature is THAT and everything we can never know and that which we are yet to learn.
None of this deifies nature. When Spinoza said god is nature, he meant nature is god; not a conscious being; not a... not actually a god in any previous sense.

[Felasco]

You can accuse people of reducing the universe to the limits of human experience and sense, but that is all we will ever have to go on.

A child has only the mind of a child to go on. That doesn't equal what children think being true.

[chaz wyman]

You can accuse people of reducing the universe to the limits of human experience and sense, but that is all we will ever have to go on.

A child has only the mind of a child to go on. That doesn't equal what children think being true.

No they make shit up to fill the empty spaces, like religious people.

[ShaSha1]

Some scholars take Drishtantoism as a Spinozist version. It is their wrong business. It is different from Spinozism.

Following Descartes, Spinoza said that we find the knowledge of God through reason. To him, the thing which is independent is substance. He took the substance as nature too. That is why; he admitted the existence of God.

But Drishtantoism, in all spheres, avoids God. Even the philosophy doesn’t take nature as God.

Accorging to Shobuj Taposh, God is not neglected but avoided. Here avoidance doesn’t mean opposing God but staying at a distance from the being. As God can never be proven, man has to be in the earth by the might of man-made philanthropic ethics. I acknowledge certainly that by opposing/neglecting traditional religion, it is not possible to have worldly peace. And again by giving importance to it, it is not possible to have worldly peace too.

[chaz wyman]

Some scholars take Drishtantoism as a Spinozist version. It is their wrong business. It is different from Spinozism.

Following Descartes, Spinoza said that we find the knowledge of God through reason. To him, the thing which is independent is substance. He took the substance as nature too. That is why; he admitted the existence of God.

But Drishtantoism, in all spheres, avoids God. Even the philosophy doesn’t take nature as God.

Accorging to Shobuj Taposh, God is not neglected but avoided. Here avoidance doesn’t mean opposing God but staying at a distance from the being. As God can never be proven, man has to be in the earth by the might of man-made philanthropic ethics. I acknowledge certainly that by opposing/neglecting traditional religion, it is not possible to have worldly peace. And again by giving importance to it, it is not possible to have worldly peace too.

I'm not sure you have Spinoza right, and the stuff on Drishtantoism on the Internet is rather patchy.

[ShaSha1]

I'm not sure you have Spinoza right, and the stuff on Drishtantoism on the Internet is rather patchy.

As the philosophy based on easter & western philosophies, it is normal that we may have patch in the philosophy.

[chaz wyman]

I'm not sure you have Spinoza right, and the stuff on Drishtantoism on the Internet is rather patchy.

As the philosophy based on easter & western philosophies, it is normal that we may have patch in the philosophy.

That does not make sense.

[ShaSha1]

That does not make sense.

In which philosophy or religious belief, there is no patch or influence?

[chaz wyman]

That does not make sense.

In which philosophy or religious belief, there is no patch or influence?

That is not important. I can find out enough to compare Spinoza to a whole host of other philosophies, but there is nothing on the one you mention in detail to make a comparison.

[ShaSha1]

That is not important. I can find out enough to compare Spinoza to a whole host of other philosophies, but there is nothing on the one you mention in detail to make a comparison.

Ok, fine.

[ShaSha1]

You can accuse people of reducing the universe to the limits of human experience and sense, but that is all we will ever have to go on.

A child has only the mind of a child to go on. That doesn't equal what children think being true.

Right a great extent.

[chaz wyman]

That is not important. I can find out enough to compare Spinoza to a whole host of other philosophies, but there is nothing on the one you mention in detail to make a comparison.

Ok, fine.

SO what is Drishtantoism?

[ShaSha1]

SO what is Drishtantoism?

The essence of Drishtantoism is observed in the derivative meaning of the word, Drishtantobad. The philosophy advocates for the displayed and observed existence, or for the nature which is visible or observable. According to the philosophy, the thing which is materially changeable, transformable and presentable is useful or important. That is, importance of a thing depends on its changeableness or transformability. According to the philosophy the test of truth and falsehood or right and wrong is applicable only for the thing which is materially presentable. It accepts such type of thing as true. For this, the imagination or imaginary thing which is not realizable is staying at a distance from the question of truth and falsehood.