Evidence of Deity

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Evidence of Deity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 11:08 pm
Last night in Australia there was an interview with Richard Dawkins on TV. I found him quite a likeable character. He is rather shy, surprisingly, given how forthright his opinions are. (Actually my feeling was that he has lead rather a sheltered life; very much the Oxford don, I felt.)

Regardless, I think he is very wrong about religion. I don't say this as a biblical Christian or fundamentalist. I hold no brief for creationism or intelligent design, but at the same time I am someone who feels that there seems to be 'an intelligence behind everything'. It is kind of vague, and I am OK with that. (Besides I never want to argue for the existence of God. Only for the existence of the possibility. That is all I think is necessary, for philosophy.)

The question I have, however, is very specific. Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'. He was very clear about that and in fact looked very pained that anyone could hold such a belief. It clearly annoys him.

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

What are you looking for - footprints? Fossil remains? DNA samples?

It seems to me that Dawkins conception of Deity is rather like those of children who imagine him as a kind of very large, but nevertheless finite, being, rather like a super-person. Presumably a very busy one, dashing here and there, creating things. (Of course, if you see it like this, it is no wonder you think it is absurd.)

If, however, the Deity was not 'a being' whose role is to 'tinker with creation' but the intelligence behind the laws of nature themselves, by the operation of which everything subsequent is generated, how could there be evidence of such a Deity? What what you look for? What would constitute 'evidence'?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 11:24 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113428 wrote:
Last night in Australia there was an interview with Richard Dawkins on TV. I found him quite a likeable character. He is rather shy, surprisingly, given how forthright his opinions are. (Actually my feeling was that he has lead rather a sheltered life; very much the Oxford don, I felt.)

Regardless, I think he is very wrong about religion. I don't say this as a biblical Christian or fundamentalist. I hold no brief for creationism or intelligent design, but at the same time I am someone who feels that there seems to be 'an intelligence behind everything'. It is kind of vague, and I am OK with that. (Besides I never want to argue for the existence of God. Only for the existence of the possibility. That is all I think is necessary, for philosophy.)

The question I have, however, is very specific. Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'. He was very clear about that and in fact looked very pained that anyone could hold such a belief. It clearly annoys him.

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

What are you looking for - footprints? Fossil remains? DNA samples?

It seems to me that Dawkins conception of Deity is rather like those of children who imagine him as a kind of very large, but nevertheless finite, being, rather like a super-person. Presumably a very busy one, dashing here and there, creating things. (Of course, if you see it like this, it is no wonder you think it is absurd.)

If, however, the Deity was not 'a being' whose role is to 'tinker with creation' but the intelligence behind the laws of nature themselves, by the operation of which everything subsequent is generated, how could there be evidence of such a Deity? What what you look for? What would constitute 'evidence'?


That is a good question. But is it not true that phenomena have been offered as evidence for God? I mean things like miracles, or what appears to be design or purpose in the world like birds building nests, or that Earth has just the right characteristics to sustain life (all the arguments that are given for intelligent design). So it is not as if there is nothing that has been offered as evidence for God. You ask your question only against the background of arguments that have repudiated that evidence. Many people would reply to the question you pose in your last sentence with a whole list of things.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 11:27 pm
@jeeprs,
That is also a good answer. And yes I think there are many possible answers, or many things that people might offer by way of reply, but I really think the likes of Dawkins ought to take seriously what this question implies. But thanks. I will get to the 'anthropic' arguments in due course.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 11:47 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113432 wrote:
That is also a good answer. And yes I think there are many possible answers, or many things that people might offer by way of reply, but I really think the likes of Dawkins ought to take seriously what this question implies. But thanks. I will get to the 'anthropic' arguments in due course.


Maybe the question ought to be, "What is it that would falsify the claim that there is a God"?

I think the following will interest you:

Antony Flew "Theology and Falsification," 1950
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 12:10 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113428 wrote:
Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'.


He acts as if the very word "God" were an assertion. This word "God" has been used in many assertions which are significantly different from one another.
Where is Dawkins' evidence for this vague statement of his? I sometimes think that religions can be made of anti-religiousness.


Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 12:43 am
@jeeprs,
From the Terry Eagleton review of the God Delusion:
Quote:
Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as Creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. The Jews of the so-called Old Testament had faith in God, but this does not mean that after debating the matter at a number of international conferences they decided to endorse the scientific hypothesis that there existed a supreme architect of the universe - even though, as Genesis reveals, they were of this opinion. They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you. They may well have been mistaken in their view; but they were not mistaken because their scientific hypothesis was unsound.

Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.


From The London Review of Books, Oct 2006

Note 'it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist.' This because Deity must be, in a real sense, 'beyond existence', or 'transcendent', while also being present as the very principle of sentience, or 'immanent'.

But again, even if all this were true, there would still be nothing which could provide 'evidence' is there?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 12:53 am
@jeeprs,
It bothers me to see all non-atheistic thoughts that involve the word "God" reduced to an ugly cartoon. I admit that there are less thinking persons in the world whose concept of God is not unlike this ugly cartoon. But then science is reduced, in some minds, to an ugly cartoon. The real enemy is shallowness and bigotry?

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 01:18 am
@jeeprs,
I feel for Dawkins in some ways. He is up against people who try and ban the teaching of evolution in schools. The problem is that this has distorted his whole view of the matter. As far as he is concerned, all spirituality is the same superstitious nonsense. But the problem is if you follow this through to its logical conclusion, you have to say that Western civilization - 'Christendom', if you will - was founded on a ghastly mistake, a delusion. Where do you draw the line? Do you chuck out the spiritual content of western philosophy, as well? Classical music? Classical architecture?

The point I am making with the 'evidence' argument is that a Dawkins thinks that religion is trying to be like science, only doing it wrong; 'they believe in mythical beings'. Maybe the righteous indignation is actually a defense mechanism. In any case, he doesn't get the meaning of 'transcendent' (which is generally dismissed on the Dawkins forum as 'woo').
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 01:30 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113477 wrote:

The point I am making with the 'evidence' argument is that a Dawkins thinks that religion is trying to be like science, only doing it wrong; 'they believe in mythical beings'. Maybe the righteous indignation is actually a defense mechanism. In any case, he doesn't get the meaning of 'transcendent' (which is generally dismissed on the Dawkins forum as 'woo').


I agree. Dawkins is missing the point. The correspondence theory of truth is his un-god, perhaps. From an angle like that, transcendence can only mean feeling/subjective state. Only what we can all stare at together is real.
Some theists might even allow that "God" is a feeling. But "woo" sounds to me like the equating of a loving couple's wedding with the renting of porn.
It's dismissive, bigoted, subjective. It's the place where motive shines thru "truth."
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 02:45 am
@jeeprs,
I really don't want to feel angry about it, though. That is what is happening in this god vs no-god debate. Having seen Dawkins interviewed, I think I can see where he is coming from, but I also see something that I think he misunderstands. But it is more a matter of sharing a perspective, than winning an argument. But why the anger? Why this sense of righteous indignation? That is the thing that just flows out of Dawkins, regarding anything spiritual.

The book that needs to be written is 'The God Complex: why the search for ultimate meaning degenerated into a slanging match, and what you can do about it'.

I suggest we need to make peace with religion. Religion in the west is drenched in blood, beginning with that of Jesus. There are multiple collective neuroses that sorround the whole thing. Power struggles and politics and heresy and repression and lots more besides. But if the enlightened are to be believed, those who get a taste of the divine nature, just for one instant, will know something greater than sex, greater than money, greater than fame and fortune, greater than any joy or pleasure, loss or gain. That is what the enlightened have always said. For them, deity is self-evident. But if you're not in that space, no evidence will ever be sufficient.

It is a matter of perception.

Is there a word for "arguing from an inappropriate state of conciousness"? There ought to be.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 03:45 am
@jeeprs,
It also seems that science is built on a suspicion of the subjective. I agree that anger is not ideal here. I've had a Dawkins attitude before, and it was after an escape from a primitive conception of religion. I suppose it's an allergy, an overactive immune system.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 03:56 am
@jeeprs,
very much so. That is why I think it is a 'complex'.

If you have an oedipal complex, or inferiority complex, or whatever, it is not possible to discuss it directly, right? There are too many repressed emotions and things you can't deal with. The Western attitude to religion is a complex. It is exactly the same kind of issue. But it is magnified by an enormous factor because it is collective and historical.

Hence the anger.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 04:07 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113489 wrote:
The Western attitude to religion is a complex.

I like that. I think that hits the nail on the head. Dawkins is the arrowhead of a tourniquet movement. An attempt to just scorch the tradition and start fresh. Ever seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? The good thing about a determinate negation is that it's a lesson learned. Perhaps we should look the dark side of religion in the eye and avoid that dark side, keeping what's good and right in the rest.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 06:13 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113428 wrote:
Last night in Australia there was an interview with Richard Dawkins on TV. I found him quite a likeable character. He is rather shy, surprisingly, given how forthright his opinions are. (Actually my feeling was that he has lead rather a sheltered life; very much the Oxford don, I felt.)

Regardless, I think he is very wrong about religion. I don't say this as a biblical Christian or fundamentalist. I hold no brief for creationism or intelligent design, but at the same time I am someone who feels that there seems to be 'an intelligence behind everything'. It is kind of vague, and I am OK with that. (Besides I never want to argue for the existence of God. Only for the existence of the possibility. That is all I think is necessary, for philosophy.)

The question I have, however, is very specific. Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'. He was very clear about that and in fact looked very pained that anyone could hold such a belief. It clearly annoys him.

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

What are you looking for - footprints? Fossil remains? DNA samples?

It seems to me that Dawkins conception of Deity is rather like those of children who imagine him as a kind of very large, but nevertheless finite, being, rather like a super-person. Presumably a very busy one, dashing here and there, creating things. (Of course, if you see it like this, it is no wonder you think it is absurd.)

If, however, the Deity was not 'a being' whose role is to 'tinker with creation' but the intelligence behind the laws of nature themselves, by the operation of which everything subsequent is generated, how could there be evidence of such a Deity? What what you look for? What would constitute 'evidence'?


Hello Jeepers. Here is a letter I wrote to Dawkins over two years ago. I have not change my stance, well perhaps a little but not much.

JULY 11, 2007

Mr. Dawkins,

It is not my intent to insult your intelligence. You are indeed an intelligent individual. Which so proves my point that wisdom and intelligence do not go hand and hand. As a matter of a fact they on opposite ends of the spectrum. Intellect tends to capitalize on frailties, wisdom identifies the reason for the frailties. Unless you remove the reason, the frailty will continue to exist.

Let me back up a few octaves on the wisdom scale so I will be able to communicate with you. Take tobacco, alcohol, heroine, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, anti-depressants, psycho-tropics, hallucinogens for instance. These serve as escapes and respites for the innocent among us as they try to survive in the chaos geniuses like yourself have created in the world. Religion, I agree, is also an escape. "The opiate of the masses as you call it."

What you conveniently fail to realize is the role you play in this chaos. That's where I come in. Getting through the intellect with wisdom is a chore. You are a gifted individual born into the world of the affluent. Wisdom can only come from he who has experienced both sides of the coin. You sir are sadly lacking as you have no desire to turn the coin over in fear that the truth, that can only come from the wise, will dampen the sails that, in your mind, sustains your voyage. As I have indicated in my offering to you previously, this mind set is not your fault. Stop trying to justify the malicious intelligence you have indeed prospered from. You don't need the money. It's much more than that. It is an obsession to strive to persuade others to think like you. Get rid of your mortarboard, take off your narrow lensed spectacles put a pencil to those ills that plague mankind that would simply disappear once we stop CHARGING FOR LIFE. The term "COST OF LIVING", once you become enlightened, will incense you. In man's early development 'Quid Pro Quo' worked rather well. Nothing to shout about, none the less equal and fair exchanges were the practice. Not until we started placing value on objects such as gold and any other rare commodity did inequity begin to get seriously out of hand. As we propagated, as we can surely do, it is a no brainer to understand balancing rarity into an ever growing population would get seriously out of hand. Un-efforted knowledge and the correct application of that knowledge is God at work. Un-efforted knowledge is simply man using his natural gifts for the benefit of all. Strained knowledge is a survival technique to provide temporary bandages for man's wounds as he struggles and stumbles around in the dark trying to make wrong, right.

Mr. Dawkins, I have a high school education. That's all. The wisdom I am imparting to you has nothing to do with scholastic achievement. It has to do with that power you so avidly dismiss as not existing that speaks through me and others. I am just an instrument. Of course I had to rid my mind of that malignant knowledge I possessed to be able to understand the benevolence and benign power of that esoteric intelligence that is an essential part of our evolvement to allow Him to enter my consciousness. At war here, is man and his egotistical autonomy against that he knows exists, but can't fathom, as he tries to put all the pieces together without including the infinite majesty of that of which he is an integral part. No, you cannot understand it. You were not meant to. For man's snippet of an existence to entertain the notion that he has got it all figured out is beyond hubris. All you have to do is look around to come to the conclusion man isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

If you want to eliminate religion, start treating your fellow man with the dignity and respect he is entitled to, simply by being a human being. Now what do you have to do to accomplish that. Stop holding that he is entitled to and holds dear in the balance, his life. You have no right to do that. No one does. I am speaking of a future that all mankind is entitled to, not just those who can afford it. The profits of wisdom are not in a bank account. Those rewards are in the mind as we link up to that of which we are a part. It is now within our intelligence and knowledge to eliminate man's inequity toward his fellow man. As he releases his fear that governs his behavior as he resorts to all his resources to survive, he will respond in a way never experienced since man's appearance on the planet earth.

You attack the frailty rather than use your intellect to discover the cause behind it. There are no quick fixes for the ill's of man. Man's control over man has often come in the guise of the 'Good Samaritan', as they strive to fulfil a lack in their own life. Selfishness personified. In your case self-aggrandizement. Man's ability to deceive is state of the art and rationalization is the vehicle that he comfortably rides on that motivates his desire to pat himself on the back.

It is you and those like you, who call themselves 'naturalists', whose ego's are out of control as you espouse you know all there is to know about the human being and his role in the universe. Vanity run amok. Thank God you are in the minority. Unfortunately you can do a lot of damage.

I am fully aware of the frailties of organized religion. Yes, you are correct as to the affect they have on our young. What you must understand it is not malicious intent, it is a survival technique to protect them from people like you. You cannot attack their faith. You are a dangerous man and attacking religion is not the answer. People like you have been the instigators of a lot of blood shed over the centuries. Just because you see the flaws of religion, it still does not dismiss your vain egotism as you profess to understand the universe. It is you and those like you whose desire to profit on the ill's of man, such as you are doing without the wisdom to look deeper, is the very reason why religion exists.

You have not responded to my previous attempts at critiquing your maligned attempt to solve mankind's problems. If you knew the truth, you surely would not attempt to profit from it. People like you tend to make my blood boil as it so easy for me to see through the veneer your ever so passive demeanor depicts, to the real insanity of your true objective. RECOGNITION. It is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The most dangerous motive in the world. You need a little wisdom. Unfortunately, you have none. Of course, you are not the only one who is guilty of this, the world is lousy with intellects like yours. It is not religion that is the problem, it is you and those like you. I know your ego will not allow you to accept that. I understand that perfectly. You could do immeasurable good. Remember, you could be an architect of the future. Please don't take a chance on the alternative. There is an atonement for those who ignore this simple truth and eternity is a long time. Religion has a lot of truth, much which is understandable, but of course flawed as man used his very limited ability to understand and define God equating Him to man's own existence. You just cannot go there. Wisdom will help identify the flaws and will take religion from faith to knowing. That is our next step.

The blaring difference between intellect and wisdom is the intellectual claim's to know it all; whereas the wise know what they know and know what they don't know.

Please correspond with me. I am not angry with you, I understand you. I could use your help and your intellect once you use it to bring truth to the world. Your relationship with God will be one on one. Please step out of the cocoon you are so comfortably ensconced in as you seek like intellects to support you're atheistic philosophy.

Sincerely,

William
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 02:57 pm
@jeeprs,
Well said William.

Dawkins mail would be delivered by truck and sorted by clerks, so I wouldn't hold your breath on a response. And there is a forum on Dawkins.net which has thousands of users. I have spent a bit of time on that forum - THIS ONE IS BETTER.

If you have a real, deep and genuine faith in the non-existence of Deity, as do most commited atheists, then this faith is usually very robust and will not be affected by argument.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 05:27 pm
@jeeprs,
anyway, as I said, I come not to bash Dawkins, but to suggest alternative perspectives.

I think the real weakness in his argument, philosophically, is that it burdens the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with tasks for which it is manifestly unsuitable.

The overall argument from Natural Theology - NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN, which is different - is that the Universe itself displays a deep orderliness without which neither organic life nor natural selection could form. This has been expressed in various permutations of the Anthropic Principle, which was the name of a paper written by Brandon Carter in the 1970's.

The Anthropic Principle is embarassing to many scientists, precisely because it seems to suggest a kind of uber-intelligence at work behind the scenes. However various lines of argument have been developed to remove this embarrasment. Surely the most gratuitously ridiculous of these is 'the multiverse theory' which holds that there are an infinite number of universes, of which 'ours' is only one that has produced life (which is why we can comment on it). All the other ones are not bio-friendly at all. How anybody can subscribe to such an idea and say that it is 'scientific' with a straight face is beyond me. To me it seems far more ridiculous than anything in Aquinas. But scientists will go to any lengths to avoid acknowledging even the possibility of Deity. (In fact, Anthony Flew, who Ken referred to above, and who was a leading non-theist philosopher for most of the 20th Century, late in life adopted a Deist view of the matter. Dawkins et al atttibuted this unwelcome defection from their ranks to 'senility'.)

Moving right along. It is now well known that there are a number of basic parameters of existence which appear to operate within a very narrow range and without which there would be no planets, life or anything else. These are:

  1. If the strong coupling constant (within atoms) were slightly smaller, hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. Since the evolution of life as we know it is fundamentally dependent on the chemical properties of carbon, that life could not have come into being without some hydrogen being converted to carbon by fusion. On the other hand, if the strong coupling constant were slightly larger (even by as much as 2%), the hydrogen would have been converted to helium, with the result that no long-lived stars would have been formed. In that such stars are regarded as essential to the emergence of life, such a conversion would have led to life as we know it failing to emerge.
  2. If the weak fine constant were slightly smaller, no hydrogen would have formed during the early history of the universe. Consequently, no stars would have been formed. On the other hand, if it was slightly larger, supernovae would have been unable to eject the heavier elements necessary for life. In either case, life as we know it could not have emerged
  3. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, the stars would not be hot enough to warm planets to a temperature sufficient to maintain life in the form in which we know it. If smaller, the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow life to evolve on these planets.
  4. If the gravitational fine structure constant were slightly smaller, stars and planets would not have been able to form, on account of the gravitational constraints necessary for coalescence of their constituent material. If stronger, the stars thus formed would have burned out too quickly to allow the evolution of life.


Source

Again, I don't regard these constants as 'proof that God exists'. But they do suggest that the conditions and laws required for the emergence of differentiated matter and intelligent life forms were present in the fabric of the cosmos from the instant of creation. To me, this means that there is a level of order inherent in nature which evolution pre-supposes and requires. This order itself cannot have evolved; evolution requires this order. So this kind of cosmic order is ontologically senior to Dawkin's 'principle of natural selection'. in fact he acknowledges this frequently, but I don't think he has really thought through the implications of it.

And I think it is impossible to avoid the type of pantheistic view of the matter that Spinoza held (and, remember, which was generally understood to be 'atheist' in his day). But I also think that Christian theology cannot find anything too discomforting in this analysis of the matter. Philosophers of religion and theologians can, I believe, be perfectly comfortable with the current scientific depiction of the nature of the cosmos and the order it seems to exhibit; more so than many scientists, in fact.
 
William
 
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 07:19 am
@jeeprs,
Jeepers,

Thank you for what you have offered and I wish I could respond on a level of academic knowledge you are speaking from, but I can't. I have little of that though I can do research and effort to speak on that level but there are those who are much more proficient than I ever could be.

What I am capable of is bringing it down to layman's level and communicate much of what you just said so those who are lesser intelligent can grasp why they have the faith they do and where it comes from. It is not concern of mine to try and argue and attempt to prove empirically an existence of a God. I like so many others have no imperial proof for it is all mental and for anyone to feel a presence external to themselves is difficult to relate because it is not external; it's internal and the mind is what connects us and all thing physical we perceive and conceive. Even using the word "mental" causes problems for even then there are those who separate our being into three categories; MENTAL, PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL when they are one. The only one that can be observed is the physical one, yet the other two have a great bearing as to the physical condition and physical is impirical and we associate all that we think affects that physical condition as physical such as to the food we eat and the exercise we get and the technology we think alters that physical realm with little regard to the other two simply because we can't observe them and define them in such a way that all will understand them. That is what I try to do and the reason I am here in an effort to make that understanding "simple" to understand.

We are currently surviving in a complicated world and breaking though that threshold is such a way that would simplify it so all can understand it, is indeed a task. Don't misinterpret me, I am human just as much as the next person but I recognize my frailties as being human. What, I think might separate me from most is I know I will not be condemned for frailties or ignorances. it is a learning process all will go through, and they too will not be condemned for who they are and what they experience in that learning process. Are there penalties, yes, but those we bring unto ourselves from what others impose on us. No one is guilty of all things and all are not guilty of one thing. We are all in this thing together and when all realize that the better we will all be and that makes all the difference.

Once we realize our oneness, the physical, mental and the spiritual, we become one and caring, protecting and seeing to one another alters perception and one becomes one with all that surrounds us, especially what the "we" represents as we learn it is the we from which we know all we know as it relates to communication in all the ways we can communicate and even much of that falls into the realms of the mental and spiritual, giving meaning to it is not necessarily what one says, but all that is involved in that communication. All the senses play apart in that. Not just the words themselves. The more complicated the words become, the more alien those other two realms mental and spiritual become.

In all we are as human beings there is that silver lining that connects us and it can be equated with what we call instinct in the animal and in our ignorance we see a connection to that animal though we are not that animal; we are more than that. Because we do that, connect with the animal as we think we do, is what is causing all the problems we experience.

Before we started aborting our young, we found utility in observing that what was animal in an effort to understand what human was in appealing to those physical similarities we have with one another. We were ill and because we are connected it was necessary to venture in hopes to cure those ill's and animal was our only recourse. We wouldn't dare kill a heathly human being to do research on it, now would we. Well, in our intelligence we figured out away around that..................goddamnit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for the anger, but anytime I witness any attempts from any human being in an effort to rationalize that travesty we call abortion, I see red and forgive me I just can't help it. F*ck...........and boy do we like to do that! In that regard we are much worse than animal. Nature has seen to that in that animals only participate in that act of propagation when nature tells them too. Other than that as to that act, they could care less and it is observed as such.

Being perfect creations as we are we had to justify our animal/man relationship for validity and that is what the foundation of evolution is all about. We had to assume we were animal too and that is when all the trouble began. We assumed man's cruelty to man was his animal instinct for he was once animal himself and we have been trying to make that connection ever since and haven't been able to.

We want to live and we will do anything to insure that we do. We observe rats and how, when we subject rats to those "elixirs" we concoct we apply those observations as equal to humans as a result of what we discover in those observations under the influence of those elixirs. Those elixirs are "physical" and there is no way we can know if there is a mental and spiritual realm where the "rat" is concerned. Damn! So the mental and spiritual realms are totally dismissed in those scientific endeavors and those observations.

In our attempt to "cure us" we delved into the physical animal world and we learned that to delve in that human, what we considered a perfect human would answer a lot of questions that would cure our ills and that is what abortion is all about. Of course you know all the rationalizations and excuses why we do that of which all are a load of BS. As I said, we want to live and we will do all we think is necessary to do that, even sacrificing our unborn.

It can be concluded that there is no mental and spiritual realm in the animal world but we know those exist or the words themselves would not exist and now there are efforts to eliminate any understanding of them that can identify a "morality" that only humans have. If we do that we become animal in that process. I for one don't wish to go there. When it comes to human vs animal, I will vote human in a heartbeat. And that Jeepers is what life is all about becoming MORE HUMAN.

Science or some of it anyway cannot let go of it and that is what Dawkin's is trying to do; hold on to that animal/human connection and that is where the ego comes into play. Being perfect creations we hate to confess our errs and will do all we can to excuse them and those in the intellectual community do have the most powerful egos there are and many suffer from what I call a GOD COMPLEX. I tried to explain that in another thread ATHEIST vs THEIST though I did not use that particular term. They become angry as you noted Dawkin's becomes when any talk of what mental and spiritual (religion) comes into play. Because he, himself, is unfamiliar with it, you insult his "intelligence". Pity!!!!

I have read none of his books and furthermore will not. Intellect is capable of many things and one is the art of communication that is of the most convincing "rationalizations" that offer that which is wrong to be right for those who know no better. I would simply lose my temper if I did and I hate to do that. The title of his most popular book THE GOD DELUSION told me all I need to know about Richard Dawkins.

I will agree there is much that is involved in religion that does take advantage of the weak, innocent and ignorant and that is a shame to say the least; but to dismiss any thought as to what we know that established those words MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL, which is that realm that god exists in is, to me, egotistical and why I use the term GOD COMPLEX. Those caught up in it cannot reason any higher than themselves, it would destroy them.

Most have been "spectacles" all there life as they have been blessed with certain traits and natural gifts and because how we reward such gifts cause others to become envious and that is the reason why they think as they do. To lose cannot be imagined and they will do all they can to stay in that limelight and be a winning entity. It is an aphrodisiac few can escape from and history is noted with many who didn't. And Christ himself or so it is noted in what is told of him was one of those. Of course the intellects of that time excuse their cupablity and blamed it on that god who they said sanctioned that death. History is written by those who have hanged heros....................and they crucify them too. One of the most well told lies that has ever pervaded the thought of mankind and the reason why others don't like to admit there connection to God, is for that very reason. The greatest lies lie hidden in the most profound truths. You want to read truth, read MEDITATIONS by Marcus Aurelius. He understood his frailties and for an Emperor to admit to that is indeed profound.

We all would like to be recognized for that we are in this world. Understood, but there are limits to that and how we deal with such accolade. You will never hear it from those so noted as they will never admit their frailties for it would put that light out and the thought of that they just cannot except. Those who do recognize there own misgivings in some cases put that light out themselves and for many suicide is the only solution. Martyrdom is better or so they think anyway. Those such as Dawson would never think of such a thing. He relishes in it; others languish in it.

There is only one 'I' and we all are a part of that one and there is only one and Dawkin's and many others think they are "IT". Much acclaim can come from being "IT" and that is what Dawkin's wishes to be. Talk about a delusion. Damn!

William
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 09:48 pm
@jeeprs,
Hai gais, i have an essay that is just an intresting as the ones you wrote above. Check it out:

Dialectic nationalism in the works of Eco

P. Paul Bailey
Department of Politics, Cambridge University


Thomas Scuglia
Department of English, University of Massachusetts



1. Narratives of stasis

"Truth is part of the meaninglessness of narrativity," says Derrida. Several deconstructions concerning the role of the artist as writer exist.
But the premise of dialectic nationalism holds that sexuality is capable of significance. In The Name of the Rose, Eco denies the subtextual paradigm of context; in The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, however, he affirms cultural capitalism.
In a sense, many discourses concerning the subtextual paradigm of context may be discovered. Lacan suggests the use of dialectic nationalism to read society.
However, any number of desublimations concerning the genre, and some would say the stasis, of neodialectic sexual identity exist. Derrida uses the term 'the subtextual paradigm of context' to denote not theory, but posttheory.
2. Dialectic nationalism and the capitalist paradigm of expression

"Narrativity is intrinsically a legal fiction," says Foucault; however, according to Reicher[1] , it is not so much narrativity that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the fatal flaw, and subsequent defining characteristic, of narrativity. Thus, the main theme of Drucker's[2] analysis of patriarchial nationalism is the role of the artist as writer. A number of appropriations concerning the capitalist paradigm of expression may be found.
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. Therefore, la Fournier[3] suggests that the works of Eco are empowering. Sontag promotes the use of capitalist presemioticist theory to deconstruct the status quo.
Thus, in The Island of the Day Before, Eco reiterates dialectic nationalism; in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), although, he examines cultural libertarianism. Foucault suggests the use of the semanticist paradigm of context to attack and read sexual identity.
Therefore, Baudrillardist simulacra states that the law is part of the failure of truth. Foucault promotes the use of the semanticist paradigm of context to challenge elitist perceptions of class.
But any number of deconceptualisms concerning the dialectic, and some would say the failure, of neosemanticist sexual identity exist. The subject is interpolated into a dialectic nationalism that includes language as a whole.
3. Eco and the capitalist paradigm of expression

The primary theme of the works of Eco is the difference between art and sexual identity. Therefore, the ground/figure distinction which is a central theme of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is also evident in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics). Sontag suggests the use of dialectic nationalism to analyse society.
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of textual narrativity. In a sense, an abundance of narratives concerning the predeconstructivist paradigm of context may be discovered. Foucault uses the term 'dialectic nationalism' to denote a capitalist reality.
"Language is meaningless," says Bataille. But if subconceptualist Marxism holds, the works of Eco are postmodern. Several theories concerning the common ground between sexual identity and class exist.
If one examines dialectic nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the semanticist paradigm of context or conclude that society has significance, but only if reality is interchangeable with language; if that is not the case, Derrida's model of patriarchial neodeconstructivist theory is one of "the dialectic paradigm of discourse", and thus part of the dialectic of culture. Thus, la Fournier[4] holds that we have to choose between the capitalist paradigm of expression and pretextual feminism. The economy, and subsequent absurdity, of the semanticist paradigm of context depicted in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum emerges again in The Name of the Rose, although in a more mythopoetical sense.
"Sexual identity is a legal fiction," says Lacan; however, according to Hubbard[5] , it is not so much sexual identity that is a legal fiction, but rather the stasis, and hence the paradigm, of sexual identity. But the main theme of Wilson's[6] essay on the neocapitalist paradigm of consensus is the futility, and some would say the rubicon, of constructivist truth. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic nationalism that includes sexuality as a whole.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is not theory, but pretheory. It could be said that if subtextual capitalism holds, we have to choose between the semanticist paradigm of context and the capitalist paradigm of discourse. A number of desublimations concerning dialectic nationalism may be revealed.
But the subject is interpolated into a capitalist paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a totality. Marx's critique of the semanticist paradigm of context states that narrativity serves to reinforce capitalism.
It could be said that Reicher[7] suggests that the works of Gibson are reminiscent of Fellini. Foucault uses the term 'dialectic nationalism' to denote the genre, and eventually the rubicon, of postdialectic society.
Therefore, an abundance of narratives concerning the difference between class and sexual identity exist. The subject is contextualised into a semanticist paradigm of context that includes consciousness as a whole.
However, a number of discourses concerning dialectic nationalism may be found. In Count Zero, Gibson analyses the capitalist paradigm of expression; in Mona Lisa Overdrive, however, he examines the semanticist paradigm of context.
Thus, Lacan uses the term 'textual conceptualism' to denote not theory, as Baudrillard would have it, but neotheory. The primary theme of Bailey's[8] essay on the capitalist paradigm of expression is the dialectic, and therefore the paradigm, of predialectic society.
But if semantic neodialectic theory holds, the works of Gibson are not postmodern. Hamburger[9] states that we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and Lyotardist narrative.
Thus, the subject is interpolated into a semanticist paradigm of context that includes sexuality as a totality. Several theories concerning the bridge between reality and society exist.
1. Reicher, A. W. C. ed. (1991) The Broken Key: Dialectic nationalism and the semanticist paradigm of context. Yale University Press
2. Drucker, I. F. (1978) Dialectic nationalism in the works of Eco. Harvard University Press
3. la Fournier, K. O. S. ed. (1991) Narratives of Genre: The neocultural paradigm of expression, dialectic nationalism and rationalism. And/Or Press
4. la Fournier, Q. (1970) The semanticist paradigm of context and dialectic nationalism. University of Illinois Press
5. Hubbard, F. K. ed. (1996) The Forgotten House: The semanticist paradigm of context in the works of Gibson. Loompanics
6. Wilson, J. N. W. (1973) Dialectic nationalism and the semanticist paradigm of context. O'Reilly & Associates
7. Reicher, Y. ed. (1990) Consensuses of Futility: Dialectic nationalism in the works of Lynch. Panic Button Books
8. Bailey, D. G. (1972) Rationalism, dialectic nationalism and Derridaist reading. University of Georgia Press
9. Hamburger, P. U. P. ed. (1985) Textual Situationisms: The semanticist paradigm of context and dialectic nationalism. Panic Button Books
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 10:07 pm
@jeeprs,
***DELETED***

I had responded to the postmodernist jargon above with more of the same, but it was neither interesting nor to the point, so I have removed it.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 10:44 pm
@jeeprs,
Truly, a post-neo-anti-constructionist view provides us with the meta-critique pseudo-necessary for a satisfyingly dynamic application of gender-fusion theory. The narrative of meta-narrative itself is self-referentially self-referential and therefore utterly self-obscuring. Being is disclosed by means of its erasure. The only paradox we can allow an ultra-Marxist anti-foundationalist is that of his own nomination, which is always a substitute for the name of the father. Furthermore, class struggle has entered a new phase of undecidability and this entire paragraph is divine excrement.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Evidence of Deity
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 12:48:42