Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-15-2017, 01:41 PM   #251
craig1120
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,648
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
An example is a ruffle in the bush is noted by an observer and subsequently a partridge arise from the bush and the conclusion made that the ruffle was caused by the partridge. The particular parts are contained within the percept , perceived by the intellect, and reason gallops in , bringing forth the concept of causality which concludes that the partridge is causal. Causality as a higher concept or "idea" within reason.
I would never argue that rationality, or reason, isn't useful. It's clearly adapted for our survival. I'm saying rationality isn't 'truth'-ful. When it comes to metaphysical claims, or deeper levels of causality, rationality alone is no longer effective.

If someone gets punched in the face, the rational mind has no problem accurately assessing why that person's face hurts. But, if that person wakes up one morning in severe depression and wants to end his life, the rational mind will come up with any number of possible theories or factors of causation, and they will all be either wrong or grossly incomplete. The rational mind cannot accurately understand or solve issues of suffering/evil, which is THE problem.

All thoughts and beliefs are rational. Someone might see a belief as irrational, but only because that person is not gripped by it. If they were, then they would consider the very same belief rational. The same thoughts or beliefs cannot be both rational and irrational, so it's more useful to think of all thoughts and beliefs as rational. Any belief can be rationalized if we are gripped by it. It is incorrect to think that we hold beliefs. Beliefs hold us, which is why we cannot accurately assess them within the domain or rationality.
craig1120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 04:31 PM   #252
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,434
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120 View Post
I would never argue that rationality, or reason, isn't useful. It's clearly adapted for our survival. I'm saying rationality isn't 'truth'-ful. When it comes to metaphysical claims, or deeper levels of causality, rationality alone is no longer effective.

If someone gets punched in the face, the rational mind has no problem accurately assessing why that person's face hurts. But, if that person wakes up one morning in severe depression and wants to end his life, the rational mind will come up with any number of possible theories or factors of causation, and they will all be either wrong or grossly incomplete. The rational mind cannot accurately understand or solve issues of suffering/evil, which is THE problem.

All thoughts and beliefs are rational. Someone might see a belief as irrational, but only because that person is not gripped by it. If they were, then they would consider the very same belief rational. The same thoughts or beliefs cannot be both rational and irrational, so it's more useful to think of all thoughts and beliefs as rational. Any belief can be rationalized if we are gripped by it. It is incorrect to think that we hold beliefs. Beliefs hold us, which is why we cannot accurately assess them within the domain or rationality.
Man thinks, feels and wills ; which do you choose to give you insight into the world ? Is there another ?

Reason brings us to truth even when that truth is found to be replaced by another in the progress of time. This only means that Man is a limited being who progresses within time, as change works its path.

If somehow you refuse to say "reason" and use "rational" then carry on for only through thoughts and thinking, in complete clarity, can you, I, or behind the outhouse come to an agreement.

The best to you. finis.
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 06:06 PM   #253
craig1120
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,648
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
Man thinks, feels and wills ; which do you choose to give you insight into the world ? Is there another ?

Reason brings us to truth even when that truth is found to be replaced by another in the progress of time. This only means that Man is a limited being who progresses within time, as change works its path.

If somehow you refuse to say "reason" and use "rational" then carry on for only through thoughts and thinking, in complete clarity, can you, I, or behind the outhouse come to an agreement.

The best to you. finis.
We can divide reality into three categories: the explored known, the unexplored known, and the unknown. Reason only brings us to, or operates in, the first two categories, but new (and truthful) intelligence can only be found in the third category. We can tell the difference between the 2nd and 3rd categories in practice by how much chaos, pain, and resistance there is as we aim at and move toward it.

Regarding your question of how I gain insight into the world: We can do that by going into the unknown, into the chaotic. It's an internal/psychological process. As we make the unknown known about ourselves internally, we then make the unknown known about the world. This is what Jesus and Krishna did and taught, and what the Buddha was scratching the surface of.

People think (mostly unconsciously) that they are making progress toward truth through the intellect but they are stuck in the category of the unexplored known. They are simply clarifying, articulating, and bringing to conscious awareness elements of the known. That is what the intellect actually does. It operates within a level of causality and insight that is incomplete for what we desire. If we attempt to extend beyond this boundary where the intelligence that we desire exists, the intellect will resist by first attempting to convince us that this place doesn't exist and if that doesn't work, by then giving reason after reason of why we should no longer proceed.

The ultimate arbitrator on this topic is pain/suffering. It is the reality check on whatever presumed solution the rational mind has given us. It is very difficult to take on the burden of voluntarily holding onto the pained mindset that realizes the emptiness of life while simultaneously holding the contradictory faithful/optimistic mindset, but that is what is required to be capable of seeing the limitation of the intellect and actually making progress in life.
craig1120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 07:57 PM   #254
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,434
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120 View Post
We can divide reality into three categories: the explored known, the unexplored known, and the unknown. Reason only brings us to, or operates in, the first two categories, but new (and truthful) intelligence can only be found in the third category. We can tell the difference between the 2nd and 3rd categories in practice by how much chaos, pain, and resistance there is as we aim at and move toward it.

Regarding your question of how I gain insight into the world: We can do that by going into the unknown, into the chaotic. It's an internal/psychological process. As we make the unknown known about ourselves internally, we then make the unknown known about the world. This is what Jesus and Krishna did and taught, and what the Buddha was scratching the surface of.

People think (mostly unconsciously) that they are making progress toward truth through the intellect but they are stuck in the category of the unexplored known. They are simply clarifying, articulating, and bringing to conscious awareness elements of the known. That is what the intellect actually does. It operates within a level of causality and insight that is incomplete for what we desire. If we attempt to extend beyond this boundary where the intelligence that we desire exists, the intellect will resist by first attempting to convince us that this place doesn't exist and if that doesn't work, by then giving reason after reason of why we should no longer proceed.

The ultimate arbitrator on this topic is pain/suffering. It is the reality check on whatever presumed solution the rational mind has given us. It is very difficult to take on the burden of voluntarily holding onto the pained mindset that realizes the emptiness of life while simultaneously holding the contradictory faithful/optimistic mindset, but that is what is required to be capable of seeing the limitation of the intellect and actually making progress in life.
This is the perspective I'm attempting to clarify :

"Plato: Metaphysical Background: The Forms – Plato is not a theist or polytheist, and he is certainly not a biblical theist. When he talks of the divine he is referring to reason (logos), a principle that organizes the world from preexisting matter. What is most distinctive about Plato’s philosophy is his theory of forms, although his description of forms isn’t precise. But Plato thought that knowledge is an active process through which we organize and classify our perceptions. Forms are ideas or concepts which have at least 4 aspects:" continued at the reference...

http://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/10/...-plato-part-1/

Plato speaks to the Logos as does the first 20 verses of the Gospel of John as he refers to the "Word" the "Logos" , the "Christ Being". John was known to be a Greek and some in the churches deny him because of this as his Gospel could be called the gospel of the philosopher.

Read of the forms of Plato and his calling this form Creator of the world the "Word" or the "Logos", that to which the Christian Church knows as the Christ.

To further clarify, John, who wrote this gospel and the "Revelation" and the "Acts of the Apostles " was not the son of Zebedee but the "Risen Lazarus" or he who was the first christian initiate, initiated by Christ Jesus. This is the apostle whom the Lord loved.

Note the change of tone after Lazarus rises for at this point he had become a "new man" with his presentation up to the initiation referenced to the disciple, the past Lazarus.

Please note that what I've presented is "reason" making the connections between the greatest and pivotal event of the earth and the cosmos. This "reason" is the "Word" for in approaching reason without precondition, in a selfless manner, one finds the Christ.

Plato knew, even Aristotle, but in that pivotal event 2100 years ago the Christ being left the heavens and became the "Spirit of the Earth" sitting in the hearts of all men, in the manner of individual redemption.
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 09:16 PM   #255
craig1120
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,648
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

There is this repeating pattern:
dissatisfaction -> desire for resolution -> awareness of an idea that makes sense -> rest/contentment

This pattern repeats continuously throughout our lives until we die. You operate from this Platonian philosophy because it makes sense to you. Presumably, you previously had a different belief system until you became dissatisfied and sought out something better. Eventually, you will become dissatisfied again and you can either deny the desire for a better solution or you can once again act out this cycle.

We can think about it as a big gameboard, and when we become dissatisfied, then we move around to a new place on the board and draw a card from the "makes sense" pile. What I am talking about is a rejection of the entire game. It's a consistent acknowledgement of the dissatisfaction and the desire for a solution, but a refusal to play the game anymore. If we hold out long enough and continue to maintain our dissatisfaction and desire even as the heat rises, we will be given a better game to play. We go from the known (game 1), to the unknown, and back to the known (game 2).

We can't get to the better game until we go into the unknown, and we won't go into the unknown until we stop drawing from the "makes sense" pile.

*The Logos (since you mentioned it) is what transforms the unknown into the better game. It's what brings forth order from chaos, the known from the unknown, life from death, consciousness from unconsciousness. The Logos is not solely what draws from the "makes sense" pile.

Last edited by craig1120; 09-15-2017 at 09:40 PM. Reason: Added the Logos part
craig1120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 01:39 AM   #256
terragonsix
stranger
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

I think it is irrational, but humans are imperfect, and therefore occasionally irrational ourselves. Sometimes incredibly irrational. History has proven this, and so will the future.

We are not artificial computers.

If you were to argue God's existence attempting to use factual evidence, you'd come up a little short.

That's why religion is faith-based.

As an atheist, I do not condemn people for having faith in something. Matter of fact, I WANT there to be something after this life. I don't think there is though. Science had never shown any evidence that a God exists; quite the opposite in fact.

You can argue metaphysics and philosophy. I love the discussion of both.

However, it's not my duty or my career to tell people I think they are incorrect in believing something with faith. It's not falsifiable, and in the philosophical world, not worthy of debate. If it cannot be tested or proven, then further discussion is absolutely unnecessary.

That's how I feel about it, anyway.
terragonsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 04:41 PM   #257
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,434
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120 View Post
There is this repeating pattern:
dissatisfaction -> desire for resolution -> awareness of an idea that makes sense -> rest/contentment

This pattern repeats continuously throughout our lives until we die. You operate from this Platonian philosophy because it makes sense to you. Presumably, you previously had a different belief system until you became dissatisfied and sought out something better. Eventually, you will become dissatisfied again and you can either deny the desire for a better solution or you can once again act out this cycle.

We can think about it as a big gameboard, and when we become dissatisfied, then we move around to a new place on the board and draw a card from the "makes sense" pile. What I am talking about is a rejection of the entire game. It's a consistent acknowledgement of the dissatisfaction and the desire for a solution, but a refusal to play the game anymore. If we hold out long enough and continue to maintain our dissatisfaction and desire even as the heat rises, we will be given a better game to play. We go from the known (game 1), to the unknown, and back to the known (game 2).

We can't get to the better game until we go into the unknown, and we won't go into the unknown until we stop drawing from the "makes sense" pile.

*The Logos (since you mentioned it) is what transforms the unknown into the better game. It's what brings forth order from chaos, the known from the unknown, life from death, consciousness from unconsciousness. The Logos is not solely what draws from the "makes sense" pile.
This reminds me of the myth of "Kronos" who "eats his children". Ancient Greek understanding of "Kronos" , a titan, had him associated with Saturn, not the planet, but an activity which is associated with cosmic rhythm.

The Saturn influence , so to speak, is that which separates itself from the universe while maintaining its own rhythm. Thus, our solar system, via this influence encloses itself from the outer universe and in this becomes individualized. All to which we see, of the movements of the planets and sun, down to the beings of our planet perform a rhythmic dance , a dance of enclosure.

It was known to the ancient seers that this rhythmic enclosure does not stand for the separation was to be overcome such that each could again become a harmonious region of the universal being (s). therefore the specific rhythm, that to which the entity performed this separation was overcome and this world or being merged again with the universe in its harmonious entelechy.

"Kronos", this Saturn being, or activity at specific times, would "eat his children" , displacing the old rhythms into the universal rhythms of life and the living. Movement is made into the future.

Now, the story is cool and better said, but doesn't stop here for the human being has a history and in this history his past arises and we can speak to the spleen. Not a lot is known about the spleen in modern physiology except that it contains coarse white granules and is considered that somehow it acts as a filter in the digestive system.

Interestingly enough, the spleen can be removed without an appreciable loss of digestive function as apposed to the removal of the liver which would be terminal. If the spleen of white rats is removed there is some pathology but of interest is that a nubbin of materiality begins to form at the site of the excision .

With respect to man, w could say that the functions of the spleen are of a higher supersensible nature for the activity of the spleen continues with its removal.

The ancients had the word "Saturn' associated with the spleen and its activity was called saturnine. The spleen in its activity within the digestive system is faced to the forces of nourishment in which the spleen brings to a salutary rhythm the irregular eating habits of man. this is especially present during modern times when rhythmic nourishment is difficult, at best, to attain.

Man would poison himself with his irregular eating habits if the spleen didn't enter and bring to the blood a regularity of nourishment which faces the blood appropriately. Our cardiac rhythm would not be able to withstand the chaotic forces of nourishment and in this the spleen is our Saturn.

The spleen will become distended after a heavy meal and return to normal in time but other than that the modern look at the spleen is shrouded in mystery. The irregular rhythms of nourishment are "eaten by kronos" and morphed into a bodily rapprochement with the blood.

The evolution of the spleen is questioned and the researcher can look at the menstrual cycle of the female as an understanding as to how man's history and evolution merge.

the menstrual cycle of 28 days is well known for it is apparent that this cycle is associated with the lunar rhythm . The female, does not have her cycles in tandem with the moon but far in the past , as man evolved, it is apparent that man was ensconced within this rhythm as he was a part of, not an observer separated from the moon. Metaphorically, man and the moon were "one".

As man evolved man separated himself from the moon cycle with this cycle manifesting in the bodily physiology separate from but still in awareness. The male gender also has this cycle within but does not manifest as physiological workings as with the female.

Likewise the spleen, as organ of man, and its happenings have entered into the bodily being of man, as a part of the cosmos as apposed to a cosmic cloud in which man was within the splenic or saturnine activity. the past as active present in human evolution.

In not so ancient medicine the word "saturnine" was seen as a gloomy, depressive state , associated with the spleen which in effect, had gone beyond its bounds affecting the proper functioning of the human soul. You could say that isolation is a good thing but too much isolation and focus upon one's self can lead to the throes of a saturnalia, which in modern times is called depression.
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 06:11 PM   #258
craig1120
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,648
Re: Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
You could say that isolation is a good thing but too much isolation and focus upon one's self can lead to the throes of a saturnalia, which in modern times is called depression.
A small price to pay for aiming at life, order, fulfillment, sustainability, greatness, etc.

Prioritizing the avoidance of disconnection and depression is missing the deeper truths that say that there are only two opposing forces: the predominant force that trends toward disorder and death, and the opposing potentiality of consciousness. There is no safe status quo; the arrow of time and trend toward disorder prevent that.

The confrontation with death/darkness/depression is unavoidable. We can do it consciously in our pursuit of the highest good or we can choose short-term coping, be at its mercy, and have it gradually swallow us up.

To bring it back to the main topic, the rational moral and existential truths are the shallow truths, the path of least resistance. They are familiar and comfortable, but weak, feeble, and powerless. The deeper moral and existential truths have to be consciously grabbed hold of, against the objections of the intellect. They have to be held onto otherwise we float back up to the shallow and superficial. The deeper truths are inconvenient, burdensome and irrational, but also meaningful and powerful.

Be irrational -> follow the deepest truths -> find meaning -> sacrifice -> become powerful -> unlock consciousness and intelligence

Or

Be rational -> choose the familiar -> fit in -> struggle with meaninglessness -> cope and manage -> stagnate and degrade
craig1120 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online