Hey again, Everybodyknows and YouAreAwesome,
this might be my last post in this thread - not because I am tired of the conversations with you (quite the opposite!), but because I probably won´t have the time anymore to respond with due care.
In analogous or integrative thinking binary questions aren´t even asked, and binary claims aren´t even made.
I´m sorry but I can´t recommend any readings. I am sure someone had these ideas before me, but as far as I can tell I completely made them up myself.
I can give you another example, though - pretty relevant to the environment in which our conversation takes place. But first off: one of the things I really appreciate about our conversations here is the fact that I could talk with two theists/Christians for a couple of pages, and the issue "Does God exist?" didn´t even come up. That´s quite remarkable and refreshing.
My example, however, will be this question. The reason I am introducing it is not that I want to discuss it with you. (In fact, to me it´s an extremely stupid and boring question). The reason is: I´d like to exemplify an analogous approach that replaces this binary claim/question/discussion.
As has been pointed out countless times, "God" is not properly defined (and thus doesn´t even lend itself to a binary discussion, to begin). But let us ignore that for a moment and look at the other operational term: "existing". We use it in so many different ways. I could give a long list of examples where most everybody would accept "it exists" - yet each of these requires and/or implies a different way of "existing". The term itself is used fluently, analogously, flexibly, dynamically. Now, if I accept e.g. that thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, movements, changes (...) exist, I see no reason whatsoever to not concede that God exists in the same way (well, actually that countless Gods exist). Gods for sure exist as ideas, concepts, thoughts, feelings....
IOW, it strikes me as completely absurd to use such an analogous term in a binary question. The question is not the binary "Does God exist?", the question is the analogous "How does God exist?".
Now, I suspect most every self-confessing theist would tell me something like "But I don´t think that God exists just as a thought or idea, I believe that God
really exists."
My hypothetical response would be: "What do you mean by
existing really? Last time I checked God is supposed to exist in the spiritual realm - so by
really existing I´m sure you don´t mean anything like physically existing, like for example a rock.
Thoughts
are products of spirit and thus exist spiritually, so how exactly do you distinguish
real spiritual existence from
unreal spiritual existence, and then praise the first as the best thing since sliced bread but and devalue the other as 'just...(an idea)'?".
Now, THAT would be a start of an interesting exploration not only of our beliefs but also of our thinking systems.
Yeah, we touched on that shortly in the other thread. Well, Pauli´s bonmot "This isn´t right, it isn´t even wrong"
comes to mind when a binary moral claim is made.
Well, actually I even suggest to replace it with something else.
Personally, I have come to use the criteria "wirkmächtig" (German is my mother´s tongue, and I can´t think of a congruent English term. Closest would be something like "efficient", "effective", "affecting" but also "powerful"). So the question in the previous example would be "in which way and to which degree are (which) Gods - no matter how or as what They exist - effective (on whom)?".
Yes, I basically agree (and, on a sidenote, it´s interesting that we can´t tell whether we see reality or actually see our own filters). However, the reason why I prefer the criteria "wirkmächtig" over the criteria "beneficial" for a starting point is: The latter carries already a value judgement with it, while the first is more observational.