What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[quatona]

Not sure I can make sense of the idea that the absence of something has existence.

 

[steve_bakr]

Not sure I can make sense of the idea that the absence of something has existence.

Perhaps, ultimately, it does not.

 

[Dave Ellis]

On what background does that finite universe exist in? It is Infinite. Finite is defined in relation to the Infinite.

You may not be aware of an Infinite Intelligence as such, but you experience it in the conscious awareness of your daily experience, even though you are not explicitly aware of it.

You translate your explicit unawareness of God into the false conclusion that He Does not exist. The most you can really say is, "I don't know," or "I am not aware." But the truth is that the experience of the Infinite is always there.

We don't know there is an "infinite" background that the finite universe exists in. All we are aware of or have any evidence for is our finite universe.

I'm sure there's much we don't know about the universe. That being said, we have no reason to believe there's anything infinite.

 

[Eudaimonist]

On what background does that finite universe exist in?

There is no "background", IMV. The universe does not exist inside of, or on top of, anything. It is all that exists.

Infinity is in the imagination only. It's a mental projection of living beings with an advanced faculty of abstract thought.

You may not be aware of an Infinite Intelligence as such, but you experience it in the conscious awareness of your daily experience, even though you are not explicitly aware of it.

I realize that you personally believe that, but I don't think that you have a correct view.

There is no need for an "Infinite Intelligence" (whatever that means) to explain the natural universe, and given the lack of evidence for such an intelligence, it is reasonable to conclude that no such intelligence exists. Granted, this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, but I doubt highly that yours is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Perhaps, ultimately, it does not.

Many ideas exist that will never be actualized; they will never actually exist. They have no being.
Hell is not one of those. Hell actually exists.

Hell is hellish because of its privations. That is the same reason cold is cold and darkness is dark.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hell actually exists.

How do you know this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

There is no "background", IMV. The universe does not exist inside of, or on top of, anything. It is all that exists.

Infinity is in the imagination only. It's a mental projection of living beings with an advanced faculty of abstract thought.

I realize that you personally believe that, but I don't think that you have a correct view.

There is no need for an "Infinite Intelligence" (whatever that means) to explain the natural universe, and given the lack of evidence for such an intelligence, it is reasonable to conclude that no such intelligence exists. Granted, this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, but I doubt highly that yours is.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I used the word "background" but you could call it an all-encompassing horizon or whatever. But you cannot delineate the bounderies of the universe without Infinity.

Imagine the universe as a baloon that is being blown up. It is expanding like the universe. Without a background or horizon, the baloon could not expand. It would have nothing to expand into. If you call that space, you have to ask how far does space extend. Were the universe to keep expanding, how far could it expand? The answer is infinitely. And what existed before the universe existed? The infinite.

Furthermore, if you say that space existed before the universe, then you are describing something that is infinite. If you are saying that space is in reality non-existence, you are describing creation out of nothing. Either way, it is evidence for God and Eternity as the all-encompassing horizon in which our universe--our consciousness occurs.

The best evidence for Infinite intelligence is the universe itself. The laws of the universe are not random. Tomorrow you won't drift off into space because of the law of gravity. You have faith explicitly in the laws of science, but implicitly in the Divine Intelligence who fashioned those laws.

The subtext I hear from atheists is, "I am not aware of God in my current mode of thinking, therefore God does not exist." In reaity, your very consciousness is evidence for and experience of God, whether you are aware of it or not.

In Christianity, we begin with, "In the beginning was the Word." And, "In the beginning God created." This is the starting point for us.

The beginning of "religion" is the awareness that man is capable of transcending himself. Man is capable of being more than the sum total of his parts, which is made possible through God.

We are capable of transcending the finitude that we encounter every day and experience a foretaste of the Infinite. The key to that transcendence is our consciousness, by which we experience God, even if we are not always aware of it.

 

[steve_bakr]

We don't know there is an "infinite" background that the finite universe exists in. All we are aware of or have any evidence for is our finite universe.

I'm sure there's much we don't know about the universe. That being said, we have no reason to believe there's anything infinite.

Please see my response to Mark.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I used the word "background" but you could call it an all-encompassing horizon or whatever. But you cannot delineate the bounderies of the universe without Infinity.

Yes, you can. There are no horizons to a curved universe. "Location" only has meaning within that universe, and so there is no such thing as locations "outside" the universe, even if one imagines that such locations are filled with nothingness.

Imagine the universe as a baloon that is being blown up.

And there is your problem. You are imagining the universe as if it were being inflated like a balloon in a larger space, such as a room. That's based on a classical notion of space. In an Einsteinian universe, it's a misleading analogy. The universe is not like a balloon with a "skin" that circumscribes it.

Like I said, this is a problem of imagination. There is no infinite "horizon" or "background" to the universe.

The best evidence for Infinite intelligence is the universe itself. The laws of the universe are not random.

I wouldn't expect them to be random in any universe. To exist is to exist as something. Things change according to what they are and how they relate to other entities. There is no reason for me to conclude that regularity is evidence of some intelligent supernatural force.

The subtext I hear from atheists is, "I am not aware of God in my current mode of thinking, therefore God does not exist." In reaity, your very consciousness is evidence for and experience of God, whether you are aware of it or not.

You are just begging the question here. It's only evidence if one already assumes that a God exists.

The beginning of "religion" is the awareness that man is capable of transcending himself. Man is capable of being more than the sum total of his parts, which is made possible through God.

It's made possible through natural emergence. We are greater than the sum of our parts because those parts interact in ways that create properties that aren't possessed by individual parts. No God required.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

"Natural emergence" seems like a phrase that potrays our transcendent experience of God in the conscious awareness of the daily encounters of our lives to a reductionist scientistic script. A seeking to "contain" that transcendence within a mundane and predictable process.

I recognize the benefits of science, but I do not agree that it has the capacity to deny the existence of God and the Infinite.

The most you can say is "I don't know," or "I am not aware," or "The current paradigm of my script for reality does not include the capacity for the conscious awareness of God and the Infinite."

I understand that, as a committed atheist, you are going to stay within the boundaries of reductionism. You are going to explain the experience of God in the conscious awareness of our daily lives in terms of reductionist or scientistic vocabulary.

You are not going to convince me that the Infinite God does not exist because I experience him in my conscious awareness every day.

You experience God as well, but reduce that transcendence with terms like "natural emergence" to make it palatable to your atheistic mode of thought.

I am not going to convince you, either. And that's fine. It does not change the fact that the experience of God is always here. You can explain that experience in whatever terms you prefer.

 

[Davian]

<snip circular reasoning>

I am not going to convince you, either. And that's fine.

I am not here to convince, or be convinced. I am here to see if you have more than circular reasoning and unevidenced assertions to support your postion.

It does not change the fact that the experience of God is always here.

That is not a "fact".

You can explain that experience in whatever terms you prefer.

You mean, they can use scientific methodology, while you use religion?

 

[steve_bakr]

I am not here to convince, or be convinced. I am here to see if you have more than circular reasoning and unevidenced assertions to support your postion.

That is not a "fact".

You mean, they can use scientific methodology, while you use religion?

Scientific methodology has its place, but religion does not fall under the purview of the scientific method. Religion is a matter of experience,faith, and grace. And, as Mark clearly shows, a reductionist mode of thinking is inadequate to deal with our transcendental experience of God. Science doesn't have the ability to address this experience,

The transcendental experience is where we encounter God, and God communicates himself to us. As theologist Karen Kilby explains,

"God's self-communication to us occurs most fundamentally...on the level of our transcendental experience. That is to say, in that region of our experience where we always go beyond all particular finite objects, on that level where we always have, whether we realize it or not, an awareness of God."

This is also the level where we encounter grace. Grace occurs in the background of our experience. It is always here, always available, always being offered to us.

 

[Davian]

Scientific methodology has its place, but religion does not fall under the purview of the scientific method. Religion is a matter of experience,faith, and grace. And, as Mark clearly shows, a reductionist mode of thinking is inadequate to deal with our transcendental experience of God. Science doesn't have the ability to address this experience,

Of course it does. You have provided nothing that cannot be explained scientifically.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The transcendental experience is where we encounter God, and God communicates himself to us. As theologist Karen Kilby explains,

"God's self-communication to us occurs most fundamentally...on the level of our transcendental experience. That is to say, in that region of our experience where we always go beyond all particular finite objects, on that level where we always have, whether we realize it or not, an awareness of God."

This is also the level where we encounter grace. Grace occurs in the background of our experience. It is always here, always available, always being offered to us.

So you believe that what you experience is God, so what you experience must be God. And not just any god, but your particular God.

As I said, do you have something more than circular reasoning?

 

[Eudaimonist]

as Mark clearly shows, a reductionist mode of thinking is inadequate to deal with our transcendental experience of God.

I'm NOT a reductionist, and you have not shown that I "clearly show" any such thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

Of course it does. You have provided nothing that cannot be explained scientifically.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you believe that what you experience is God, so what you experience must be God. And not just any god, but your particular God.

As I said, do you have something more than circular reasoning?

I have seen that article before. I don't agree wth all of its reductionist proposals, but I will say a word about the God gene.

Thomas Aquinas describes a human being as the composite of body and soul. Should there be some physical counterpart to man's spirituality--far from disproving its existence--it would only serve to support the proposals of Aquinas about body and soul.

As a Christian, I believe that God's ultimate self-communication of His grace to man is found in Jesus Christ, and the most concrete symbol or sign of that is the Eucharist. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't communicate grace through other religions and religious symbols.

The Upanishads say, "I (Brahman) am the source of all religions and the author of all Scriptures." There is no limit to God's grace but, again, the ultimate self-communication of God is in Jesus Christ.

As I said, science is not equipped to make pronouncements about--or studies of, religion--It lacks the language and concepts to do so. Religion is the purview of theology. That is why we seem to speak different languages.

 

[steve_bakr]

I'm NOT a reductionist, and you have not shown that I "clearly show" any such thing.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Your explanations of--and statements you make about--the religious experience seem reductionist. For example, describing the transcendence of man and his experience of God in the conscious awareness of his daily living as "natural emergence" seems reductionist. It seems to reduce man's transcendence of himself to a biological evolutionary process driven by...what? natural selection?

If you want to delve into a syncretistic relationship of evolutionary theory with theology, check out Tielhard de Chardin.

 

[bricklayer]

How do you know this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have not been to hell, nor have I been to ...

I should be careful to say that "I am left to believe" hell actually exists.

Not unlike some claim to be able to detect a distant planet by its affect on its star,
I am left to believe that hell actually exists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your explanations of--and statements you make about--the religious experience seem reductionist. For example, describing the transcendence of man and his experience of God in the conscious awareness of his daily living as "natural emergence" seems reductionist.

LOL! It is the exact opposite! Emergentism is opposed to reductionism.

I'm not a reductionist simply because I'm a naturalist instead of a supernaturalist. Naturalists aren't automatically reductionists.

IMV, we have more properties (e.g. life, consciousness) than the sum of the properties of our parts (e.g. atoms), and so studying the parts won't tell us the whole story about what we are. This makes me opposed to reductionism. However, I see this from an entirely natural perspective. Emergentism happens within nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g

It seems to reduce man's transcendence of himself to a biological evolutionary process driven by...what? natural selection?

While we are products of evolution, transcendence is a natural psychological process, not an evolutionary one. I don't see any reason to see it as an "evolutionary process", even though our psychologies are products of evolution. Transcendence is a personal process. I think that it is important to retain that distinction.

Jonathan Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence - YouTube

IMV, the meaning we get in life doesn't have to be seen as pre-programmed by evolution. If we gain insight into the interconnectedness of the universe, that may be because the universe actually is interconnected. If that gives one an improved perspective on mundane life, all the better. There are many insights possible into the true nature of things, and that includes the insight that we live in a godless natural universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

What's your philosophy for Hell?

My opinion is the concept of hell is a fear tactic to assist indoctrination.

Once indoctrinated the concept is then used for control.

 

[steve_bakr]

LOL! It is the exact opposite! Emergentism is opposed to reductionism.

I'm not a reductionist simply because I'm a naturalist instead of a supernaturalist. Naturalists aren't automatically reductionists.

IMV, we have more properties (e.g. life, consciousness) than the sum of the properties of our parts (e.g. atoms), and so studying the parts won't tell us the whole story about what we are. This makes me opposed to reductionism. However, I see this from an entirely natural perspective. Emergentism happens within nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g

While we are products of evolution, transcendence is a natural psychological process, not an evolutionary one. I don't see any reason to see it as an "evolutionary process", even though our psychologies are products of evolution. Transcendence is a personal process. I think that it is important to retain that distinction.

Jonathan Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence - YouTube

IMV, the meaning we get in life doesn't have to be seen as pre-programmed by evolution. If we gain insight into the interconnectedness of the universe, that may be because the universe actually is interconnected. If that gives one an improved perspective on mundane life, all the better. There are many insights possible into the true nature of things, and that includes the insight that we live in a godless natural universe.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Mea culpa. Thank you for providing me with that link on emergentism that states that it is in contrast to reductionism.

But I would continue to submit that our capacity for self-transcendence is made possible by our innate relatedness to the Infinite Mystery, which is commonly known as God. As Edmund Hussey says,

"Our initial knowledge of God comes to us through a transcendental experience in which we become aware of our transcendence, that is, our openness to the unlimited expanse of all possible reality, to the infinte horizon."

God is actually an ineffable mystery that is beyond all human categories. But He is silently with us in the conscious awareness of our encounters with daily life in the finite world.

Karl Rahner might say that this Infinite horizon is "incomprehensibly obvious" and is thus easily missed. This is why we must become more open and aware to the possibility of the "nameless one" as often as we can.

Rahner would say that even atheists experience the Infinite God. And the concept of God is still present in the denials of the atheist, oftentimes as a "ghost they must banish." Nevertheless, this concept persists for the atheist, and perhaps this is an explanation for the presence of atheists in places such as CF.

Along with the Infinite Mystery--which is always present--is also the mystery called grace. Grace is always here, always being offered to everyone at all times, and requires a response and a decision.

According to Rahner--and the Catholic Church--it is possible for an atheist to make an affirmative decision, an affirmative response to that grace, even when explicitly denying any profession of faith.