Don't Need Philosophy To Defeat Absurdity

[MultifariousBirdLady]

To me it's not about winning the argument, but communicating the human truth and need, and why their system fails to do that - despite how tight as a drum they make their arguments to support their chosen system. And that's key - it's a chosen system, and we look for support, to justify our choice .

 

Thank you for this. Although I needed reason and logic on my way out to sort things out, the reasons I left were indeed mostly due to my conflicts with the meaning and values held by the form of Christianity I had been involved with. I appreciate seeing that idea expressed clearly in your post.

[Antlerman]

Thank you for this. Although I needed reason and logic on my way out to sort things out, the reasons I left were indeed mostly due to my conflicts with the meaning and values held by the form of Christianity I had been involved with. I appreciate seeing that idea expressed clearly in your post.

Thank you. That makes this all worthwhile.

[Franko47]

Even when I was a Christian, my philosophical approach to things is quite similar to what it is now.

 

 

Often de-conversion is a result of a shift in thinking, approach, overcoming inner fears, even childhood impressions and experiences that are still quite powerful in my memory.

 

 

Antler, you really should write a book, man. Seriously.

[NotBlinded]

Antler, you really should write a book, man. Seriously.

I second that!

[Antlerman]

Antler, you really should write a book, man. Seriously.

I second that!

So what would I call it? "Musings of an Armchair Guru"? Seriously, I've heard people say this quite of few times here that I should write a book and that they would buy it, but what would it be about, what's its theme? I wouldn't know where to begin, or even necessarily feel well qualified enough to tackle these topics to my satisfaction in some formal publication. I don't know, maybe it's not as insurmountable as I imagine it to be. It's easy here on the site, because there are thoughts that others offer that I talk about things I see in a response to them. But sitting down and creating a book... I don't know. Any suggestions?

[NotBlinded]

Antler, you really should write a book, man. Seriously.

I second that!

So what would I call it? "Musings of an Armchair Guru"? Seriously, I've heard people say this quite of few times here that I should write a book and that they would buy it, but what would it be about, what's its theme? I wouldn't know where to begin, or even necessarily feel well qualified enough to tackle these topics to my satisfaction in some formal publication. I don't know, maybe it's not as insurmountable as I imagine it to be. It's easy here on the site, because there are thoughts that others offer that I talk about things I see in a response to them. But sitting down and creating a book... I don't know. Any suggestions?

The Spirit of Spirituality?

 

I don't know AM but you have an ability to express these insights very well. I dream of being able to say things that people will understand, yet the words never come out so good. You have that gift and I think you would produce something that could get through to many seeking people.

[RationalOkie]

I will argue that though your friend said it was you hitting him with the 'absurdity' of the stories, those are just the surface "logic" thoughts about what happened, but that change was already well under way, long before 'reason' shinned it's light. Jesus walking on water, is perfectly logical to someone who believes in a supernatural God. It is logically consistent with an all-power, miracle working deity. Logic. It's just not a logical conclusion within the context of a scientific philosophy. Your 'matter of fact' arguments worked only because of his willingness to change to a different system with different systems of thought, but they did not create that willingness.

 

That may all be true AM, I don't really know. I can't put my finger on it, but sometime along time ago I realized that even though people I trusted told me these stories ALL AT ONCE I didn't believe them. Maybe it was over time, but it felt ALL AT ONCE to me. Maybe that's how it felt to him and that's why he relates his transformation to that night. That one moment of ‘Eureka’, I see it now. I think you have to be open to the possibility that it does happen.

[RationalOkie]

AM - The Book Title "Emotionally Comforting Lies"

 

I think you know what the topic is.

[Antlerman]

That may all be true AM, I don't really know. I can't put my finger on it, but sometime along time ago I realized that even though people I trusted told me these stories ALL AT ONCE I didn't believe them. Maybe it was over time, but it felt ALL AT ONCE to me. Maybe that's how it felt to him and that's why he relates his transformation to that night. That one moment of ‘Eureka’, I see it now. I think you have to be open to the possibility that it does happen.

I'll grant that the 'revelation' can be profound and seemingly 'out of the blue', that it can be a sudden and abrupt leap forward, but I think that that doesn't happen if there weren't some other factors building up against that, likely on subtle levels, yet deep pressures nonetheless. Then suddenly the damn bursts without warning, and all at one the river explodes through the cracks.

 

It's really a matter of peeling back all the layers of debris to see that kernel, that existential angst behind it. But that's usually a pretty murky search to go into, and we psychologically simplify it to be like 'he said the right words and it just happened'. If that's really true, then why did those same words not register before?

 

 

AM - The Book Title "Emotionally Comforting Lies"

 

I think you know what the topic is.

You mean like believing the light of logic and reason alone will save us as individuals, society, and the planetary system? Actually, I was thinking something like An Aperspectival Integrative Approach to Universal Truth.

 

So... you've heard my words... how come the light hasn't gone off for you yet?

 

One thought, when you were in the mythic system, did you consider yourself reasonable and logical? Not looking back now at how 'wrong' you were, but when you were living in it? When you looked at yourself in the mirror when you got up, did you feel justified rationally? If you answer no, then I'd be surprised you would persist in it. Chances are you didn't have any problems with it while it was still working for you. And we can extrapolate that pattern all the way back, and all the way forward into how individuals as part of a society process truth through perception and systems of mutual realities. (Venturing into that murky world of subjective realities there... )

[NotBlinded]

Actually, I was thinking something like An Aperspectival Integrative Approach to Universal Truth.

See, you just shamed my Spirit of Spirituality title all to hell...yep, you need to write your book.

[Antlerman]

Actually, I was thinking something like An Aperspectival Integrative Approach to Universal Truth.

See, you just shamed my Spirit of Spirituality title all to hell...yep, you need to write your book.

Actually it could be simplified greatly by simply titling it. ONE

[NotBlinded]

Actually, I was thinking something like An Aperspectival Integrative Approach to Universal Truth.

See, you just shamed my Spirit of Spirituality title all to hell...yep, you need to write your book.

Actually it could be simplified greatly by simply titling it. ONE

Oh that's good. Then put An Aperspectival Integrative Approach to Universal Truth underneath it. Cool...

[dagnarus]

I'll of course toss out a challenge here. I would actually challenge that someone's conversions or deconversions are solely due to reason and logic. In fact, reason and logic is in great plenitude in people of religious faith. Do you think you suddenly learned a new skill set and that resulted in deconversion? Or that when you were religious you were not using logic and reason? There's an old saying I particularly like, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

 

...

 

From my personal experience, I didn't have any problems with talking donkeys and such, after all I already believed in a God, he could easily make a donkey talk if he wanted to. That and I never took the position that rationally Christianity was the one to take, it was the spirit which was leading to Christianity not the mind.

 

I more had problems with things which seemed to directly contradict history, contradict morality, and internally contradict itself.

 

But more pointedly what led me out in the end was more the a realization about the doctrine related to the world. Specifically my branch of Christianity tended to emphasize the world and how evil it is, how empty it is, and how the Church was somehow separate and distinct from the world. When I began to see that the church was no different from the world and that in the end they only really wanted the appearance of distinctiveness and not the reality of it, that had far more effect than pointing out that donkeys don't talk.

[Antlerman]

I more had problems with things which seemed to directly contradict history, contradict morality, and internally contradict itself.

And those are key points. Because behind those objective contradictions, what was the internal experience of that? I'd say it was an emotional one. If it simply made a logical or rational contradiction alone, then it becomes more a puzzle or a possible paradox to accept as part of the system - taken on faith, as it were. But why it was a factor to you, and me as well I'll quickly add, is that that objective contradiction served to confirm an inner experience that went against our hearts.

 

The system itself violated the spirit of Spirit, if you will. The system removed Beauty from us, it removed community from us, it removed ethics from us, it removed integrity, it removed truth, it removed sincerity, it violated the Heart in us as it violated the Spirit of Reason. Its unspoken message was one to the Heart that its voice was to be ignored and suppressed in favor of elevating a Religious System above all, above "God", you could say.

 

The errors and contradictions we observed, served to confirm the errors and contradiction we knew with the mind of the Heart.

 

But more pointedly what led me out in the end was more the a realization about the doctrine related to the world. Specifically my branch of Christianity tended to emphasize the world and how evil it is, how empty it is, and how the Church was somehow separate and distinct from the world. When I began to see that the church was no different from the world and that in the end they only really wanted the appearance of distinctiveness and not the reality of it, that had far more effect than pointing out that donkeys don't talk.

You know, as I read this this morning it really touched the reality that was part of my experience with them and how it impacted me as well. It made me realize something I hadn't really put together this way.

 

What started my whole spiritual journey was the recognition in myself of great lack. I looked at the world and saw myself removed from it, detached from life, as if I were looking from outside it unable to experience it inside myself as I observed it in others. I was folding in on myself and felt life itself slipping out of me every day, to the point it led to a great existential crisis for me. It came to moment of choice to live or die, not as in some physical act of suicide or anything, but more a recognition of life leaving me (don't know how else to put that). It was in that moment of it altogether leaving me, there was a choice made in my Heart which opened the world to me, which revealed Light, Love, Beauty, Truth, Unity, Compassion, Knowledge, Awareness, and above all LIFE, radiant and pure in and through and from everything everywhere.

 

So turning to religion to try to help me understand and develop this Realization within me as I moved forward living my life, some sad thing happened. The system I found myself sucked into, for other appealing reasons that touched on other things beneath the magnitude of this), ended up doing something I didn't quite see until now. It took my as of yet undeveloped ego, my sense of greater self, and allowed it to take what was otherwise a pure and unadulterated sense of Self in the world, and flipped it over. I ended up in my ego, going from feeling detached from the spirit of life in the world, to believing it was the providence of the religious system I had found and that we alone had it. It was pure and simple pendulum swing, from feelings of removal from the world, to believing that others were removed from it and didn't understand it.

 

In short the religion makes attempts to speak to undeveloped egos, overcompensating with their version of truth as Truth, rather than it becoming a process of self realization, self actualization, emerging from within to without, moving self awareness to global awareness through the Heart. Systems of reason and logic alone are half of the picture. Trying to tighten the knot of logic and reason, whether its in a religious, mythical framework, or a rational, secular system of objective observations, into a consistent and solid evaluation of Truth, can tend to easily overlook this factor, the entire reality of the Heart.

 

It's not about which system has a more sophisticated knot, its about the spirit of truth behind making the knots for our use, not in order to define us existentially. As I said, it starts with an existential truth, and from there its all about talking to our minds within the reality of our social contexts to support that. That transcends myth and science.

[Guest haxor]

Everyone has a philosophy. I personally beleive that Logical Reasoning, rational thinking and common since in the best philosophy there is. However i enjoy philosophy and never wish it to go away. People minds are truly amazing however, Logical Reasoning and common since will never fail us.

[R. S. Martin]

And I do believe Philosophy brought our world out from the dark ages and into the enlightenment, and later the new society we enjoy today. Philosophy (or large part of it) killed religion, but of course there are less attractive sides to it too. Incessant discussions that never lead to anything fruitful, for instance. So you're not completely wrong in that view. Some debates never ends, and no one can know the answer, so why bother.

 

Thanks for explaining some positive aspects of philosophy. My time on Craig's forums has painted it quite dark and ugly, yet I know that at one time philosophy was the Queen of Sciences. A major problem I have with the Craig way of doing philosophy is that they hold philosophy--or their version of it--higher than scientific fact.

 

The only reason I didn't do a minor in philosophy some years ago was that I couldn't get my head around formal logic and without formal logic I could not do a minor in philosophy. I think this is why I don't get the arguments the Craig people set up formally with Premise A, Premise B, etc. and all the other lingo of deductive and inductive arguments and various fallacies.

 

By the time they've twisted all those things around to their liking, God exists and created the universe and if any atheist or scientist dares say otherwise they can pull some fallacy or other out from behind the desk to prove atheists and scientists wrong. (I think they invent fallacies on the spot as needed with the intention to intimidate.) A lot of those kids sincerely believe that philosophical argument produces superior evidence to empirical scientific discovery. This worries me a lot.

 

I tell them that all they've got is theory and theory is not fact! They never comment on that. I took a batch of philosophy courses in history of philosophy and in ethics. The ethics courses helped me see practical value for philosophy today as it can perhaps serve as society's conscience and contribute to law-making.

 

What I like about history of philosophy (or theology or atheist thought, etc.) is that it helps me understand why people think today as they do.

 

Common Sense Philosophy

 

Someone in this thread raised the challenge that "common sense" is not a philosophy. Yes it is. In the 1700s, Scottish Common Sense philosophy was a big one and the American Constitution is built on it, according to Mark Noll's History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.

 

Americans found the Scottish [Common Sense] philosophy useful in three ways: (1) for justifying the Revolution against Britain, (2) for outlining new principles of social order in the absence of the stability of British rule, and (3) for reestablishing the truths of Christianity in the absence of an established church. During the Revolution, the ethics of Scotland's Francis Hutcheson provided a solid moral basis for resisting British tyranny (it was self-evident "common sense" that a distant mother country should not exercise absolute rule over colonies, especially when the colonies had become populous and economically self-sufficient). After the Revolution, principles of moral reasoning from Scottish sources were joined with insights from John Locke to provide a groundwork for the new Constitution (Noll, 1992, pp. 154-5; Noll is American, Christian).

 

He explains that common sense philosophy is about what is real. I did some more research on it for my thesis and I got the impression that it was developed by people like Thomas Reed (sp?) and Francis Hutcheson in response to philosophers like David Hume and Voltaire whose philosophy was so abstract that the average person could not relate to it. I am further under the impression that fundamentalist Christianity with its black and white thinking is also built on it.

[insanezenmistress]

i am only on post 15, i might be back. but Oh ... *appearing anamoured as my nervous plexis flutters*.......This gem from Han Solo....

 

"""The word "philosophy" can be translated to "love for wisdom." It's about how to reason, argue, and think about things in the world. When you discuss and give a reasonable argument for your viewpoint, it is "philosophizing." Philosophy is the "math" for common sense."""

 

 

reading that clicked something i keep trying to remember. Logic has no form it is more like an applyied science and the product of which is Philosphy... or more like... personlality or one's personal translation unto it's self and what things are allowed to mean.

 

... well.. my thoughts arent completely on this but Great thread!

 

*poofs in a cloud of logic*

[insanezenmistress]

Wouldn't mathematics itself be seen through the eyes of philosophy? Numbers don't really exist in reality. No one has ever seen 3 laying around. Mathematics deals with entities that may not exist in reality. It is deduced from principles, not reality. It's a tool to measure the seemingly constant patterns of reality, yet numbers have no existence of their own. And, didn't it take wonderment about reality to use the tool of math to begin with?

 

I don't know, but what good is math when one can't wonder what a mathematical object is and what is the relationship between mathematical objects and material reality?

 

 

so, um... god is an abastract equasion we need to solve for X?

 

 

 

Edited to give my respects to the OP, and a smattering of thoughts.

 

Antlerman Your title is fine but i find the blog thing really soothing... a freespace to think out loud and if people get it .. groovy. But at what point do you deside to charge for the effort?

 

 

I see the thread is kinda dead but it was enjoyable. But the biggest theme i kept wanting to see is *tolorance*

 

As for going to college to learn logic I am too fasinated and terrified and find that i concur Helen Keller's findings on the matter of formal education. (in her auto biagrophy.) She had quite s conflict between self -reliant knowledge/mythology and college bred fancified "other " peoples preception as superiour to your own.

 

She was a brillient woman.

 

As for history, i believe it is a pure study of human philosphical psychology.

 

[NotBlinded]

Wouldn't mathematics itself be seen through the eyes of philosophy? Numbers don't really exist in reality. No one has ever seen 3 laying around. Mathematics deals with entities that may not exist in reality. It is deduced from principles, not reality. It's a tool to measure the seemingly constant patterns of reality, yet numbers have no existence of their own. And, didn't it take wonderment about reality to use the tool of math to begin with?

 

I don't know, but what good is math when one can't wonder what a mathematical object is and what is the relationship between mathematical objects and material reality?

 

 

so, um... god is an abastract equasion we need to solve for X?

 

I forget what I was talking about.

 

Possibly so. But, it would take an equation of everything and with nothing to compare it to, I don't know how that would be possible. But, I'm no mathematician! Far, far from it. I just ponder a lot.