.
 
Dear Yuyutsu,
 
.
 
I wrote in my last post:

"I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me"
.

To be perfectly honest with you, I think I could write some pretty weird ideas myself and post them here as indications of profound wisdom for others to meditate upon.

But, don't worry, I won't do that.

Allow me simply to post the following little anecdote related by Albert Camus, a French-Algerian philosopher and author:

" The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor".

From "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942).

I sympathise with Sisyphus and draw a parallel with my quest of the God which many seemed to believe existed.
 
.

Dear Banjo,

So much for the tyranny of language: belief and faith are two completely different things.

Belief has to do with the world. It relates to the existence or otherwise of objects and is commonly associated with a degree of evidence (not too much, otherwise it would be 'knowledge').

Faith is a subjective state of being. It relates to trust and loyalty.

The reason why English and other modern languages place 'belief' and 'faith' in the same basket is probably due to the Western so-called 'enlightenment', whereby it became fashionable to have faith in objective evidence. As people began to have both belief AND faith in the same, objective evidence, they lost the distinction between the two.

<<I'm afraid I realised a long time ago that it was useless "to seek God". The best I could ever hope to achieve was to settle the question as to the existence or non-existence of "God".>>

This question has long been resolved. If you think of God as a deity, then surely there is no god under your bed. The existence of a deity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. in other words unlimited) is a logical contradiction.

However, God is not a deity.

<<I finally understood how the idea of the supernatural germinated in the nascent conscience of primeval man and evolved down the ages to present day concepts.>>

But who but you mentioned the supernatural? and who but you discussed concepts? God is neither supernatural nor a concept.

<<"I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me">>

That's good, or else you would be delusional. God is not supposed to make sense as He is not a sense-object. God is not supposed to be imaginable as He is not a mental-object. God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind.

George,

I don’t remember an occasion where we went around in circles. We often reach a point where I ask you what you believe and why - only to be stonewalled with a response along the lines of, “Look, let’s just drop it, okay? You wouldn’t understand." - but I can’t recall going around in circles, sorry.

<<Sometimes it is called snobbery, sometimes condescension, sometimes mental or intellectual gymnastics, I have been accused here of all these things.>>

Mental gymnastics isn’t what I was referring to there. Snobbery is different to mental gymnastics. Mental gymnastics is something people are accused of when unnecessarily complex arguments are used in order to avoid facing a simpler, but less comforting answer. Snobbery (condescension too, for that matter) would more be suggesting that the accuser isn’t sophisticated enough to understand and simply leaving it at that, rather than explaining your case to them. If you explain your case to them, then they’ll either understand where you’re coming from, or they’ll demonstrate to yourself and any onlookers that they’re just not going to get it. Either way, you wouldn’t have wasted your time.

Another point I’d make here is that it’s interesting that you only focussed on what I had said in brackets. The comment in brackets was only there as a side note. You consequently (and perhaps conveniently) missed the whole point that I was making in that paragraph by hyper-focussing on something that, ultimately, wasn’t important.

<<(I was often tempted to remark that it is hard to have discussions about algebraic topology with somebody who lacks the background insights - in this case mathematical rather than different worldview perspectives - and finds my attempts at explanations as condescension or snobbery.)>>

This would only be snobbery or condescension if the person you were talking to first asked for an explanation of algebraic topology and you refused to answer, suggesting that they would never understand anyway.

Continued...

...Continued

But I’m not sure why you’re still talking about condescension and snobbery though. It’s not like I was accusing you of it. I was simply cautioning you about how some may perceive suggestions that they’re not sophisticated enough to understand your beliefs when no effort is made to explain them.

<<The “truth of one’s beliefs” and “weeding out the false ones” sounds to me like the language of rather conservative Catholics. Hardly a way to start discussions about theist and atheist worldviews, since exactly a different understanding of what is “truth” (except in formal or trivial situations) lies at the very basis of their (philosophical) disagreements.>>

In that case, I have a few questions that I hope will get us somewhere: -

1. How do you define truth?
2. Do you define truth differently where religion is concerned and if so, why?
3. How do you define knowledge?
4. Do you define knowledge differently where religion is concerned and if so, why?
5. Do you agree that God’s existence is a logical absolute (i.e. He either exists, or he doesn't)? And if not, why not?

For clarity's sake, Yuyutsu (although I suspect clarity is not your objective here...)

>>God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind.<<

Put in less poetic language, this tells us that you can only find God when you take leave of your senses, and lose your mind.

That's a tad harsh, is it not? But fully consistent, I have to admit, with the complete absence of meaning that you allow to adhere to the God-concept. If there was the slightest inkling that we mere mortals could approach a definition, you will quickly tell us that we haven't a clue what we are on about.

Very convenient. But, in the end, utterly useless as a means of conveying understanding as to what is, as opposed to what isn't, your God.

And as happens with so many of Sells' contributions, this discussion has meandered its way far, far from the original topic. Which is a great shame. Because "biblical literalism" is the root cause of so many violent arguments, both within the realm of a single bible, but also across the various "holy works" that drive religions to fight each other to the literal death. A mature discussion on the pitfalls and potential remedies would have been useful.

Never mind. Perhaps we can discuss its impact some other time.

Dear AJ Philips,

Your questions were addressed to George, but I cannot resist answering:

1. Truth is that which masks nothing, specifically characterised by the absence of lying, deceit or illusion.
2. No. But in ordinary life we tend to leniently/sloppily pass for truth anything so long as it involves no deliberate deceit or an obvious lack of judgement. In the context of religion we are strict, so anything that masks the fundamental underlying Reality is not the Truth. Thus only God is true.
3. Knowledge is when nothing distorts the experience of the knower in relation to the known.
4. No. But in ordinary life we tend to leniently/sloppily pass for knowledge indirect experiences of the 'known', such as evidenced via the senses and the mind and/or via other people's claims. In the context of religion we are strict, so anything short of direct experience, using any via through which the 'known' is experienced by the knower, is distorted by that via, hence is short of knowledge. Thus one may only know oneself, because anything else but oneself is separated by space-time, requiring some vehicle to bridge that gap. Fortunately, since there is nothing but God, being God ourselves we can know God and as others are God too, we can know others.
5. Yes. God's existence is an absolute logical impossibility.

Dear Pericles,

The above explains why in order to know God, one must set aside and suspend one's senses and mind. It is however not required to lose them forever.

Indeed, God cannot be understood - because understanding is via the mind. God can only be known by direct experience. Unfortunately a direct experience cannot be conveyed to others, for it wouldn't then remain indirect!

Biblical literalism should be viewed as a religious technique that helps us to practise suspending our senses and mind. It is insufficient on its own and must be complemented by other religious techniques - otherwise indeed violence may erupt. Some people, usually beginners, find this technique more useful than others.