"These are mere acausal events that occur regularly within the human sphere of direct or…"
The mixing of religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual.
Is Metaphysical Reality Empty of Potential Knowledge and Truth?
I wonder if a redefinition of god can be complete without metaphysical considerations? To restrict discussion to a physical or scientific domain alone would be to limit outcomes. Although we are in an era of extraordinary scientific advancement, science was born of the metaphysical framework.
Today, the scientific method provides a convenient means by which philosophical supposition and intellectual speculation are pulled from the metaphysical realm into the physical world of knowledge, understanding and science. In effect, the supernatural is brought
into the natural world – until now our body of knowledge is expanding at such a
rate that metaphysical relevance is becoming overshadowed and seen to be veiled
by myth and superstition.
If we conclude that the metaphysical realm is now devoid of potential knowledge and insight and filled only with bogus information and speculations, then all would agree the notion of metaphysical should be left behind – forgotten as a relic of our primitive past.
Alternatively, some would say that a metaphysical construct continues to be essential for future scientific learning and discovery. Others would maintain we cannot understand the order of the universe and the purpose of life unless and until we understand and believe that the soul exists – and for this no instrument has been
devised to detect or measure for this. If correct, one would do well to maintain a metaphysical perspective –
as difficult as that may be.
This discussion maintains that matter is not capable of visualizing the future or planning for it nor is it capable of brooding over the past because it lacks the ability to judge or extract the good from any action. Mind and intellect are not any subtle, internal organ but rather names of the faculties of the soul.
Tags: metaphysical, natural, physical, reality, soul, supernatural
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on -
Simply read this quote earlier today. Read your comments a few moments ago. Thought I'd post a quote of Carl Jung. Not much more to it than that.
Alison Parker said:ummm - yes?
Sorry Kernel, I suspect you've made a point here but, unfortunately I don't quite know what it is. I have to assume it's a response to my earlier posting.
To assume; makes an ass out of u and me. So I'll stop doing so this minute. Through my understanding your posting says the same thing about Jung, that mine does - except mine is excessively over simplified. Was that your intention?
If not and you are attempting to highlight something else, do you mind clarifying for me?
The Kernel said:Alison,
In The Undiscovered Self, eminent psychiatrist and psychologist Carl. G.Jung say, "In the same way that our misconception of the solar system had to be freed from prejudice by Copernicus, the most strenuous efforts of a well-nigh revolutionary nature were needed to free psychology from the prejudice that the psyche is, on the one hand, a mere epiphenomenon of a biochemical process in the brain or, on the other hand, a wholly unapproachable and recondite matter. The connection with the brain does not itself prove that the psyche is an epiphenomenon, a secondary function causally dependent on biochemical processes . . .
The phenomena of parapsychology. . . warns us to be careful for they point to a relativization of space and time through psychic factors which casts doubts on our naive and overhasty explanation of the parallels between the psychic and the physical. For the sake of this explanation people deny the findings of parapsychology outright, either for philosophical reasons or from intellectual laziness. This can hardly be considered a scientifically responsible attitude, even though it is
popular way out of a quite extraordinary intellectual difficulty. To assess the psychic phenomenon, we have to take account of all the other phenomena that come with it, and accordingly we can no longer practice any psychology that ignores the existence of the unconscious or of parapsychology.
The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to any thing else."
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on -
K,
Thank you for the feedback. I didn't know Adam was part of RG. Regardless, God was with Adam and Eve in the beginning, so they knew God as mortals from the start, before becoming subject to spiritual and physical death. With this pure knowledge they did not have to rely on faith, or belief, they already knew.
You took "RG will never succeed in redefining God" out of context by ignoring ", i.e., finding the God of reality". I will restate my thought more clearly. RG will never succeed in finding the God of reality because the God of reality will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe in Him.
If a particular belief (including aethism) really possesses the absolute truth about about something, would you expect the believers to express the truth with equivocation? If they did, would they not be lying about their belief?
The Kernel said:Mr. Bell, Relax. Don't be presumptuous.
You say that,"God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe." So belief is a precondition of knowing god? Therefore one must believe in God before one can experience god. Can one then say that the First Man (Adam) would have had to believed in God before god revealed Himself to Adam and, if so, how did Adam develop his initial belief in God if God could know reveal himself. Your position is arguable.
You also say, "RG will never succeed in redefining God." Mr. Bell, people redefine their definition of terms all the time. What makes you presume that people at RG cannot redefine their definitions of God? At one time people worshiped God in His plurality (or many manifest forms), then the concept was unified into a single God that judged and invoked pain & punished. More recently, God was defined as a loving God - agape. I know people who define Her in a variety of ways.
You can subjectively define God however you like. I too can do the same and even if we agreed with each others definition 100% we could still cannot even prove the objective existence of God. So continue to participate in RG as you are - for your input is appreciated and whether you want it to or not, you are helping the us Redefine God through Open Source Religion 2.0.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on -
Hey yeah lets leave God entirely out of it.
Am I the only one who finds that paradoxically delightful? Like when you hit your funny bone.
No disrespect intended, I am happy to leave god out of it - but taking into a/c the many people on RG, and thus many concepts about god, which one are we leaving completely out of it?
Jim G said:I sort of agree with David Bee, only on a different tack I think, yet we share a fundamental opinion that God can't be redefined.
"redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0"
I really think if there is to be a Religion 2.0 -- something different -- God needs to be left out of it entirely. Just ignored as in defining God to be indefinable kind of ignored. I've said it before but I thought I warranted saying it again in this thread, Kernel.
This way, in my opinion, which treads on thin theological ice I realize, one could follow a Religion 1.0 religion and also Religion 2.0, kind of like not discussing religion or politics while you go about your day to day business in the United States, you may still be a member of a Religion 1.0 religion. Religion 2.0 would not have sects I don't think, and I think it would be a pool of agreed upon values and morals and ethics which are of course in large part borrowed from Religion 1.0, as well as from Philosophy. There would only be one religion in Religion 2.0 in other words, in my envisioning of it, and therefore, again, God would need to be left indefinable on grounds of there only being one religion in Religion 2.0.
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on
-
If RG accepts all the good and correctness that can be found from all beliefs, faiths, philosophies, etc., and rejects all the bad and error in the world, what a great and wonderful thing (religion) it would be. Isn't this what most well meaning people have strived for throughout history? What would make mankind follow it, our good natures?
Jim G said:I sort of agree with David Bee, only on a different tack I think, yet we share a fundamental opinion that God can't be redefined.
"redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0"
I really think if there is to be a Religion 2.0 -- something different -- God needs to be left out of it entirely. Just ignored as in defining God to be indefinable kind of ignored. I've said it before but I thought I warranted saying it again in this thread, Kernel.
This way, in my opinion, which treads on thin theological ice I realize, one could follow a Religion 1.0 religion and also Religion 2.0, kind of like not discussing religion or politics while you go about your day to day business in the United States, you may still be a member of a Religion 1.0 religion. Religion 2.0 would not have sects I don't think, and I think it would be a pool of agreed upon values and morals and ethics which are of course in large part borrowed from Religion 1.0, as well as from Philosophy. There would only be one religion in Religion 2.0 in other words, in my envisioning of it, and therefore, again, God would need to be left indefinable on grounds of there only being one religion in Religion 2.0.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
Jim: It sounds like you may be proposing something that might look like Ethics 2.0. . . an agreed upon values and morals. Did I hear you suggest a single set of values for everyone. But some of us value diversity in the biosphere. . . and who gets to agree upon what these values should be? You seem to be saying that ethics and codes of conduct be borrowed from Religion 1.0 and that the god-concept, whatever that might be, gets abandoned in Open Source Religion 2.0. One practical problem you may encounter during the implementation of such a proposal is that most of those that practice some form of religion define religion in terms of god(s). Do you think these people would these people would agree that what I think you are proposing would be, to them, a religion? I thought open source was all about customization and free add-ins and choice. A value I would propose, in addition to diversity, would be inclusiveness.
Yes the god-concept is often the cause of considerable suffering on this planet. God knows we at RG spend enormous amounts of time arguing about scriptural references or issues of dogma and ritual. Look at the recent mess I caused by suggesting to doug that I knew something about Buddha - more.
I don't have a final image in mind when the first iteration of the RG project is completed but how would you feel about seeing if we could continue to include the god-concept in our discussions but draw less on scriptural references and teachings that may mean one thing to one person, something else to someone else and nothing yo yet another person. Perhaps we could learn to use our own words to describe what we mean by OSR2.0
The god-concept has been embedded in the psyche of people around the world since time immemorial. I would not recommend we remove the concept from our lexicon of terms. What do you think?
Jim G said:I sort of agree with David Bee, only on a different tack I think, yet we share a fundamental opinion that God can't be redefined.
"redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0"
I really think if there is to be a Religion 2.0 -- something different -- God needs to be left out of it entirely. Just ignored as in defining God to be indefinable kind of ignored. I've said it before but I thought I warranted saying it again in this thread, Kernel.
This way, in my opinion, which treads on thin theological ice I realize, one could follow a Religion 1.0 religion and also Religion 2.0, kind of like not discussing religion or politics while you go about your day to day business in the United States, you may still be a member of a Religion 1.0 religion. Religion 2.0 would not have sects I don't think, and I think it would be a pool of agreed upon values and morals and ethics which are of course in large part borrowed from Religion 1.0, as well as from Philosophy. There would only be one religion in Religion 2.0 in other words, in my envisioning of it, and therefore, again, God would need to be left indefinable on grounds of there only being one religion in Religion 2.0.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
OK cards on the table. Why am I a participant of RG? Because it is damned interesting! Because it is a source of information on an informal level; challenging, diverse, intellectual, irritating...and meaningful. To me anyway, it is where people are willing and even eager to share on a genuinely meaningful level, their responses to Universal questions. To quote Omar Khayyam, "Into the Universe and why not knowing/ Nor whence, like water willy-nilly flowing/ And out of it, as wind along the waste/ I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.'
I once saw an ad in our local rag, inviting one and all to a meeting where everyone was free to talk 'about things not usually open for discussion." I took the risk and went, and it was pretty packed. Turned out the theme was the planets were all about to align, and to prevent earth being obliterated we all had to learn how to think only Gods thoughts. Of course I should have left immediately, but common sense has never been my strong point. Tending towards pugnacious I put my money on the 'everyone was free to talk...' part, and challenged the prevailing view that positive thoughts alone are Gods, negative thoughts - mans, and never the twain shall meet. I found the experience of a room full of people falling silent and all eyes focussed on me in disbelief, most disconcerting.
The level of discussion on RG is of a truly valuable quality. You guys provide information of a depth and breadth I can generally only access in books, but here the offerings are openly debated and refined. Reading a book is great but it's very much a take it or leave it process. The discussions surrounding physics and consciousness I find especially informative, particularly as I tend towards the hypothesis that consciousness evolves. Further that when knowledge reaches a critical mass, it leaps. In my personal 'world' at home and work, the ability to discourse on a level that one discovers at RG is - well thin on the ground. Yet I contend the need for it is essential not only personally, but for information to grow and expand it needs to be shared.
I certainly would love God to be redefined, but that is very subjective is it not? Yet perceptions are. It would be great if we were able to achieve a consensus on this, at this time the how defeats me. As for defining ethics etc, I tend to back off from this - do we have a big enough window to decide what ethics are acceptable, and what aren't? Speaking of chaos...order does against all the odds emerge from it. Were we able to I am sure we could put a halt to the process - for we all have 'ideas' about the way things should be, and the way people should be - ideas that define ourselves, not others. Anyway i feel there are enough religions dictating their own brand of acceptable ethics on the unwary. Attaining control over our own disorder is something that individuals need to choose 'unto themselves.'
RG is a journey I think, and it interests me to see where it leads.
Jim G said:Hi there Kernel:
No one needs to be left out of a God-less Religion 2.0 unless they wanted to be left out -- let's take Jeff for example. He is already a firm Religion 1.0 practicioner. No one will change his mind about that as he is fully grown and he is happy with the religion he has grown to like and practice and follow. He could meetup ecumenically with a Godless 2.0 organization if he wanted to, because 2.0 is Godless. No one will care if he is Evangelical Christian, they will only care if he agrees on the agreed upon ethics. And people like Jeff can represent Christianity and have voting power as to whether an ethic is contained within Christianity or not. If not it gets thrown out as it should be something all positive religions agree upon and have contained within their religion. If they are so amorphous and without any tangible tenets, then they, perhaps, would be the ones who didn't belong -- kind of the other way around than you might think it would go with a Religion 2.0. Religious Science might get thrown out by design, for instance, as I don't think there are any particular commandments or guidelines to follow in that religion. However, if as a group they agree to some then they'd be in.
You do raise a good point that we could call it www.ethics2.0.com -- however, is there an ethics 1.0? I don't think there is. I think we have a hodge podge of followers of various religions who follow a code, but others are left to make mistakes and get into trouble for their open mindedness. So "Religion 2.0" would be a distillation of other religions -- perhaps we should leave Philosophy out of it for this good point you raise, as most of the philosophies are covered in the religions anyways I would guess -- the tenets to follow / guidelines -- anyways.
That's all. Being a member of one organization or two, it's the people's choice. It just adds an opportunity for people to come together. I think we are all so wanting of doing that it's almost more than obvious. It's just a matter of time I think, how long it would take -- well it can start with a small percentage of people and grow as well.
As far as redefinegod.com -- I don't see it going anywhere to be honest with you. I think it is a nice place to converse and intellectualize. But has it gone anywhere? Where exactly has it gone? I don't see any new religion taking place. Nor do I project seeing any new religion taking place from what I can tell. No offense. Like I say, things morph. That is why businesses -- good ones anyways -- change their business plans on a yearly basis. It's just part of the scientific method. All it would take on Sidian's part is changing the domain name. Will that happen? Probably not, because I really don't think the folks conversing and intellectualizing here want a new religion. I think they want to redefine God. Roman said it himself in a post to me the other day -- and there is nothing at all wrong with it -- it is the domain name. Some seem to want a new religion and others want a new definition. Others may be waiting to pursue a new religion until they have a new definition. But hasn't God already been defined a whole bunch of different -- like you say -- diverse -- ways? And doesn't that already cover the gamut of possible definitions of God? Are we really just being rebellious or engaging in wrong making, in our search for a new definition of God? I think there are a few different reasons people are comfortable in Religious Science -- 1. They are attached to the concept of God, but they want and updated religion, and 2. They are just being rebellious by trying to be Taoists on the one hand but calling The Tao God on the other, just to spite the religion of their upbringing which they are rebelling against.
Religion 2.0 would be an agreed upon set of principals or whatever you want to call them, as well as being an experience. An experience -- let me throw in a word Roman is fond of -- transcending of definitions. (He is quite the poet I must say -- interesting to have such a creative person also into quantitative analysis apparently -- balanced left and right brain I would guess.)
The Kernel said:Jim: It sounds like you may be proposing something that might look like Ethics 2.0. . . an agreed upon values and morals. Did I hear you suggest a single set of values for everyone. But some of us value diversity in the biosphere. . . and who gets to agree upon what these values should be? You seem to be saying that ethics and codes of conduct be borrowed from Religion 1.0 and that the god-concept, whatever that might be, gets abandoned in Open Source Religion 2.0. One practical problem you may encounter during the implementation of such a proposal is that most of those that practice some form of religion define religion in terms of god(s). Do you think these people would these people would agree that what I think you are proposing would be, to them, a religion? I thought open source was all about customization and free add-ins and choice. A value I would propose, in addition to diversity, would be inclusiveness.
Yes the god-concept is often the cause of considerable suffering on this planet. God knows we at RG spend enormous amounts of time arguing about scriptural references or issues of dogma and ritual. Look at the recent mess I caused by suggesting to doug that I knew something about Buddha - more. I don't have a final image in mind when the first iteration of the RG project is completed but how would you feel about seeing if we could continue to include the god-concept in our discussions but draw less on scriptural references and teachings that may mean one thing to one person, something else to someone else and nothing yo yet another person. Perhaps we could learn to use our own words to describe what we mean by OSR2.0 The god-concept has been embedded in the psyche of people around the world since time immemorial. I would not recommend we remove the concept from our lexicon of terms. What do you think?
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
Hey Jim,
You say, “I don't have a problem with redefining God in one's spare time. I just don't think it is leading to a religion 2.0…”
OK, why not make your proposal to the group by moderating a discussion of your own. This way you can try to build support for what it is you would like to see happen and people can contribute and align accordingly.
This discussion here asks the question, “Is Metaphysical Reality Empty?” Apparently, you think it is – correct?
I look forward to participating in a discussion – if you decide to open one. Give it a try. Get some feedback on your ideas.
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on -
Hello
Is anybody out there?
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
Hello, what are you trying to say. What do you mean?
Roman Kozlowski said:Hello
Is anybody out there?
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
I am the I am
Roman Kozlowski said:Hello
Is anybody out there?
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on
-
The question is "Is Metaphysical Reality Empty of Potential Knowledge and Truth?"
No.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
DB: Thanks for the clarifications. Much appreciated. The focus of this discussion is on the metaphysical - is it empty of knowledge and truth? Does your personal point of view take into account a metaphysical reality, or does reality exist only on a physical plain? Your is would be appreciated.
If there is some kind of general agreement from participants that a metaphysical reality exists, and their seems to be - with the exception of Jim G, I'd like to open up the concept of metaphysical further - if people are willing.
. . . Any other comments out there from others?
David Bee said:K,
Thank you for the feedback. I didn't know Adam was part of RG. Regardless, God was with Adam and Eve in the beginning, so they knew God as mortals from the start, before becoming subject to spiritual and physical death. With this pure knowledge they did not have to rely on faith, or belief, they already knew.
You took "RG will never succeed in redefining God" out of context by ignoring ", i.e., finding the God of reality". I will restate my thought more clearly. RG will never succeed in finding the God of reality because the God of reality will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe in Him.
If a particular belief (including aethism) really possesses the absolute truth about about something, would you expect the believers to express the truth with equivocation? If they did, would they not be lying about their belief?
The Kernel said:Mr. Bell, Relax. Don't be presumptuous.
You say that,"God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe." So belief is a precondition of knowing god? Therefore one must believe in God before one can experience god. Can one then say that the First Man (Adam) would have had to believed in God before god revealed Himself to Adam and, if so, how did Adam develop his initial belief in God if God could know reveal himself. Your position is arguable.
You also say, "RG will never succeed in redefining God." Mr. Bell, people redefine their definition of terms all the time. What makes you presume that people at RG cannot redefine their definitions of God? At one time people worshiped God in His plurality (or many manifest forms), then the concept was unified into a single God that judged and invoked pain & punished. More recently, God was defined as a loving God - agape. I know people who define Her in a variety of ways.
You can subjectively define God however you like. I too can do the same and even if we agreed with each others definition 100% we could still cannot even prove the objective existence of God. So continue to participate in RG as you are - for your input is appreciated and whether you want it to or not, you are helping the us Redefine God through Open Source Religion 2.0.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Top Content This Week
Latest Activity
Roman Kozlowski left a comment for Sidian M.S. Jones"Hi Sid. Tried to reply to Sashi Thamoor on Forum, and found it not to be a 'discussion'…"
Kernel John replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"The issue here is Open Source Religion (OSR). . . what is it . . . and how might it apply to the…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Joy B Tobin's discussion Purpose of sanctuary"Dear Joy. It seems you have been peeved by some of the responses here regarding a…"
Roman Kozlowski posted a discussionI call upon GOD to answer this site.
Dear GOD. To please prove that you do exist, please answer this site.See More
rvsuvarna via TwitterRT @ShashiTharoor: Highly interesting & original take by a Western writer on Hinduism as an "open source" religion: http://t.co/SGqwGSkl
Roman Kozlowski replied to Roman Kozlowski's discussion What is God? And why the idea of God?"Photons stimulating visual cortex within sight sense alone do not account for the blind and…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Roman Kozlowski's discussion WHAT MAKES A BELIEF A BELIEF?"The very openness of this site is the very crux of understanding"
Roman Kozlowski replied to rob stone's discussion Predestined for Glorification"Serious discussion is the be all."
Kernel John replied to Roman Kozlowski's discussion What is God? And why the idea of God?"Roman, you say, "Knowledge or perception is a thought-wave in the mind." Do not…"
Sidian M.S. Jones replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"I'm just glad people still care. :)
And to be fair, I should be here commenting, sharing…"
Kernel John replied to Kernel John's discussion Are Your Religious Beliefs Plausible Facts of Probable Fiction?"Yes, we must be able to separate fact from fiction. To do this, we must become aware of being…"
© 2013 Created by Sidian M.S. Jones.
