Printable View
Has anyone ever seen the implication in any work that the next step in religion is religion without God?
If so, source, and the logical mechanics of why.
I see it, both in Plato and in the Judeo-Christian Scripture. I do not wish to say immediately why it is inevitable yet.
Lately I've been seeing the next step as God without religion. The philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti was no fan of religion, but still spoke of God. His definition of God was a view of the universe as a perfect creation, one that we should seek to be in harmony with. A harmony that transcends description. I believe Albert Einstein also shared that sentiment. Things have already seemed to be moving in this direction, what with the rise of so much non-theistic spirituality.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Einstein
I'd like to hear your interpretation though.
We are part of that perfect universe, thus we are as perfect. Self-referential bull shit.
One cannot say the whole is perfect, but a part not. Give me a break here. Minimal thought required.
Uhh, neither one of them ever made the inference that we are perfect. Far from it. I'm thinking more along the idea that the dualities of good/evil and all are necessary and unavoidable parts of the whole of it, and also that they are human-created linguistic concepts. As real as we make them. My own ways of thinking are probably much closer to the philosophies behind the Tao te Ching.
I, myself, do not make reality, I am just stuck with it. It is either that, or cross-word puzzles, and I am afraid that I am much too dull for that.
However, I feel honored to be in the company of one who can make anything as real or not as real as they like. I just find it odd, that one can do this and yet not know what is or is not. I am probably just light headed. So, while I am thus in the mood light headedness, let me vastly simplify an argument found in Scripture and in the works of Plato.
If one does not know the principles of predication, which is assertion and denial, one does not know what is or is not. Thus if one happen to be talking while in such a state, it is called talking in one's sleep. And, perchance that two people are thus engaged in speaking, it is called sharing a dream.
My point is, although it is a fantastic thing to share in a dream, there are those who wish to share in an awakening. I, myself, would rather wake up in the morning with some fine lady. I, my friend, am one of those guys who likes to enjoin the morning with fruitful intercourse. A celebration of life, if you will.
In regards to Einstein, think of this, Both Spinoza and Einstein had something in common, it was a theory of Relativity. Now, I am convinced that Spinoza was perpetrating a prank on so called intellectuals with it, while Einstein was too stupid to see it. One only has two primitive categories of logic based upon the what a thing is, form and material difference. Theory of the Absolute and Theory of the Relative.
Form aka definition aka absolute aka eturnal aka true.
or
Mataterial difference aka ever changing aka relative aka not true.
Now, be serious. At least some ancients had the good sense to explore both theoretical options as a form of exercise. I know it is a hard choice, do we manipulate names as the same as that which they designate or differently? Oh, so hard.
Back towards the beginning of my drival, was the idea of those asleep going to sleep every night. Now I am in a hard way, sleepers desiring to sleep. I am in hell. I really am.
So, I ask for my savior, save me from this hell. Please!
Are you asking if these two realities exist? Because they can both exist at the same time; they're different categories. Also, what has this got to do with the OP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Edit: Actually, you haven't described those realities as I would, but I'm guessing that you're talking of generally the same thing anyway.
Things are real. A thing is any material difference in some form.
Can you then call either of the abstractions, form or material differences "real"?
Both Plato and Aristotle said that one cannot predicate of either, not even existence.
Ok. Can you explain what "material difference" means? I don't think I get it now. :D
You understand binary logic. Same and difference?
A thing reality requires both a 0 and a 1. Neither 0 nor a 1 is a thing.
Or take for example Geoemetry. Linear difference is a given, you simply learn the conventions of applying boundaries to create segments. The segments are things, linearity is not--it is a material difference.
In the statement, the point is that which has no part. We see the binary, point and part. The point is not the part and the part is not the point. Or again, the boundary is not the material in a boundary, nor is the material in a boundary the boundary. The surface of a table is not a table, nor is the wood of a table the table. It is together, the wood in a certain shape that makes the table.
I use the terms material difference but it is a tautology. One can use either, material or difference or both, as Aristotle did--even though bad grammar, it is a way to provide emphasis.
It is all craft, bringing together materials and forms. In one logic system, the material is a given, and you learn the conventions of applying form.
In the other form is given, and you learn the conventions by which material is supplied to the form.
Now, if you are able to do the association, you see that Geometry is a Theory of Relativity. And of the three, Euclid, Spinoza and Einstein, the most correct grammatical expression of it was done by Euclid. I do not see that as historical progress.
My issue is mainly with definition. I'm not really concerned with the absolute vs the relative. Western Culture is largely founded on the Aristotelian idea that a word can truly capture the essence of a form. I don't buy it. Something's definitely lost in that translation. Take for example emotion. No two emotions we've ever felt have occurred in the same way. Yet we generally fit them into a limited set of basic categories. This is 'happy', this is 'angry', etc. Once we define the feeling as 'happy' we're interacting more with the word than the feeling itself and thus losing the individuality and reality of that particular feeling.
Reality at large definitely appears to be absolute. We all perceive the same things at a basic level. However when this process of definition gets involved we begin to look at the same things in different, relative ways. We all come up with different descriptions and form different belief systems, and many of us have trouble understanding why the next guy believes in something else. Beyond this process of abstraction we're all living in the same world, why not just leave it at that?
http://www.viruscomix.com/nothingdoingthisweek.jpg
Edit: Sorry for the thread derail haha. Feel free to ignore and return to the original subject. I'd like to hear why you see Religion without God in our future.
Why am I the first to mention that Buddhism is religion without god?
That would be because I took a week off of DV :P I wasn't here to bring that up until just now! It's the God-Free part of religion; where you attempt to improve yourself and those around you, and help society function more fluidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
uhhhh.... the THC ministry is a legit religious organization :D