Constructive gadfly
Published on July 24, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

Human nature from time immemorial has questioned the substance of its existence. What is consciousness and why can it not satisfy the curiosity of what is one’s inner being? No matter the degree of philosophic intentionality of the self there is always a haunting reflection of another. Because of this human nature invariably turns to what seems the invisible within, an incomprehensible mysterious phenomenon that seems an integral element of whole being.

There are three epistemological paths to this mystery. First, is the popular tentative philosophic solution by ascribing this inexplicable phenomenon to God or an intelligent substratum. Second, is to sustain an endless inquiry agnostically and that at best doubt will still persist in the end Third, is to dismiss it outright atheistically as a mere haunting feedback of a lonely vacuum within being but nonetheless existential.

Nether of these warrant a value judgment since each is the unique psychological property of one’s makeup and should not be violated. An atheist, for instance, has an individual right to deny the existence of God within his own psyche, but has no right to overlay this denial to others who disagree and therefore cannot logically interpret his dismissive attitude that it become a socially universal reality. Nor can a theist extend judgment beyond his own individuated psyche, though he may engage in dialogue with a kindred sect to modify the public concept but must be careful not to impose it on others even though it is widely accepted. The agnostic, on the other hand, might logically induce practicum of the other two in order to probe their validity unless, of course, he is disinterested and lets the chips fall.

This is not to say that atheists among their kind are not permitted the privilege of believers who proselytize their faith without denigrating those of another faith or philosophic bias. Nevertheless, an atheist has a unique character in that it is in the quagmire of existential veracity that runs contrary to human nature’s tendency to wish a spark of divinity to render full meaning to its existence. Even the agnostic tilts in this direction, though he confesses he could be wrong or indifferent to the outcome.

The atheist, then, has to soft-shoe his bias because of its defiance of the course of human history, but is free to proclaim philosophically that the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe. Within this framework, he cannot compete with faith since his is a philosophy, prohibiting him from comparing apples with oranges. Yet as a philosopher he is free to criticize annoyances such as “under God” or “In God we trust” but cannot claim the right to efface traditional symbols from society as long as they do not violate society’s laws; only those who believe and begin to question ecclesiastic proclamations and relics are in a position to delete them.

More important is that believers should not tread on atheism either, as if it were a competitor out to crush them. If as some believers perceive an atheist is godless, then those of faith run the risk of self-entrapment by precluding the grace of God in other humans.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 24, 2004.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 27, 2004
Steven --

First, let me say your vocabulary is astounding. However, in the chaos of my home in the afternoons, Wow does it make it difficult for your profound thoughts to stay afloat in my distracted mind! I still think I get what you're saying, in spirit anyway. (Pun intended.) Please correct where I've gotten your wrong, for it is quite possible.

Basically, you're proposing that the three paths you've outlined do not need to try and convert someone on another path. You say each is valid because of the individual's experience and inner-thoughts. From this, I gather (hopefully accurately) you personally do not believe claims by people of faith that a living Person changed them when they encountered Him. While I expect you'd not push this view upon others (except in philosophical venues where the subtle attempt is veiled in wealthy vocabulary) you are indeed saying you cannot believe what you've not personally experienced. In fact, you'd probably call any brush with the possiblity of such a change in your own life reliant strictly upon emotion and some inner need you've not gratified elsewhere.

I know you're quite astute and probably quickly gather, from my own essays, what I personally believe about the difference a Person can make based on my own experiences. I know you don't question my feelings about this experience, but you question my logic. If I might be so bold, I think you believe my expereince is not well-thought-out and is the product of "un-scientific" reasoning and living. In fact, I bet you can explain away everything I could say on the matter using your own logic, experiences, and theories. I've no doubt of this in the slightest.

However, I propose your theories, explanations, logic, what-have-you, coming from the outside, miss the mark. I'll write you something in my own blog to keep from trolling up yours. Very interesting food for thought, sir Steven, and I hope you've visit me in turn.
on Jul 30, 2004
Thank you for your interest; I shall get back to you
on Jul 30, 2004

Materialists will necessarily struggle with the phenomena of consciousness, because self-awareness and the existence of subjective feelings transcend brute, inanimate matter.

Are we spiritual beings, or are we just bundles of inanimate atoms?

Self-awareness renders suspect belief in the latter, whilst upholds belief in the former. The former sits well with belief in a purpose to our existence, the latter sits well with belief that our existence is an 'accident'.

To find the answer, we need only consult the wisdom of our heart, which will 'con-science' (pun intended).
on Jul 30, 2004
 Shulamite

"You are indeed saying you cannot believe what you've not personally experienced." Not precisely, whatever disbelief I may possess is irrelevant to one who believes in “The Person.” I can further suspend my disbelief with respect to others and philosophically comprehend with aesthetic reverence what it is the believer absorbs as the truth provided it is within the framework of justice, mercy and forgiveness. Obviously, then, I cannot accept the madness of fundamentalism of either Christians or Islamics that defile the original spirit of their faith. Christian fundamentalism should not go unchallenged any less than Al Qaeda. That the Left Behind books are best sellers is an absolute affront to Jesus. Nor do I respect cavalier agnostics or atheist that accept without thoroughly and sincerely examining the nature of the otherness within themselves. There is no intent here to personalize or abrade perspectives — each to his own — unless they become public persuasions to intimidate others, even within sects or families. 

"In fact, you'd probably call any brush with the possibility of such a change in your own life reliant strictly upon emotion and some inner need you've not gratified elsewhere."

 Apparently you mean that I am incapable of ascribing inspiration beyond myself; I make no such suggestion. The psyche depends on outside stimuli in order to frame some metaphysical introspection.   

I suggest you go to my blog “Potentials of the Brain.”

on Jul 30, 2004

Are we spiritual beings, or are we just bundles of inanimate atoms?

It really doesn't matter [pun intended];for, the inanimate become sophisticated, animated cells that impel us to on a myriad of possibilities--material and spiritual.   

on Jul 31, 2004
It really doesn't matter [pun intended


I like that. Nice one. Although I think it does matter.

the inanimate become sophisticated, animated cells that impel us to on a myriad of possibilities--material and spiritual


I think the trouble with consciousness is that any conclusions that are made about it, are drawn from within the subjective realms of consciousness in the first place. This is a profound paradox, and also an irony, because all conclusive scientific statements that are made about the objective nature of things, including consciousness, are necessarily drawn from within a well of finite subjectivity, (i.e. the human mind).

There is obviously a difference between talking about neurones in the brain, and talking about the mind. What “impels us on to a myriad of possibilities?” Is it consciousness, or is it the inanimate? It depends on which angle the question is approached. This ‘chicken and the egg’ questioning will continue as we step further beyond the nature of the 'bigger picture', until we end up making statements about the nature of the Infinite Itself. Subjectivity doesn't sit comfortably with science, because science is oriented toward "the objective". But “the objective” necessarily breaks down when we engage with the eternal philosophical questions: "Why are we here? Is there intrinsic purpose to the universe or not? What is the nature of consciousness?"

The intrinsic 'essence' of consciousness, (i.e. self-awareness and the experience of thought and feeling), transcends mathematical formulas and scientific measurements. Watching a person’s thought-patterns in digital form on a monitor is not the same as capturing the experienced essence of a person’s feelings or thoughts.

So what is the nature of consciousness? And what is the nature of “the Power greater than ourselves"? Is the inanimate universe the ‘be all and end all’ of life? Or is there a Universal Consciousness, (God), which endows the cosmos with transcendent purpose and intrinsic meaning, enabling life and all mortal consciousness to continue eternally in some other state or dimension?

‘Objective science’ ends at the inanimate cosmos, and must remain agnostic to such questions. But then there are those with an open mind, and dare I say, those with advanced spiritual awareness and intuition.

It’s all a question of growth, in my opinion. Awareness, as well as intellect, will continue to expand. Thus, our comprehension of the Truth is really a matter of consciousness. (Pun intended - sorry!) "
on Jul 31, 2004
Obviously, then, I cannot accept the madness of fundamentalism of either Christians or Islamics that defile the original spirit of their faith.


I think we should refrain from identifying religion exclusively with fundamentalism, which belittles the depth and spirit of our religious convictions and intuitions. In my opinion, engaging with religious fundamentalism is like conversing with 5 year olds playing in a sandpit. All to their own, mind. There's a time and a season etc.
on Aug 01, 2004

Alas, the child-like mind, but without its pristineness, is fundamentalism. However, because this extremism seems to draw on destructive methods having nothing to do with spiritualism, it is necessary to point out this discrepancy and contradiction.

The very fact that the monads of the mind are uniqely human, logically leads to dialogue on spirit and potential.  

on Aug 01, 2004
Steven, just out of interest, what is your position regarding these ultimate issues? Are you agnostic, atheist, or even a closet-theist? I find your posts very interesting and intriguing, to be honest. They are just a little 'misty'.

It's interesting that you mention "child-like mind". Jesus said that to understand the Truth, all we need is a "child-like faith". This makes sense to me, because it rightly implies that we cannot fully comprehend the vastness and depth of the Infinite from within the scope of our finite minds. Yet regardless of our intellectual capacity, we can sufficiently comprehend Ultimate Truth by a child-like simplicity and humble faith.

Understandably, then, many of our religious concepts and tales are deliberately portrayed as child-like imagery and metaphorical statements, in order to reflect deeper truths that cannot be grasped by a finite mind. To interpret these tales and concepts through a ‘literal lens’, as many of our sceptics (and also many of our religious fundamentalists) so often insist upon doing, is to miss the deeper meaning of our religious convictions.

Incidentally, I believe there's a difference between childishness (which is fundamentalism, in my view), and a child-like mind and faith, which can be open enough to embrace great wisdom and Truth. I'd also like to add to your point that because the monads of the mind are uniquely human, they will also naturally lead to dialogues such as, "Why are we here?" A profound question, and great fodder for dialogue, indeed.
on Aug 01, 2004

I am an eclectic--and that's not a cop-out--I simply like crossing tracks. You omitted the qualification, stipulating the lack of the pristine, to child-like. I agree with Wordsworth that the closest thing to divinity or soul is in the splendor of a of the child's  imagination.

Understandably, then, many of our religious concepts and tales are deliberately portrayed as child-like imagery and metaphorical statements, in order to reflect deeper truths that cannot be grasped by a finite mind.
Allegory requires sophistication in the writer. A metaphor can indeed muster a child-like moral but to be lasting the child's maturation entails further conceptualization, such as  
"Why are we here?"
  

on Aug 02, 2004
Andy -- your post about the mind and whether to trust it is spot on for the most part. If we're an accidental bundle of neurons, we can't trust our own firings. It's all one big crazy accidental symphony without a Conductor! How crazy is that! A watch with no Watchmaker... et cetera. We can't trust our own functions, thus thinking of our own existance and purpose is vanity.

However, if we aren't an accident, if we are purposeful, led by a "Conductor" then pondering all this is quite purposeful as well. That's why we can. It's part of the light He gave us to draw us to Him naturally.

I disagreed with your notion of consulting the "wisdom of the heart" because the heart is wicked and deceitful above all things. Out of this pours murderous rages, passionate jealousies, wicked lies, betrayals, pride, selfishness -- the whole horrid list continues tumbling forth. However, if you mean we should trust the Moral Law that we all KNOW instinctively, then I'd agree. (I blogged on that several times, check it out.) Every human has the same Law written within us and none of us follow it because we excuse ourselves from it. But this is slightly off topic.

"Why are we here" is not a question for science. Science has no buisness coming up with theories for the origins of the universe in my opinion because science MUST be concerned merely with Empirical evidence. Of Universal origin, we have none. Therefore, not it's business. It is the buisiness of religion, solely. That is why ALL theories about the origins of the universe, the origins and development of man, et cetera, MUST be regarded as religion and take faith to link the evidence, support, and believe.
on Aug 02, 2004
Every human has the same Law written within us


I agree with you Shulamite. "The Kingdom of God is within", said JC. I personally believe that the law within is a law of love. Murderous rages, passionate jealouses, wicked lies etc. are by-products of a misalignment with the law.

I agree that science is not in the business of providing answers to the great philosophical questions. Science is unable to answer them. It's simply in the business of exploring and describing the cosmos. Due to the inescapable intellectual connundrum of ‘infinite regress’, faith is inherent to the human condition. It so happens that faith is more at home with religion than it is with science. I believe that when science and religion are combined, we can gain great glimpses into the nature of the bigger picture. In the words of Sir William Blagg: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

We shouldn’t get too dogmatic about these issues, however, otherwise I'm sure we can become too closed minded. As we can learn from the fundies, or from materialist scientists, closed-mindedness can steer us away from new insights and fruitful progression. For example, contemporary scientific theories such as "string theory" predict the existence of different dimensions. Some of these dimensions can 'overlap' our own dimension on different wavelengths. Yet I wonder how many scientists would be open minded enough to consider the possibility that this theory actually renders plausible claims from psychic readers, who converse with different dimensions, and claim that sentient beings can live another life there. Since the dawn of mankind, the wisdom of the ages has indeed insisted upon the existence of "Heaven-Paradise", or the "Garden of Eden".

Understandably, science will wait for proof. Many scientists would say that such suggestions are too open minded. But I personally believe that it's more a question of an individual's spiritual awareness and growth, rather than open mindeness. However, with humanity's spiritual awareness rising so quickly, as a whole, science had better re-evaluate its methods of discovering "the Truth", before it needs to eat a slice of humble pie. ... In my opinion.

"
on Aug 03, 2004
It is not a question of discovering the truth; rather it is an unraveling of infinite mysteries.
on Aug 09, 2004
This response to Mr. Dedalus's article is in part about his use of language. Certainly, Mr. Dedalus commands a wide vocabulary. A pity, then, that he appears not to know what he's actually saying with it.

Language is to philosophy as breath is to human life. Mr. Dedalus's use of language has produced a philosophical abortion of the worst kind. It has the appearance of philosophy (as the corpse has the appearance of being fully human) but no more has the breath of life in it than an aborted fetus does. Consider his use of the term 'practicum'.

This term has the meaning: 'A school or college course, especially one in a specialized field of study, that is designed to give students supervised practical application of previously studied theory: advanced practicums in teaching reading.'

And this is how Mr. Dedalus uses that term:
The agnostic, on the other hand, might logically induce practicum of the other two in order to probe their validity unless, of course, he is disinterested and lets the chips fall.


The 'other two' being 'faith' and 'atheism'.

Mr. Dedalus seems to be saying that agnostics might logically induce atheists and believers to attend practical courses (in what? Astrophysics? Higher math? Basket-weaving?) in order to probe their 'validity'. Validity as what? Belief systems? Any belief system is valid to its adherents. That's what makes it a belief system. They might, conceivably, attend practical courses in their respective theologies (yes, atheists have a theology, they deify absence and theologize concerning its presence) in order to dispute with agnostics. However I find it unlikely that they would do so to dispute with themselves on behalf of agnostics - as Mr Dedalus appears to think they will.

And where, Mr. Dedalus, does 'logic' fit within this picture? What logic is to be used to induce atheists and believers to attend such courses? I don't deny that there may be such a logic - but I would like Mr. Dedalus to at least sketch its structure instead of throwing the term into the air and leaving it unsupported. Perhaps Mr. Dedalus is a street-charlatan, and this is his philosophic version of the indian rope-trick?

Now consider this statement:

This is not to say that atheists among their kind are not permitted the privilege of believers who proselytize their faith without denigrating those of another faith or philosophic bias.


Since Mr Dedalus here uses a double negative it's necessary to translate what he has written into what he appears to have actually meant.

To wit -
'This is to say that atheists among their kind are (since the second negative negates the first) permitted the privilege of believers who proselytize their faith without denigrating those of another faith or philosophic bias.' At which point the passage loses any clarity even in the re-written version since the first clause relating to atheists appears to be without connection to the second clause relating to their behaviour.

Is he saying only atheists who proselytize without denigrating the faith of others are permitted the privelege of believers to proselytize at all? And since proselytize means convert how can that be done without denigrating the faith of the the one to be converted? Is he saying that those who do cause offence are permitted this privilege? Is he saying that some other class of atheists, ones who only occasionally cause offence (or only occasionally do not cause offence) are permitted this privilege?

What is the man saying?

Here are some questions to which I would appreciate answers.

1) Proselytization is a natural outgrowth of faith. How is it then a 'privilege'?
2) Privilege is granted by authority. Since the 'god' of atheists is actually the absence of deity in any form, what authority do they turn to in order to be granted this privilege?
3) How is it, Mr Dedalus, that you have managed to write this utter nonsense without ever realising that you expose yourself to this kind of simple attack?

Now consider this statement:

Nevertheless, an atheist has a unique character in that it is in the quagmire of existential veracity that runs contrary to human nature’s tendency to wish a spark of divinity to render full meaning to its existence.


This is the kind of language used by people who are afraid they are not quite intellectual enough. Properly translated it reads -
'Atheists are unique in that they deny the existence of God, running counter to the instinctive human voice that says God exists and gives us meaning.'

If this is a not unreasonable definition of the uniquness of atheists, the effect this insight might have had on our good opinion of Mr. Dedalus is wholly set aside by the errant gibberish which follows it.

The atheist, then, has to soft-shoe his bias because of its defiance of the course of human history, but is free to proclaim philosophically that the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe. Within this framework, he cannot compete with faith since his is a philosophy, prohibiting him from comparing apples with oranges.


'The atheist, then, has to soft-shoe his bias because of its defiance of the course of human history, but is free to proclaim philosophically that the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe.'Why has the atheist to 'soft-shoe' his bias? And 'bias' in whose opinion? For all any of us actually knows the atheists may well have it right.

Any good atheist, convinced in his own mind, would tell the 'course of human history' to go fuck itself. Just as any other man of faith would: "Fuck you, I'm right, you're wrong, and God told me so." Isn't that what men of faith say?

As for the statement that 'the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe', how do you know, Mr. Dedalus, that that vey emptiness of the universe (if the universe actually is empty of meaning) is not the sole and entire purpose of God? In short, you don't. You do however write as if you know - while proving at every turn that you are unaware of the meaning of the very words you use.

Then we come to the crowning glory of this outpouring of idiocy. 'Within this framework, he (the atheist) cannot compete with faith since his is a philosophy, prohibiting him from comparing apples with oranges.'

Show me one example (one) of a faith or philosophy based upon a comparison between itself and another faith and/or philosophy. As a consequence of your making this point I would be very much interested to learn how you differentiate between the two. However, for the sake of my argument I will for now allow you this differentiation - but I challenge you to explain it coherently.

Both faith and philosophy (to maintain this distinction) are existential facts, indifferent to the facts of other experience, no matter how similar. Not only do they not compete, they cannot compete for that very reason. They acknowledge the 'competition' only as heresy, or ignorance of the truth.

The atheist, one who knows what he believes, is not in any kind of competition. He has, so far as he is concerned, already won.

Perhaps the most ridiculous moment of all occurs when Mr. Dedalus first piles Pelion upon Olympus, and then attempts to pile Ossa upon Pelion.

Consider this incoherent babble:

Yet as a philosopher he is free to criticize annoyances such as “under God” or “In God we trust” but cannot claim the right to efface traditional symbols from society as long as they do not violate society’s laws; only those who believe and begin to question ecclesiastic proclamations and relics are in a position to delete them.


Atheism denies the possibility of philosophy as thoroughly as it denies the possibility of God. The Greek words 'philo' and 'sopher' mean 'lover of divine wisdom', not (as Mr Dedalus seems intent on proving, 'one who strings together long words in order to impress the ignorant and foolish'). No atheist, by definition, is a philosopher.

The individual atheist (or any collectivity of atheists) is as free as any other individual or collectivity to criticize whatsoever he or it finds annoying in society, whether or not that individual or collectivity can be dignified by the title 'philosophic'.And any fool who wishes (so long as the said fool may in some way invoke the American Constitution in his aid) may claim and receive the right to 'efface traditional symbols from society', as has recently been proven by the furore concerning the presence of religious symbols in American courthouses.

I have one more quote to make from Mr Dedalus's epic adventure in defective thinking, and it's this:

only those who believe and begin to question ecclesiastic proclamations and relics are in a position to delete them.


Once again, Mr Dedalus - history has proven throughout its course that any individual, whether philosopher or atheist, wise man or fool, provided only that he is in possession of a grudge, a gun, an axe, or a rock, may very effectively delete whatsoever symbols he finds annoying, whatever his 'position'. I refer you to the notion of iconoclasm, and to its practitioners. Whether an individual has the right to do so is an entirely separate issue.

To conclude, I have a question not directed to Mr Dedalus, but to those who have also posted comments on this thread.

How could you POSSIBLY have fallen for this unmitigated, inexcusable, insult to philosophy? How can you heap praises on this sententious, over-inflated, exercise in defective rhetoric? The fact that you could and have done so is only one more illustration of why you people make me sick.

~~DivasRule~~
on Aug 10, 2004
Pearlcaster, you raise legitimate points. The two of you share a writing style toward absolute statements. I usually get my ass blacklisted for lengthy comments like the one you left above. When someone drops a two-screener on your blog maybe you'll understand. Live and learn. Anyhoo, I've reread your comment above. When I see absolutist statements my bullshit detector won't let me read another line until I can corroborate the BS, so I can understand why you may want to address these issues point by point.

My guess is that SteveD throws some of these ideas out there as hypothese and welcomes civilized debate. You're not the first person I've seen take a shot at SteveD's articles; absolutist statements attract critical thinkers. I think your substance suffers for your style and would delete your lengthy and frankly uncivilized reply in a second if it landed on my blog. I know from experience it's annoying to write something I consider good only to have it deleted because it is too long or contains indefensible language and attitude.

It's a fine line between an honest search for the truth via the socratic method and partisan cherrypicking. I have no doubt you are the former and think JoeU could use more critical thinkers like you but you may want to consider what I've just said for a more positive blogging experience.
3 Pages1 2 3