Re: Religion: How to deal with it?

[assive2007]

I like your concept but... do you believe one can have some relatioship with this "Other"?... eg, does it care, does he not care, can he care?

[0ThouArtThat0]

"he" doesn't care, but nor does "he" not care. I think religious feelings, when honest, are as much about struggle as they are joy. Trying to relate to something which is in principle impossible to know can take a lot out of you, but so too can it give you everything. So relationship is possible, but it is never stagnant, never something we could take for granted.

[assive2007]

Oh well, i see what you mean. Am still struggling with this big time. I used to be a christain but as i got older... relegion just doesn't make any sense anymore, plainly retarded, which leaves me with more questions.

[mistawulf]

You say there is some "other" that we know exists. I worry that perhaps there isn't a truth to the world but I pursue this other as a Catholic and a Chemist. I believe I can utilize both in my discernment of truth - should I ever be able to attain it.

[GrowthSpiral]

For me at least I am trapped in the game of the labels - I can't quite fit in any category - I believe that there is an Other -I'm not comfortable in the God of the religions - too limiting, etc - plus personal experience I guesss was a factor. I call myself spiritual agnostic - not sure there is a God or not at a God - I'm too open to be pinned down - I just dont know.....most of the time I'm glad to be in that position or better yet that tension -

[GrowthSpiral]

I think with "religion" some people are drawn to the metaphysics it espouses - the comfort of how we got here, why we are here, where we are going - it gives the answers in a nice patterned formula, but I think there are other people who are more restless, who are more concerned with the questions than the answers, but we sure want the answers! hehe

[0ThouArtThat0]

I wouldn't want to mistake the finger for the moon. But I still think some kind of scaffolding is necessary. You need a boat to cross the river. Human beings will never be able to discard religion until they have dried up the river (ie, until futurists have successfully replace meat and nerves with plastic and circuitry so that life becomes a machine and mortals live forever), and I don't see that day coming anytime soon, nor do I even find it all that desirable.

[GrowthSpiral]

hmmm.....but don't you agree that others (I suspect you are in this league, i might be off base) are "intellectually restless" concerned with the questions, hoping for the answers but it leads only to more questions - maybe I am reflecting more of my being, and thus projecting it to you - but I think with looking to the Other - we are always questioning...questioning reality, ontology,etc

[0ThouArtThat0]

Well yeah, I guess because we can never know the Other, we are constantly questioning it. A religion that constantly questions the Other seems to be the definition of a living religion. A dead religion would just tell you exactly what the Other was, no questions asked.

[LoveMaslow]

A religion that constantly questions the Other seems to be the definition of a living religion.

Now thats my kind of religion....

[GrowthSpiral]

Do you think the religions of today are essentially dead artifacts? Or do you think they only live in the mystic and/or faithful (that they go under the surface of the traditional stories (i.e gospels, Bhavadita Gita,etc)?

[GrowthSpiral]

when I think of science - I see it as a giant zigsaw puzzle with small facts, evidences, bits and pieces that should fit together but we humans are not able or I think intentionally are meant to know how to put the jigsaw puzzle back together. Have you read Buber or Levinas? I'm more familiar with Buber than Levinas - but both of their works explore the issues of the Other. "God" is the Other, the vast unknown.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I've read "I and Thou" by Buber. I am constantly re-reading it.

[GrowthSpiral]

Its sublime! :)

[GrowthSpiral]

How soon until you publish???

[guitaoist]

"The heart has reasons which reason cannot know." Pascal

If the universe is stranger than we could literally ever 'imagine', then we must have more faith in FAITH than in reason alone

[0ThouArtThat0]

A lot of rationalists find it somehow irresponsible that a person of faith characterizes that faith as worthwhile specifically because there are no reasons to have it. But this of course is the whole point of the concept of faith to begin with. Faith isn't belief in something; belief requires a proof, some clear image of a "thing" that might then be believed in. Faith is exactly as you said: faith in faith itself, a sort of trust in the unknown.

[GrowthSpiral]

on the issue of Faith - are you familar with recent revelations of Mother Theresa? Some atheists say "look even she doubted" Does doubt then play into the role of faith and if so how?? What is the role of doubt in the believer?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Doubt is what gets rid of the possibility of false idols. In Mother Theresa's case, it seems she was miserable, she knew her faith was not genuine. She knew she was believing in a particular image of God that didn't exist, she was erecting a false idol. Her doubt was a requirement of faith. Without doubt she could not be sure her faith was in faith itself, rather than being just a belief in some other petty thing which might be doubted.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Faith is what's left once you've doubted everything (wow, never thought I'd agree with Descartes about anything).

Faith is trust in the unknown, recognition of the all encompassing and inescapable presence of the Other.

[GrowthSpiral]

I'm confused - her faith was not genuine but her doubt was a requirment of faith - thus are you saying that doubt is a requirment of faith?

[0ThouArtThat0]

If you have faith in some idea of what you think God is, then you do not have faith. Faith is a trust in the unknown, an acceptance of the mystery of existence. You cannot have an idea of what your faith is in, then it is no longer faith but belief, a kind of wishing for something.

[0ThouArtThat0]

So if you have faith in a specific image of God, you are believing in a false idol and must doubt it before true faith could be possible. Therefore, faith is only possible after every idea of God has been doubted and only faith in faith itself remains.

[guitaoist]

Kierkegaards Leap of Faith is appropriate here. Unlike Hegel, he believed that we couldnt possibly 'know everything' and had to look past our limited understanding and just believe a little. Hegel believed "The real is rational, the rational real." I think this is really irrational

[Herrunus]

existence is not posited, truth is posited.

to characterize god as unknowable Other or eternal mystery, is to characterize and contextualize the unknown. Religion and God fail the impossible, they betray the unknown, disguising it as themselves. God is a plagiarist!

[jtr3030]

I don't think you should degrade the 'other' by calling it 'God'. You're confusing everyone's sense of taxonomy, you're doing the 'other' injustice, and it sounds like you're just trying to fit in with other believers. Call it what it is, even if you can't use only one word.

[patternsinchaos]

While the area around the house looks empty, a celestial city is built here. You cannot see it because it exists in another dimension. If you wish to see it you must know when to look. To know when you must listen for the call. (I didn't have to deliver this message, but choose to.)

[patternsinchaos]

These synchronicities are the protrusions of those other dimensions. Most of us experience them without realizing. As you learn to recognize these connections you begin work in other dimensions. There is a calling here, divine council with no obligation but to yourself.

[patternsinchaos]

Listen for the tone that interjects itself with a screen brightness change on the screen just after: "...there could be 26 dimensions and... most of which we'll never experience"

What was that?

[patternsinchaos]

Good thoughts!

Wise words, especially at the end!

God is God. Whatever that is... :-)

[sickliberal]

Thanks for commenting like this!

Without time and space we can't structure reality per se. Without God we have a profound existential problem. That is the difference I see, and that's why i did not agree with victor. But the sense of the other, that at every time we only see a little part of 'to be', that is something to manage.

[zezt]

'God!!!' can be the expression of amazement, when seeing some wonderful scenery, event, sexual orgasm etc. I wonder...hmmmm if 'a-theists' expound so...? haha, and then say 'darn it' hah

[AOEGuy]

I watched both this and the original video & I couldn't agree more. I think humanity must move past the dualistic extremes of religion/atheism and move into oneness. Seeing that we may never know the true essence of God, and the mysterious existance of "God" can't be described by one single book.

[HaleyMary]

I think that if people were to combine science with philosophy and theology there might be something that could be found out. In regards to the big bang, have you heard of the ekpyrotic universe theory of branes colliding to trigger big bang-like explosions? As far as God goes, I don't believe in a God, but I think that life exists because of energy in the universe and that energy just recycles itself on a continuous basis, like an explosion from a supernova.

[GrowthSpiral]

Thats my mom's theory - its all Energy - but is that just a substitute for the word God I wonder? Matt--- whats your take as well? It all being just energy?? Is something missing in that?

[0ThouArtThat0]

There always seems to be something missing. Maybe that's the Other.

[GrowthSpiral]

So Energy as the overriding principle of the Other is lacking?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed (so it passes through no irreconsilable transformation between being and non-being), nor are there any gaps between it, it is non-local and universally connected. Because of these characteristics, it seems that energy can know no Other. But I certainly don't want to discount a connected and unified cosmos of energy. The mystic calls God the Other only so we don't mistake It for something finite. Really, God is right here and now, not elsewhere or elsewhen.

[GrowthSpiral]

Really, God is right here and now, not elsewhere or elsewhen.

So energy can't be in the present? I always think of God (i,e the Other) being in the present, AND elsewhere,etc Thus, wouldn't energy transpire all around us...in us, of us, between us, etc, which I see you dont discount a connected cosmos of energy

[GrowthSpiral]

when I refer to energy - I guess the theory goes we are all Energy (a dash of pantheism thrown in for good measure)and this energy enamates thru the universe, in us, all around is...something like that..