Spiritualism - Lesson #13
I agree that to some extent human beings do create their own morality the product of culture, upbringing and prejudice etc. For example while one person might see a particular situation as upright and wholesome another might view it as denigrating or even wicked. People are different and living in a changing, opinionated world. We don't all agree on everything. But God, or whatever we choose to call him, is changeless and not subject to these peculiarities of nature. God is never childish (or spiteful) developing as a child might eventually growing up into a reformed character. The moral outlook discussed in this lesson is one of relativism i.e. whatever society decides at any given moment is the accepted morality of the time. But it can never be right to kill. I (me) have no right whatsoever to decide who lives and who dies as if all that's at stake is the rearranging of energy. Conscience tells me that is wrong and I submit that most cultures, if not all, would agree that killing for the sake of it cannot be right. Morality is eternal as God is eternal. This is the conclusion Kant came to. Kant rejected metaphysical knowledge as far as the world or our inner being are concerned. Reason alone serves this purpose so releasing us from the useless bondage to speculation which only leads to conflict of opinion.
Reason, being independent of experience a priory, gives us solid moral guidance which I understand to mean "conscience" (the divine voice within). From this it follows that morality is independent of us and not subservient to sensory pleasures or gratification. This means we are not free to do as we like as if all we're doing is rearranging the furniture in a house that doesn't exist. Pantheism and monism are the offshoots of this way of thinking. For Kant an action has a moral value if it issues from a good will motivated purely out of respect for duty and the moral law. According to him the independence of morality gives us choice i.e. free will.
People often point to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the violence contained there. I would make several observations about this. First it is never good idea for a modern society to look back on an ancient one judging it according to modern standards. If we were to get into a spaceship and travel back five thousand years to the Fertile Crescent the society we would happen upon would be alien to our own so that we would not feel at home there. Nations fought on-another in hand to hand combat. It was a vicious world in which it was either kill or be killed. A powerful empire might swoop down on a smaller nation exiling its population to foreign climes as a way of keeping control e.g. the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires. This was the environment into which the fledgling nation of Israel began its life. God was not barbaric far from it he was loving and protective. For example when in Egypt God saw the plight of His people, heard their cries and came down to deliver them from the Egyptians who were oppressing them. He then led them across a vast desert, through hostile lands delivering them to a land he had set aside for them – a land surrounded by warring nations. It was important, therefore, that Israel remained unified and untarnished by outside influences if it was to preserve its faith and status ad God's chosen people. The problem was that, as a new nation in a new land, Israel was subject to many outside influences which threatened to overwhelm it. This is why the covenant was established between them and God. It served as a kind of manifesto under which Israel lived out its unique relationship to God – as a light to other nations. The problem was that Israel couldn't keep its side of the bargain and frequently fell into apostasy. This is when the trouble really started but even then God did not abandon his people but raised up "deliverers" to get them out the mess.
In the context of a violent and hostile world the God of the Israelites was an enlightened God who made sure widows and resident aliens were provided for; a God who established cities of refuge for criminals to escape to (to save themselves); God who did not advocate a scorched earth policy in war as surrounding nations did; and who commanded an "eye for an eye" ensuring revenge was proportional rather than unbounded (i.e. only one eye and no more) which was unheard of in those days. And when God did exact judgement upon his people restoration always followed – the book of Hosea is a case in point here. God was a grown up God dealing with an immature and fickle people.
The book of Job comes from the Wisdom section of the Hebrew scriptures which encompasses: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon. These books were used for teaching the next generation of leaders in society. Pupils might sit at a master's feet and be taught there. There is little religious content in these books and Job, for example, addresses a particular problem: "why do bad things happen to good people?" Proverbs taught the opposite to this but the reality is quite different e.g. thieves get away with their spoils while good people may lose homes and incomes. If people create their own morality this shouldn't happen; of course it shouldn't. We're told that Job was an upright man so the world he had been "consciously creating" should have reflected this but it didn't. And neither could it. Yet Job's protagonists couldn't see this. They were locked into the accepted way of thinking that if things go wrong for you it must be your fault – or the fault of someone close to you. But we know this didn't apply to Job which is why he protested his innocence. So, did God cause his suffering? No! There are at least two reasons why a loving, generous and creative God would not do this. First, Job was not just a righteous man he was a controlling man. For not only did he perform his own sacrifices he got up early to offer sacrifices on behalf of his family in case they had forgotten to do it themselves. Now, no-one can have that many plates in the air at the same time without eventually collapsing with a nervous breakdown. And this is what happened to Job. And the symptoms of a nervous breakdown are all there: despondency, collapse; skin eruption, tears, loss of interest and so on. Job became a sick man who could see no way out of his misery. So, this is very much a human story. Second, Kant abstracted from Job's experience according to his philosophical model i.e. by taking some object and stripping away the sensory qualities to arrive at a non-sensory core knowable a priory. In Job we have a person richly filled with sensory pleasures and worldly satisfactions who is stripped down to nothing leaving a moral core that remains intact. Yet even though Job ends up in a heap on the floor with nothing he still has his moral consciousness and retains his faith in God. Why? If moral awareness requires us to postulate God's existence then a purified moral awareness stripped down of worldly happiness would produce a correspondingly intense belief in God. And this is what one often finds in people who are caught up in suffering. Their calmness, acceptance and dignity can be so inspirational it produces a reaction of admiration within others who are taken "elsewhere in their thinking" beyond their immediate situation of ceaseless struggle to strive and "own." Well, once he sees the Almighty face to face he realises how little he really knew. Job thought he knew everything and was prepared to give God a piece of his mind, but in God's presence all that melted away. God was/is moral and Job saw that clearly. From that he found enlightenment and from that restoration.
Rog
20th March 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12
This was a sobering read yet true within the context of modern life. Western society is a built on consumerism and constantly creates new products for the consumer to strive after. And most of us do it yet we're seldom content and always want more – the latest: phone, tablet, car and so on. Yet when we get these things the "thrill" of the purchase is quickly lost as we strive after the next "thing." The pain, anxiety and stress of striving is an ever present reality in modern society. No wonder marriages disintegrate, and people resort to all kinds of therapies. For many people life really is an uphill struggle – and one reason I believe why many young men in Britain, today are taking their own lives. If life appears hopeless what hope is there? But what exactly did Schopenhauer believe?
Building on Kant's philosophy of the sensory (phenomena) and objective (noumena) worlds, Schopenhauer maintained that each person takes the limits of his/her own field of vision as the limits of the world. And this certainly the case as people experience the world in different ways according to background, culture, upbringing and so on. Schopenhauer, however rejected Kant's two worlds saying there was only one world which was experienced differently. For example just as we experience our bodies as "objects" (beyond us) so also we experience (within us) the "will." From this he deduced that the will of man and the will of the universe are one. But Schopenhauer was pessimistic of this universal will which man, he believed, was at its mercy. According to Schopenhauer life is a meaningless existence from which the only escape is non-existence. But he held out one ray of hope from this gloomy outlook i.e. music (and uncharacteristic appeal to the arts) which transcends the phenomena world. As human separateness from the universal will is an illusion Schopenhauer thought it possible to live a moral life by showing empathy and compassion to others.
I agree with the course writer that annihilation following death seems a daunting prospect but not everyone feels that way. Socrates considered various afterlife possibilities following his death. If there was an afterlife great! But if there wasn't well death would be like entering a long sleep. Either way he didn't think it mattered too much.
Although Buddha rejected the existence of God the enlightenment he eventually attained (nirvana) was a "deathless" state i.e. permanent and the highest joy compared with the sorrow and dissatisfaction of empirical existence. That sounds like heaven to me! Apparently Buddha had obtained the heavenly eye which enabled him to see clearly into condition of human life and went about preaching this as both an intellectual as well as a mystical state of consciousness. He was able to reach this conclusion having drawn on the wide teachings of his contemporaries e.g. karma, reincarnation, rebirth. This is what gave it such a wide appeal. Much of this is summed up in the Dhamma (teaching) of the Four Noble Truths: (a) life is permeated with suffering; (b) that the origins of suffering lie in craving (burning thirst for the things of this world); (c) that the answer to suffering is to remove craving and (d) that the way to cessation is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha saw himself as a kind of spiritual doctor here to cure people of their spiritual and physical troubles. For what we see around us as permanent: trees, tables, cars etc. only have a limited state; only nirvana is real (nirvana means "cooling off"). And although Buddha rejected "self" as a concept; for rebirth to occur does suggest something of "self" surviving death. It is difficult to see how humankind as a whole could cease striving and spend the day in contemplation; society would stagnate and eventually come to an end. In the Old Testament of the Bible God tells human kind to subdue the earth and rule over it (not to ravage, pollute and destroy it) but to improve life through technology and human ingenuity. The problem is that human nature has a downside (an ugly side). And so Cain kills Able because he is jealous of him and wants rid of him – selfish striving had begun. And so Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of human nature too. But we already know this.
However, science is unable to tell us anything about the "purpose" of life; yet purpose in life is what people need if life is to be worth living. Some find that purpose in striving after things which, once they've obtained them, fail to satisfy. And it is true that when failures come along they weigh more heavily on us than success does. Why is this? Maybe we fear being judged by others which hurts us more than we care to admit. I have conducted literally hundreds of funerals over the years and a recurring theme pops up i.e. the deceased: "wouldn't hurt a fly; would do anything for anyone and would give you his/her last penny." But we know that generally speaking people are not like that. Most complain, criticise, swear, mock, lie deceive and so on (to a greater or lesser degree) balanced of course by acts of compassion, friendliness and kindness. The Bible is full of such people – this is nothing new either. We are products of western culture; and western culture, by enlarge, is demanding, uncaring, hypocritical and cold. Laws are passed by an elite to control the weak and powerless. Spirituality is ignored and people are taught to stand on their own two feet. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume and others merely verbalise (in an abstract way), what many people know only too well from daily experience. Many, I'm sure, do not stop to think about it just accepting things as they are. But sometimes, maybe through natural-revelation (e.g. sea, sky, a sunset or an act of kindness etc.) God is momentarily glimpsed and thoughts turn to deeper matters. Philosophy for the most part rejects the idea of "God" as a proposition which can't be proved. But not everything can be analysed in a test tube. Take music. Where in the organ is the music that we hear? We cannot see, touch or feel it so where is it? Is it in the keys, the pipes or the organist? Of course not - but it touches us in the soul just the same. And what is beauty? And what is happiness? We may be unable to define "happiness" yet we know what it feels like when we obtain it. So, feelings are important too.
We may "feel" the presence of God when in a certain place; or when listening to a particular piece of music. We are people with emotions and emotions have a language of their own – the language of love: and love never ends. And as God is "love" – God never ends. Disasters may befall us causing the meaning to drop out of our lives. Depression may be the result putting us in a dark place from which we have to rescue ourselves. We should not underestimate this. But depression has a positive value too for bringing one face to face with a way of life that does not work. For once in that dark place of depression gadgets, possessions and the opinions of others count for nothing. It's as if the darkness of depression brings to an end a way of life that doesn't work. Then "self" seems to annihilate the old "self" opening up the possibility of a more fulfilling and creative way of life to spring forth from it. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said that people preferred darkness rather than light. Change is painful; and putting oneself second to God and others can be very painful yet necessary if we're to overcome the constant struggle to "accumulate."
The error of philosophy is that it tends to restrict talk of reality to what can be seen, proved or reasoned; and even that is not the whole of it. But the human brain isn't big enough to absorb everything. Besides, human beings are part of the created order and not outside of it so we will never know everything even though we have an inbuilt desire to investigate and research. Let go and let God is a good starting point whatever faith or science we subscribe to.
Rog
12th March 2016
This was a sobering read yet true within the context of modern life. Western society is a built on consumerism and constantly creates new products for the consumer to strive after. And most of us do it yet we're seldom content and always want more – the latest: phone, tablet, car and so on. Yet when we get these things the "thrill" of the purchase is quickly lost as we strive after the next "thing." The pain, anxiety and stress of striving is an ever present reality in modern society. No wonder marriages disintegrate, and people resort to all kinds of therapies. For many people life really is an uphill struggle – and one reason I believe why many young men in Britain, today are taking their own lives. If life appears hopeless what hope is there? But what exactly did Schopenhauer believe?
Building on Kant's philosophy of the sensory (phenomena) and objective (noumena) worlds, Schopenhauer maintained that each person takes the limits of his/her own field of vision as the limits of the world. And this certainly the case as people experience the world in different ways according to background, culture, upbringing and so on. Schopenhauer, however rejected Kant's two worlds saying there was only one world which was experienced differently. For example just as we experience our bodies as "objects" (beyond us) so also we experience (within us) the "will." From this he deduced that the will of man and the will of the universe are one. But Schopenhauer was pessimistic of this universal will which man, he believed, was at its mercy. According to Schopenhauer life is a meaningless existence from which the only escape is non-existence. But he held out one ray of hope from this gloomy outlook i.e. music (and uncharacteristic appeal to the arts) which transcends the phenomena world. As human separateness from the universal will is an illusion Schopenhauer thought it possible to live a moral life by showing empathy and compassion to others.
I agree with the course writer that annihilation following death seems a daunting prospect but not everyone feels that way. Socrates considered various afterlife possibilities following his death. If there was an afterlife great! But if there wasn't well death would be like entering a long sleep. Either way he didn't think it mattered too much.
Although Buddha rejected the existence of God the enlightenment he eventually attained (nirvana) was a "deathless" state i.e. permanent and the highest joy compared with the sorrow and dissatisfaction of empirical existence. That sounds like heaven to me! Apparently Buddha had obtained the heavenly eye which enabled him to see clearly into condition of human life and went about preaching this as both an intellectual as well as a mystical state of consciousness. He was able to reach this conclusion having drawn on the wide teachings of his contemporaries e.g. karma, reincarnation, rebirth. This is what gave it such a wide appeal. Much of this is summed up in the Dhamma (teaching) of the Four Noble Truths: (a) life is permeated with suffering; (b) that the origins of suffering lie in craving (burning thirst for the things of this world); (c) that the answer to suffering is to remove craving and (d) that the way to cessation is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha saw himself as a kind of spiritual doctor here to cure people of their spiritual and physical troubles. For what we see around us as permanent: trees, tables, cars etc. only have a limited state; only nirvana is real (nirvana means "cooling off"). And although Buddha rejected "self" as a concept; for rebirth to occur does suggest something of "self" surviving death. It is difficult to see how humankind as a whole could cease striving and spend the day in contemplation; society would stagnate and eventually come to an end. In the Old Testament of the Bible God tells human kind to subdue the earth and rule over it (not to ravage, pollute and destroy it) but to improve life through technology and human ingenuity. The problem is that human nature has a downside (an ugly side). And so Cain kills Able because he is jealous of him and wants rid of him – selfish striving had begun. And so Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of human nature too. But we already know this.
However, science is unable to tell us anything about the "purpose" of life; yet purpose in life is what people need if life is to be worth living. Some find that purpose in striving after things which, once they've obtained them, fail to satisfy. And it is true that when failures come along they weigh more heavily on us than success does. Why is this? Maybe we fear being judged by others which hurts us more than we care to admit. I have conducted literally hundreds of funerals over the years and a recurring theme pops up i.e. the deceased: "wouldn't hurt a fly; would do anything for anyone and would give you his/her last penny." But we know that generally speaking people are not like that. Most complain, criticise, swear, mock, lie deceive and so on (to a greater or lesser degree) balanced of course by acts of compassion, friendliness and kindness. The Bible is full of such people – this is nothing new either. We are products of western culture; and western culture, by enlarge, is demanding, uncaring, hypocritical and cold. Laws are passed by an elite to control the weak and powerless. Spirituality is ignored and people are taught to stand on their own two feet. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume and others merely verbalise (in an abstract way), what many people know only too well from daily experience. Many, I'm sure, do not stop to think about it just accepting things as they are. But sometimes, maybe through natural-revelation (e.g. sea, sky, a sunset or an act of kindness etc.) God is momentarily glimpsed and thoughts turn to deeper matters. Philosophy for the most part rejects the idea of "God" as a proposition which can't be proved. But not everything can be analysed in a test tube. Take music. Where in the organ is the music that we hear? We cannot see, touch or feel it so where is it? Is it in the keys, the pipes or the organist? Of course not - but it touches us in the soul just the same. And what is beauty? And what is happiness? We may be unable to define "happiness" yet we know what it feels like when we obtain it. So, feelings are important too.
We may "feel" the presence of God when in a certain place; or when listening to a particular piece of music. We are people with emotions and emotions have a language of their own – the language of love: and love never ends. And as God is "love" – God never ends. Disasters may befall us causing the meaning to drop out of our lives. Depression may be the result putting us in a dark place from which we have to rescue ourselves. We should not underestimate this. But depression has a positive value too for bringing one face to face with a way of life that does not work. For once in that dark place of depression gadgets, possessions and the opinions of others count for nothing. It's as if the darkness of depression brings to an end a way of life that doesn't work. Then "self" seems to annihilate the old "self" opening up the possibility of a more fulfilling and creative way of life to spring forth from it. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said that people preferred darkness rather than light. Change is painful; and putting oneself second to God and others can be very painful yet necessary if we're to overcome the constant struggle to "accumulate."
The error of philosophy is that it tends to restrict talk of reality to what can be seen, proved or reasoned; and even that is not the whole of it. But the human brain isn't big enough to absorb everything. Besides, human beings are part of the created order and not outside of it so we will never know everything even though we have an inbuilt desire to investigate and research. Let go and let God is a good starting point whatever faith or science we subscribe to.
Rog
12th March 2016
Monday, March 7, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11
Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.
Rog
7th March 2016
Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.
Rog
7th March 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #10
Spiritualism - Lesson #10
I've enjoyed this lesson even if the views of Hume and others doesn't take us far in our understanding of life or the search for meaning in life. I suspect the average person doesn't think too deeply about life which is taken just as it comes. Why might this be? Possibly because people know very little about themselves i.e. what makes us "tick!" Psychologists tells us that the mind has several layers of consciousness most of which are beyond our capacity to fathom. But it is from these deeper recesses of the mind that many of the drives come which motive us - despite our being unaware of them. For example we repeat the words our parents said (even if they are long dead) without knowing we are doing it. Similarly, we hold beliefs, fears, phobias and prejudices etc. instilled in us by others, again, without any conscious knowledge we do this.
Because of this we never really know ourselves in any meaningful way; so how could we possibly get to know anyone else (or anything)? The answer is; we can't! How often have we heard someone protesting (maybe a wife to her husband) "I thought I knew you." And yet no matter how long people are together that deep, personal knowledge will always elude us.
Hume's philosophy defined knowledge as (a) "sensations" and (b) "ideas" – the former preceding the latter. For example I can only know a lemon is bitter after tasting it. It follows that I can have no idea (or perception) of bitterness until I've tasted a lemon after which I lay down a template of "bitterness" in my mind for future (if weaker) reference. As far as a chair is concerned- all I really need to know is that the chair will support my weight. If I sit on that chair and it gives way the pain will be real enough when I hit the floor!
I've long had a problem with that word "singularity" as outlined by Prof. Stephen Hawkins. Apparently, at the Big Bang there was this tiny "object" of unimaginable mass. Suddenly it exploded, began to accelerate and expanded into the universe we live in today. But hold on; where was that "singularity" situated one second before the Big Bang? Was it sitting on a table somewhere waiting? If so where did the table come from? Maybe it was hovering in space. If it was that means there was something there (space) before the singularity exploded! And who lit the fuse? Apparently, we can't ask that question because that takes us to the other side of the singularity to the unknown. All very unsatisfactory. Others have tried to answer this with a "multiverse" theory i.e. when one ends there's another waiting to take its place. All highly unsatisfactory. The real problem seems to me that some scientists would rather stick to a cringe-worthy theory rather than admit to God being the first cause. Hume makes us think of course. But, and I've said this before, we only have our senses through which to experience the world and we can't do much about that. I'm just glad that where human knowledge fails God's knowledge is complete and all-encompassing.
When I encounter scientifically minded people I share my faith with them in an honest and authentic way. We need to be true to ourselves for if we are sure of what we believe, and share it in an "imaginative" way, it challenges people – this is what people tell me whether atheists, enquirers, sick, bereaved or searching.
Rog
28th Feb. 2016
I've enjoyed this lesson even if the views of Hume and others doesn't take us far in our understanding of life or the search for meaning in life. I suspect the average person doesn't think too deeply about life which is taken just as it comes. Why might this be? Possibly because people know very little about themselves i.e. what makes us "tick!" Psychologists tells us that the mind has several layers of consciousness most of which are beyond our capacity to fathom. But it is from these deeper recesses of the mind that many of the drives come which motive us - despite our being unaware of them. For example we repeat the words our parents said (even if they are long dead) without knowing we are doing it. Similarly, we hold beliefs, fears, phobias and prejudices etc. instilled in us by others, again, without any conscious knowledge we do this.
Because of this we never really know ourselves in any meaningful way; so how could we possibly get to know anyone else (or anything)? The answer is; we can't! How often have we heard someone protesting (maybe a wife to her husband) "I thought I knew you." And yet no matter how long people are together that deep, personal knowledge will always elude us.
Hume's philosophy defined knowledge as (a) "sensations" and (b) "ideas" – the former preceding the latter. For example I can only know a lemon is bitter after tasting it. It follows that I can have no idea (or perception) of bitterness until I've tasted a lemon after which I lay down a template of "bitterness" in my mind for future (if weaker) reference. As far as a chair is concerned- all I really need to know is that the chair will support my weight. If I sit on that chair and it gives way the pain will be real enough when I hit the floor!
I've long had a problem with that word "singularity" as outlined by Prof. Stephen Hawkins. Apparently, at the Big Bang there was this tiny "object" of unimaginable mass. Suddenly it exploded, began to accelerate and expanded into the universe we live in today. But hold on; where was that "singularity" situated one second before the Big Bang? Was it sitting on a table somewhere waiting? If so where did the table come from? Maybe it was hovering in space. If it was that means there was something there (space) before the singularity exploded! And who lit the fuse? Apparently, we can't ask that question because that takes us to the other side of the singularity to the unknown. All very unsatisfactory. Others have tried to answer this with a "multiverse" theory i.e. when one ends there's another waiting to take its place. All highly unsatisfactory. The real problem seems to me that some scientists would rather stick to a cringe-worthy theory rather than admit to God being the first cause. Hume makes us think of course. But, and I've said this before, we only have our senses through which to experience the world and we can't do much about that. I'm just glad that where human knowledge fails God's knowledge is complete and all-encompassing.
When I encounter scientifically minded people I share my faith with them in an honest and authentic way. We need to be true to ourselves for if we are sure of what we believe, and share it in an "imaginative" way, it challenges people – this is what people tell me whether atheists, enquirers, sick, bereaved or searching.
Rog
28th Feb. 2016
Friday, February 19, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #9
Spiritualism - Lesson #9
The individualisation, and therefore fragmentation, of western society is the direct consequence of secularism. Descartes conceived the universe as a huge machine to be studied while Locke took this a stage further when he said: "I am because I think" i.e. man is the judge of what is true (as the basis of logic). Consequently, with the universe as nothing more than a machine all gods, ghosts, and spirits were eliminated with man becoming master of his own destiny through the subjugation of the earth. Secularism denies (as "truth") the existence of God. Yet truth is a slippery term that may be perceived as subjective, objective or pragmatic. So, for example when an atheist states: "there is no God" this is a contradictory statement for it claims as "truth" what the atheist has denied to be true! These kind of logical arguments can be taken in many directions. Secularism denies the objectivity of anything – all things are "relative" and therefore subject to human decision making – which has been disastrous for western cultures.
Secularism elevates man, and man alone, to the position of master of his own destiny. How? Through "reason." It is reason alone that is able to solve every problem befalling humanity. And to be fair it is a worldview that has brought many benefits e.g. limitless food production, technological advance, medicine, genetics, and so on. However, much has also been lost e.g. pollution, over population, discontent and futility (life has no meaning or purpose for when we dies that's it). In the context of this study the breakdown of the family and the fragmentation of society (and erosion of culture) are also major features of secularism as is the loss of spirituality. Individual development, at the expense of others, is advocated as the noblest end of life i.e. to stand on your own feet and be yourself and to fill your life with "activity" so as not to linger too long over one's fears. The downside is that children are impatient of parents who are then side-lined or shunted off to an old-people's home much to the horror of, for example, people from African cultures. There was an interesting programme on the BBC recently where a group of celebrities went to India to see if it would be a suitable place to retire. The conclusions were startling. The celebrities from England discovered just how much British culture has lost in terms of togetherness, family and society – also spirituality. And they liked what they saw even though Indian society is caste based and, for the most part, poor. It was a real eye opener for them.
Within western culture the family is breaking down with children closeting themselves away in their bedrooms taking their meals there apart from others members of the family. And in neighbourhoods, where houses are closely packed together (as in England for example) people often do not know their neighbours with the result that the elderly, who live alone, die and lie undiscovered in their homes for days on end.
Consciousness is also a slippery term. No-one knows what consciousness is or even if human-beings are conscious all the time or just some of the time. For example if a person walks into a room to collect a book etc after leaving the room they are conscious that there was much in the room that they were unaware of (out of consciousness). It's the same when driving a car. A person my drive from A to B without being conscious at all of working the pedals, changing gears, looking in the mirror, negotiating intersections, rotaries, traffic lights and so on. And at journey's end they may have no recollection at all of the journey. Yet something within their consciousness carried out all those functions while their thinking was elsewhere.
The "fight or flight" syndrome is another example of consciousness acting on its own without any help from us. Even before the perceived danger has registered in the brain the autonomic nervous system (involuntary) has taken over. Blood will be surging through the veins, (with the face growing pale), food in the stomach regurgitated (there's no need of food if I die), adrenalin will be realised into the blood-stream to heighten alertness, the palms of the hand may become sweaty and hair may quite literally stand on end. All this is beyond the power of the individual to control. The body is preparing to defend itself against a life-threatening danger. Psychologists tell us this syndrome originates from a primitive part of the brain from when humans were hunter gathers in constant danger from predators. In fact psychologists tell us that during the evolutionary process the brain has added new bits on to itself (some of which are now redundant) which we're now stuck with! As a qualified hypnotherapist I have witnessed personally the power of the subconscious mind helping people to overcome difficulties in their lives – secularism would deny this.
In the many funerals I conduct I always emphasise the importance of family, (of being part of each-others lives) to make life meaningful, fulfilling and worth living. We need each other (no man is an island) for the sharing of gifts, talents, passing on wisdom and sharing love (which binds us all together for all time). It is this that western culture has lost- the concept of the whole people of God in community together. Secularism cannot give us this – soul, spirit, mysticism etc are beyond its remit. Only love (which is the ground and essence of God) can fan the soul into a relationship with him. People are at last waking up to this. Relationships are intuitive, emotional and spiritual all of which negate secularism.
Rog
Feb. 19th 2016
The individualisation, and therefore fragmentation, of western society is the direct consequence of secularism. Descartes conceived the universe as a huge machine to be studied while Locke took this a stage further when he said: "I am because I think" i.e. man is the judge of what is true (as the basis of logic). Consequently, with the universe as nothing more than a machine all gods, ghosts, and spirits were eliminated with man becoming master of his own destiny through the subjugation of the earth. Secularism denies (as "truth") the existence of God. Yet truth is a slippery term that may be perceived as subjective, objective or pragmatic. So, for example when an atheist states: "there is no God" this is a contradictory statement for it claims as "truth" what the atheist has denied to be true! These kind of logical arguments can be taken in many directions. Secularism denies the objectivity of anything – all things are "relative" and therefore subject to human decision making – which has been disastrous for western cultures.
Secularism elevates man, and man alone, to the position of master of his own destiny. How? Through "reason." It is reason alone that is able to solve every problem befalling humanity. And to be fair it is a worldview that has brought many benefits e.g. limitless food production, technological advance, medicine, genetics, and so on. However, much has also been lost e.g. pollution, over population, discontent and futility (life has no meaning or purpose for when we dies that's it). In the context of this study the breakdown of the family and the fragmentation of society (and erosion of culture) are also major features of secularism as is the loss of spirituality. Individual development, at the expense of others, is advocated as the noblest end of life i.e. to stand on your own feet and be yourself and to fill your life with "activity" so as not to linger too long over one's fears. The downside is that children are impatient of parents who are then side-lined or shunted off to an old-people's home much to the horror of, for example, people from African cultures. There was an interesting programme on the BBC recently where a group of celebrities went to India to see if it would be a suitable place to retire. The conclusions were startling. The celebrities from England discovered just how much British culture has lost in terms of togetherness, family and society – also spirituality. And they liked what they saw even though Indian society is caste based and, for the most part, poor. It was a real eye opener for them.
Within western culture the family is breaking down with children closeting themselves away in their bedrooms taking their meals there apart from others members of the family. And in neighbourhoods, where houses are closely packed together (as in England for example) people often do not know their neighbours with the result that the elderly, who live alone, die and lie undiscovered in their homes for days on end.
Consciousness is also a slippery term. No-one knows what consciousness is or even if human-beings are conscious all the time or just some of the time. For example if a person walks into a room to collect a book etc after leaving the room they are conscious that there was much in the room that they were unaware of (out of consciousness). It's the same when driving a car. A person my drive from A to B without being conscious at all of working the pedals, changing gears, looking in the mirror, negotiating intersections, rotaries, traffic lights and so on. And at journey's end they may have no recollection at all of the journey. Yet something within their consciousness carried out all those functions while their thinking was elsewhere.
The "fight or flight" syndrome is another example of consciousness acting on its own without any help from us. Even before the perceived danger has registered in the brain the autonomic nervous system (involuntary) has taken over. Blood will be surging through the veins, (with the face growing pale), food in the stomach regurgitated (there's no need of food if I die), adrenalin will be realised into the blood-stream to heighten alertness, the palms of the hand may become sweaty and hair may quite literally stand on end. All this is beyond the power of the individual to control. The body is preparing to defend itself against a life-threatening danger. Psychologists tell us this syndrome originates from a primitive part of the brain from when humans were hunter gathers in constant danger from predators. In fact psychologists tell us that during the evolutionary process the brain has added new bits on to itself (some of which are now redundant) which we're now stuck with! As a qualified hypnotherapist I have witnessed personally the power of the subconscious mind helping people to overcome difficulties in their lives – secularism would deny this.
In the many funerals I conduct I always emphasise the importance of family, (of being part of each-others lives) to make life meaningful, fulfilling and worth living. We need each other (no man is an island) for the sharing of gifts, talents, passing on wisdom and sharing love (which binds us all together for all time). It is this that western culture has lost- the concept of the whole people of God in community together. Secularism cannot give us this – soul, spirit, mysticism etc are beyond its remit. Only love (which is the ground and essence of God) can fan the soul into a relationship with him. People are at last waking up to this. Relationships are intuitive, emotional and spiritual all of which negate secularism.
Rog
Feb. 19th 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
spiritualsim lesson 8
spiritualsim lesson 8
When discussing the subject of persecution it might be helpful to start at the beginning. From its earliest foundation Christianity was a faith that "appealed." Why was that? It wasn't just that the Romans established peace across the empire and laid down good communications for this new faith to spread far and wide. Christianity arose in a society steeped in mystery religions, magic, Greek philosophy, Epicureans, Cynics, Gnostics and so on – none of which offered people any hope at all. But Christianity appealed to all classes of people with a message of love, forgiveness, acceptance and hope of eternal-life particularly to the marginalised and dispossessed in society. And they flocked to it in droves. However, unlike Judaism which was tolerated by the Romans, Christianity was outside its protection and therefore ripe for persecution. And for the first three centuries of the Christian era Christians were brutally persecuted by the state suffering many martyrs. However, after Constantine became Emperor it was the Church that became the persecutor of those outside its teaching – which is deeply regretful.
In is parting words Jesus told his followers to love one another as a witness to their belonging to him. He also told them that the first (and greatest commandment) was to love God and neighbour as self. There is no confusion here; the golden rule is to do unto others as we would have them do to us. Christianity is a religion of peace, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and kindness. Of course there are Christian fundamentalists just as there are fundamentalist in every religion i.e. people who cherry-pick their scriptures to justify beliefs and actions. However, the correct way is to look across the whole of scripture to determine what the overriding principles are – this is the way to do ethics. Christians have been involved in wars just as others faiths have also. There is a magazine called "Barnabas Fund" which supports the persecuted Church (i.e. Christians) throughout the world. Today in 2016 there are many countries in Africa, the Far East and so on where Christians are brutally persecuted for their faith. It's also true that aetheistic, secular powers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc) murdered more people than every religion put together.
What should we make of "predestination" a doctrine advocated by Calvin and others? The first thing we should do is discuss God's knowledge – something usually covered in philosophy of religion. If God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal then it follows that his knowledge is perfect too. This means that God eternally knows what "Fred" will do before he does it -he would have to if he is God – for God is not limited in any way. However, "Fred" can change his mind because Fred also has free-will. This doesn't limit God's knowledge – because God is patient and not coerrsive (see the parable of the Prodical Son).
But it should be stressed that while the Bible emphasises love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance it also speaks (in many places) of judgement. For example the Old Testament book of Judges. "Judges" does not refer to a law court but to "saviours," (heroes) raised up by God to deliver his people from a desperate situation. But the people never learned the lesson for once the emergency was over they reverted to their old ways and suffered further "judgement." Jesus too spoke of judgement. There are also many reference in the Bible to the "elect" (e.g. Matthew 24:22; 24:24; 24:31 etc. AV). There are also numerous references to heaven as a place exterior to the human heart. For example Jesus saw heaven being torn apart and the Spirit descending (Mark 1:10); and a voice coming from heaven (Mark 1:11). Jesus also took loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (Mark 6:41). And when people came to Jesus to test him they asked him for a sign from heaven (Luke 24:51). There are many more references besides these. Finally, Jesus said that whoever believes, and is baptised, will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15) – it's a question of faith leading to the transformation of lives, morals and life-style. Predestination has long been a hotly contested issue but it need not be. The gospel is clear where salvation lies – believe in the person of Jesus.
Rog
15th Feb. 2016
When discussing the subject of persecution it might be helpful to start at the beginning. From its earliest foundation Christianity was a faith that "appealed." Why was that? It wasn't just that the Romans established peace across the empire and laid down good communications for this new faith to spread far and wide. Christianity arose in a society steeped in mystery religions, magic, Greek philosophy, Epicureans, Cynics, Gnostics and so on – none of which offered people any hope at all. But Christianity appealed to all classes of people with a message of love, forgiveness, acceptance and hope of eternal-life particularly to the marginalised and dispossessed in society. And they flocked to it in droves. However, unlike Judaism which was tolerated by the Romans, Christianity was outside its protection and therefore ripe for persecution. And for the first three centuries of the Christian era Christians were brutally persecuted by the state suffering many martyrs. However, after Constantine became Emperor it was the Church that became the persecutor of those outside its teaching – which is deeply regretful.
In is parting words Jesus told his followers to love one another as a witness to their belonging to him. He also told them that the first (and greatest commandment) was to love God and neighbour as self. There is no confusion here; the golden rule is to do unto others as we would have them do to us. Christianity is a religion of peace, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and kindness. Of course there are Christian fundamentalists just as there are fundamentalist in every religion i.e. people who cherry-pick their scriptures to justify beliefs and actions. However, the correct way is to look across the whole of scripture to determine what the overriding principles are – this is the way to do ethics. Christians have been involved in wars just as others faiths have also. There is a magazine called "Barnabas Fund" which supports the persecuted Church (i.e. Christians) throughout the world. Today in 2016 there are many countries in Africa, the Far East and so on where Christians are brutally persecuted for their faith. It's also true that aetheistic, secular powers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc) murdered more people than every religion put together.
What should we make of "predestination" a doctrine advocated by Calvin and others? The first thing we should do is discuss God's knowledge – something usually covered in philosophy of religion. If God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal then it follows that his knowledge is perfect too. This means that God eternally knows what "Fred" will do before he does it -he would have to if he is God – for God is not limited in any way. However, "Fred" can change his mind because Fred also has free-will. This doesn't limit God's knowledge – because God is patient and not coerrsive (see the parable of the Prodical Son).
But it should be stressed that while the Bible emphasises love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance it also speaks (in many places) of judgement. For example the Old Testament book of Judges. "Judges" does not refer to a law court but to "saviours," (heroes) raised up by God to deliver his people from a desperate situation. But the people never learned the lesson for once the emergency was over they reverted to their old ways and suffered further "judgement." Jesus too spoke of judgement. There are also many reference in the Bible to the "elect" (e.g. Matthew 24:22; 24:24; 24:31 etc. AV). There are also numerous references to heaven as a place exterior to the human heart. For example Jesus saw heaven being torn apart and the Spirit descending (Mark 1:10); and a voice coming from heaven (Mark 1:11). Jesus also took loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (Mark 6:41). And when people came to Jesus to test him they asked him for a sign from heaven (Luke 24:51). There are many more references besides these. Finally, Jesus said that whoever believes, and is baptised, will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15) – it's a question of faith leading to the transformation of lives, morals and life-style. Predestination has long been a hotly contested issue but it need not be. The gospel is clear where salvation lies – believe in the person of Jesus.
Rog
15th Feb. 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #7
Spiritualism - Lesson #7
The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.
Rog
15th Feb 2016
The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.
Rog
15th Feb 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)