"“Science is all metaphor.” ~Timothy Leary"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang as evidence for God
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Your unwillingness to accept facts as facts do not make them go away, nor does doing so help in honest discussion.
I have seen many a person humpty dumpty reality in favour of their faith to the point of flat out dishonesty.
Do not get me wrong, I agree that that one should be mindful of the difference
Do you believe you can know reality as it is? Or is our understanding of "facts" a mediated reality?
I actually recognize that any ideas or beliefs I may have about the ultimate nature of reality, or even just plain old simple things of everyday life is just as meditated and relative as your ideas of facts are. So I most certainly am not trying to speak in favor of my "faith" as though it was facts. No dishonesty there at all. On the other hand, you seem assured that what ideas you hold are able to know the "facts" of the matter 'as it is'. Isn't that being dishonest in favor of your beliefs?
Very good then. But then how do you propose to distinguish what is absolute truth or 'facts' from relative truths? I'll put it this way, I think there is a relationship between truth and facticity, but it's not one where if we can just get to the 'facts' that we know truth. It's much more subtle and dynamic than that. It lies in our notions of truth itself and the ways in which we interpret fact through them. We don't ever really know reality "as it is". It's all meditated. And as such truth is relative and dynamic. Truth is how we translate reality, and reality is tied to and part of that translation. We live in that "translated reality", and thus "facts" are not separate from that translation.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Mud...please reflect on what you just conflicted....
No eternity means nothing....what exists is eternal...hence why there can never have been nothing...
The Cosmos is not to be conflated with the ever changing form...eternity is not circular....
The key to the meaning given to cause and because is context..eg...there was no cause for eternal existence because eternity was never created...the first refers to a Cosmic truth...the latter is merely referring to the logical reason this principle is true... Dictionary meaning of 'cause' is ...give rise to... meaning of because is...for the reason of...
Haha...me..argumentative..
Seriously tho....I do like to be an effective communicator and feel if someone doesn't get what I am explaining...I need to try harder..I am truly pleased we are on the same side on this....
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I didn't say that....reread my post.# 225....it was said by Legion and was included within the quotation marks of my quote of his from his post # 178...
I'm going to swing back around to this and give a fuller explanation rather than just quoting Timothy Leary as an example of how this understanding of metaphor is not "beyond all recognition." I'll briefly add a few more quotes to add to his to underscore others understand it in the way I am speaking, before really getting into the meat of it.
“The metaphor is perhaps one of man’s most fruitful potentialities. Its efficacy verges on magic, and it seems a tool for creation which God forgot inside one of His creatures when He made him.” Jose Ortega y Gasset (Spanish philosopher and humanist , 1883-1955)
“A world ends when its metaphor has died” Archibald MacLeish (American Poet and Critic. 1892-1982)
“Language is memory and metaphor” Storm Jameson
Where I am really getting at here can be found expressed in this article on Metaphor and Phenomenology I just found:“A world ends when its metaphor has died” Archibald MacLeish (American Poet and Critic. 1892-1982)
“Language is memory and metaphor” Storm Jameson
While the basic features of phenomenological consciousness – intentionality, self-awareness, embodiment, and so forth—have been the focus of analysis, Continental philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida go further in adding a linguistically creative dimension. They argue that metaphor and symbol act as the primary interpreters of reality, generating richer layers of perception, expression, and meaning in speculative thought. The interplay of metaphor and phenomenology introduces serious challenges and ambiguities within long-standing assumptions in the history of Western philosophy, largely with respect to the strict divide between the literal and figurative modes of reality based in the correspondence theory of truth.
.....
In purely conventional terms, poetic language can only be said to refer to itself; that is, it can accomplish imaginative description through metaphorical attribution, but the description does not refer to any reality outside of itself. For the purposes of traditional rhetoric and poetics in the Aristotelian mode, metaphor may serve many purposes; it can be clever, creative, or eloquent, but never true in terms of referring to new propositional content. This is due to the restriction of comparison to substitution, such thatthe cognitive impact of the metaphoric transfer of meaning is produced by assumingsimilarities between literal and figurative domains of objects and the descriptive predicates attributed to them.
The phenomenological interpretation of metaphor, however, not only challenges the substitution model, it advances the role of metaphor far beyond the limits of traditional rhetoric. In the Continental philosophical tradition, the most extensive developments of metaphor’s place in phenomenology are found in the work of Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida. They all, in slightly different ways, see figurative language as the primary vehicle for the disclosure and creation of new forms of meaning which emerge from an ontological, rather than purely epistemic or objectifying engagement with the world.
......
According to the standard model, a metaphor’s ability to signify is restricted by ordinary denotation. The metaphor, understood as a new name, is conceived as a function of individual terms, rather than sentences or wider forms of discourse (narratives, texts). As Continental phenomenology develops in the late 19th and 20th centuries, we are presented with radically alternative theories which obscure strict boundaries between the literal and the figurative, disrupting the connections between perception, language, and thought. Namely, the phenomenological, interactionist, and cognitive treatments of metaphor defend the view that metaphorical language and symbol serve as indirect routes to novel ways of knowing and describing human experience. In their own ways, these theories will call into question the validity and usefulness of correspondence and reference, especially in theoretical disciplines such as philosophy, theology, literature, and science.
There's a great deal more there in that article, but this sheds some further light from an academic perspective what I am driving at in how I am applying these sorts of understanding of language in the role of shaping truth and reality. The cries about "facts" is not so clear as it may appear on the surface......
In purely conventional terms, poetic language can only be said to refer to itself; that is, it can accomplish imaginative description through metaphorical attribution, but the description does not refer to any reality outside of itself. For the purposes of traditional rhetoric and poetics in the Aristotelian mode, metaphor may serve many purposes; it can be clever, creative, or eloquent, but never true in terms of referring to new propositional content. This is due to the restriction of comparison to substitution, such thatthe cognitive impact of the metaphoric transfer of meaning is produced by assumingsimilarities between literal and figurative domains of objects and the descriptive predicates attributed to them.
The phenomenological interpretation of metaphor, however, not only challenges the substitution model, it advances the role of metaphor far beyond the limits of traditional rhetoric. In the Continental philosophical tradition, the most extensive developments of metaphor’s place in phenomenology are found in the work of Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida. They all, in slightly different ways, see figurative language as the primary vehicle for the disclosure and creation of new forms of meaning which emerge from an ontological, rather than purely epistemic or objectifying engagement with the world.
......
According to the standard model, a metaphor’s ability to signify is restricted by ordinary denotation. The metaphor, understood as a new name, is conceived as a function of individual terms, rather than sentences or wider forms of discourse (narratives, texts). As Continental phenomenology develops in the late 19th and 20th centuries, we are presented with radically alternative theories which obscure strict boundaries between the literal and the figurative, disrupting the connections between perception, language, and thought. Namely, the phenomenological, interactionist, and cognitive treatments of metaphor defend the view that metaphorical language and symbol serve as indirect routes to novel ways of knowing and describing human experience. In their own ways, these theories will call into question the validity and usefulness of correspondence and reference, especially in theoretical disciplines such as philosophy, theology, literature, and science.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
How many times do you have to have this explained to you....the real is on the other side of the concept...until you understand this....you keep wasting my time having to explain it to you repeatedly. Concepts represent some reality...but they are not that reality...it is like the finger pointing to the moon....concepts serve as sign posts.. Take the reality represented by the concept of water...it is the same reality regardless of the different concepts representing it...such as 'acqua' in Italian or 'air' in Indonesia, etc... There is only one absolute reality..the different concepts representing it all are meant to direct your mind to the contemplation of it.....just like there is no one correct concept to represent the reality of water....there is no one correct concept to represent the reality of the one existence....
Do you understand what I am saying to you....I am non-denominational....I consider all religious teachings as 'fingers pointing at the moon'.....I am not concerned with the beauty or lack thereof of the finger....but the moon....
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
But different religious belief systesms point to different realities, they point to different moons. You want all the fingers to point to your theist moon, and as a theist you are clearly not "non-denominational".
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You only believe this is so because you consider the concepts as real and do not understand there is only one non-conceptual universal reality.. and it exists independent of all beliefs...theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.... Beliefs are merely a learned memory of the words.....and the words are not the reality....they only serve to represent reality.. I wan't nothing at all Norman...but to see someone begin to see the light is always an encouragement....
I see all kinds of religious people pointing in all kinds of directions at things only they can see.I am non-denominational....I consider all religious teachings as 'fingers pointing at the moon'.....I am not concerned with the beauty or lack thereof of the finger....but the moon....
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Religion is not an intellectual pursuit...it is realize what is on the other side of the words... Religion is not about belief...it is to realize what is on the other side of the belief....reality is independent of all concepts and beliefs....it dissolves them and for that reason we have so many hypocrites who pose as teachers of religion who have never actually gone beyond the hype surrounding the rhetoric...and their legions of pied-piper like blind followers...
You said and I quote: "I consider all religious teachings as 'fingers pointing at the moon'". I consider all religious teachings as fingers pointing at different moons some people believe to be there even though there's no evidence of the moons actually existing.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
You only believe this is so because you consider the concepts as real and do not understand there is only one non-conceptual universal reality.. and it exists independent of all beliefs...theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.... Beliefs are merely a learned memory of the words.....and the words are not the reality....they only serve to represent reality.. I wan't nothing at all Norman...but to see someone begin to see the light is always an encouragement....
This is just preachy rhetoric, you have no idea if there is actually a "universal reality". All you have is your personal experience, and the assumptions you attach to that experience.
My guess is that you've had some experience of samadhi and read a whole lot into that experience, based on your theistic preconceptions.
Last edited by a moderator:
How so? Explain.
I know this was not in response to me but I'll address it anyway. You will notice in my signature line the original quote from the 15th Century Zen-monk Poet? It says, "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon. ~Ikkyu - Zen-monk poet, 1394-1481. Last I checked Zen monks were not theists. Right? Theism is actually one of those fingers pointing to the moon. And so is atheism. The moon itself is beyond, not defined by either of those points of view, either of those terms. Questions of theism and atheism are made moot points under that single bright moon.
You will recall the explanation before that Brahman is both Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities), and Saguna Brahman (Brahman with qualities)? The God with qualities would include deity forms as part of manifest reality. But God without qualities there is no deity form. There are no forms at all. Theism is seeing the Divine with form; be that traditional radical theism, pantheism, or panentheism. But I'll also include into that Atheism, in that atheism is a response to theism denying deity forms as part of the manifest reality.
Remember, manifest reality is Saguna Brahman, so to say no deity forms in the manifest realm is still manifest reality. Atheism is also Saguna Brahman. The Brahman with qualities is the materialistic universe seen and touched and investigated by the senses, without or without deity forms. Atheism is the "without deity forms" part of that, rejecting theistic interpretations of manifest reality, or put another way denying those other fingers that are pointing to the moon in promotion of their own finger pointing to ultimate truth and reality.
Nirguna Brahman has neither of those. In terms of theism (either theistic or atheistic), it is "God beyond God". But Brahman itself embraces itself, both in unmanifest and manifest reality. So both theism and atheism are simply different fingers pointing to the same moon on the Saguna Brahman side of the street. Embracing the whole, that Single Bright Moon, embraces both theism and atheism, unmanifest and manifest, formlessness and form as all parts of that One. How is anything we see not part of this? What exists outside of This?
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
What I see is a lot of different fingers pointing in different directions, at different moons. Hindu Brahman is certainly more inclusive than the Biblical God, but both are denied by atheism and materialism, and both are irrelevant to a non-theist tradition like Buddhism.
So there are all these different models of reality, contradictory stances, different sets of beliefs and assumptions. The idea that they are all pointing at the same moon is a nice one, but it looks like wishful thinking to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
But doesn't Saguna Brahman include atheism and materialism? It doesn't deny it. Methinks the real issue is that atheism sees anything that speaks of ultimate reality as "theistic" as being wrong, because that theism had played a dominant part of culture and it wishes to get rid of God as any sort of legitimate perspective because it fit into the perception a purely materialistic conception of reality. I make a distinction between atheism and non-theistic traditions, like some forms of Buddhism.
Buddhism is not a denial of deity forms as illegitimate. It is just a path to ultimate truth that doesn't utilize them. It doesn't make them part of the path. It bypasses them, in other words. It does not make a judgement of their legitimacy either way. Atheism on the other hand is a denial of them, saying that they are not part of what is truly real. It is essence says they are false. That's very different.
But as I said before, atheism is exactly like theism in the sense they are both fingers pointing to ultimate reality, like the blind men touching parts of the elephant proclaim the elephant is like a rope, or a wall, or a fan, or a spear, and so forth as they perceive parts of the whole, arguing with one another who is right. The single bright moon, make all of them right, and all of them partial. The problem is traditionally people arguing their point of view of the whole think they see the whole because they have touched and and interpreted it thusly in their relative terms. And that comes straight back to my points about metaphor.
Do you believe there is no reality we are all part of, seeing only partially through our limited perceptions? Isn't that what all this arguing about who is right all about? Does the atheist live in a different universe than the theist does? Or is it the arguing of who is right and who is wrong what is the missing of the point altogether?
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Last edited:
Yes, a strong atheist lives in a universe without gods and a theist lives in a universe with one or more gods. If the atheist is wrong then it becomes a question about which theists are wrong about which god(s) exist.
But yet don't you see them and interact with them? Clearly they are not living in another universe or a different dimension which is not part of your reality.
The atheist and the theist are both right and wrong. What's difficult about recognizing everyone only having partial truths, even if contradictory to one another?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Since there is only one absolute reality...one existence...and this is what the moon represents in the metaphor...all religious teachings refer to it....it is the fingers that represent the different teachings... Now there is certainly evidence that existence exists...you yourself can be considered an example of the evidence....as to there being more to it than the physical senses permit....one would have to commit to and seriously practice some form of religious practice to find out.....