Blackhope says:
I believe in two realties. The objective and the individual. Writing something off as ‘not real’ often tries to express some measure of unimportance. But if it can influence our interaction with the objective it becomes a part of reality.
Consider these:
Sense- physical perception
Intuition- unconscious perception
Thought- intillectual cognition
Feeling- emotional cognition
Individual reality are measured on these… And individuals exist inside the objective.
John Lennon (via cuckoocuckoo)
——————————————————-
Is that which we classify “the real” something that exists solely in the mind, solely independent from the mind, or both? I agree with Lennon, yet I also recall the argument St. Anselm of Canterbury sets forth; one who posits that “the real” is both mind dependent and mind-independent (e.g. subjective and objective).
That which is greater, however, is that which exists not only in the mind (and its fabulous concoctions such as fairies, pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and God), but also that which extends from the mind (e.g. mountains, record tables, plastic cartridges and arguably God).
If God extends from the mind (which is to say, God exists independent of whether human faculties perceive him), by what means are we, humans, able to confirm his existence in the mind?
Given Anselm’s definition of God (e.g. that which nothing can be greater; that which is perfect), to say that we can confirm God’s existence in a human mind begs the question: “Is an imperfect, fallible human mind capable of confirming that which is perfect and infallible?”
If the answer is no, we live in a transient, exotic world and are like pieces of a puzzle that never get solved; like chapters of a book that never get finished; like meals we slave away our life to create but never eat.
If the answer is yes, then we have a lot of explaining to do.
I think the answer is yes and no.
If we say “yes,” we must then ask the question: “To what extent are we correctly identifying God’s nature in our minds?” I will assume that we all have both correct and incorrect understandings of His nature, or at least parts of it; but a partial understanding of God is not nearly as great as a perfect, or complete understanding of God.
I think Hegel was wrong when positing: “We don’t know anything unless we know everything; and because we’ll never know everything we can’t know anything.”
His argument attempts to veraciously speak on behalf of all world-views as being unable to assert knowledge of any kind, when in actually it is he who has refused yet simultaneously relied upon the packets of knowledge that increased his utility in his own life (i.e. his understanding of knowing why not to jump off cliffs).
In other words, just because we haven’t learned everything there is to know about the puzzle of life, let alone God, ought not to ever suggest that there are some things we do know. Knowledge, after all, comes in small packets and has always been an evolutionary process. A mere study in mathematics should convince us of this much.
That is to say, just because we don’t understand the truths of calculus doesn’t mean we don’t understand the basic truths of arithmetic, or, in an even worse and spontaneous conclusion derive that they don’t exist whatsoever. For those who find arithmetic boring, the same will often damn themselves from learning the higher truths of arithmetic.
I use the word “damn” to suggest a literal stoppage, or refusal to learn more about such truths. But this shouldn’t suggest that there are those who do know the higher truths of such things; whether they be arithmetic, science, pottery, computer design or God.
Why exclude God under the same logic? Can He be rationally excluded under the same logic? Would it not be one of the greatest adventures to to solicit one’s time to; an adventure that reveals his character line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little?
I think we damn ourselves from learning more about Him because we think we’ve learned and understood enough to satiate our curiosity regarding His nature. Often, that curiosity becomes mostly, if not completely dissatisfied when we reason together what has been said to be God’s word, let alone nature.
No one, it would seem, has a good enough answer.
But shouldn’t that beg the question: “Why do we believe, and may I dare say, accept, the words or interpretations of what others have come to believe and accept about God?”
Their testimonies are not our testimonies—we’ve all had different experiences with God; some likable and others not.
Why are we not, then, finding out who or what God is by our own investigation?
While I do not mean to deflate another’s testimony of God, I will say that another’s testimony, while good in as much to the extent that it leads me to create my own, will not, however, be reliable enough for me to lean upon the rest of my life. I cannot live off borrowed light.
If I believe in God, it must be personal.
It must be how I interpret him.
It must cycle out the parts that seem contradictory, and desperately work to reconcile those contradictions within myself; because from my understanding of God, he cannot be a contradictory entity.
Do I understand God?
In some ways yes, in other ways no.
The mere fact that I do not understand God completely is proof that I am worshipping a some-what counterfeit God; but God (the real God, whoever he is) understands this, and so his mercy makes up the difference between what I am capable of understanding, and what I am not.
His mercy makes up the difference between my fallible mind and his infallible mind. His mercy makes up the difference between preserving that which I have correctly identified in Him, and that which he helps cycle out of my beliefs that are incorrect.
It is in my opinion that we are all, to some extent, worshipping counterfeit Gods and idols, and some arguably more than others. Some may not even use the label “god” to describe what they worship, or devote their time to (and rightfully so; for the mere label “god” is only a term used to describe a seemingly ineffable entity).
Some may worship “open mindedness,” others “charity,” and others even still: both.
Therefore, a counterfeit God is one that is in any form less than that which a perfect God wouldn’t be. But to suppose all this only brings us back to where we started:
That the fallibility of the human mind interpreting such profound entities/concepts such as “God” will be experienced uniquely and individually by most who come into this life.
Since it seems we can’t step outside our own biological make-up, we must make a choice.
1). We blame our make-up and its imperfections, claiming, as did Hegel, that we can’t know anything because we can’t know everything.
2). We patiently, humbly and faithfully search for God between the lines; for tokens (i.e. evidences) are given to those who seek, ask, knock.
—all or any other choice possibilities are welcomed—
These are the two that first came to my mind
(DMS)
(via donamajicshow)
