Almost all spiritual worldviews are actually materialistic, only with the inclusion of materials that are not as yet discovered by science. Say a spiritualist says the soul is the root of consciousness and intellect. If you ask him what the soul is, chances are what he is actually describing is merely a body [that is, a substance possessing shape and form], only one composed of a matter more subtle than normal matter. This holds true for most religions. Only especially 'spiritual' persons go so far as to claim that spirit is pure mental phenomena, devoid of shape and form.
But even then, this 'soul' is still only mental phenomena, except one that is devoid of space and form as a basis for it. The phenomena of mind stays exactly the same.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First of all, the idea that materialism denies free will, is ridiculous. Or at least, if materialism does, so too does all 'spiritual' systems, which are in reality merely materialist systems with fictional materials. The mind is a system, subject to causality, just as all things are. If the mind is somehow exempt from causality, then whatever property allows pure mental phenomena to be exempt could theoretically also apply to mental phenomena contained in matter.
Secondly, the idea that materialism leads to the destruction of values is equally without merit. Because again, there must be some property that would be the reason why a materialistic universe is without value, but a different materialistic universe is not. The truth of the matter is, I think, that people who say things like this simply have an addiction to mystery, and emotional reification. If the soul most of these religions speak of was actually fully known to modern science, I think they would argue against it purely because it meant that boring scholarly academics could discuss it in dry scientific papers, instead of the mystical ramblings they are used to.
[Cont]
>>796835
What difference, really, does it make if consciousness is held in a soul composed of a ba, a ka, seven chakras, and the spiritual energy chi, as opposed to neurons and brain tissue? Wouldn't the same people who say "Who cares, its just chemicals?" be just as within their rights to say "Who cares, its just cosmic energy?" if the soul-as-subtle-body existed and was fully understood by science?
I end by restating my original premise. Almost all spiritual systems are actually materialistic systems featuring fictional materials, differing from normal materialism only to the degree that they feature such materials, and that scientific language is substituted for mystical language. I am convinced that if the soul was proven to exist, and natural science was able to give a full account of it, these same people would rebel, and make the same nihilistic remarks they currently do.
Discuss.
>>796839
You're asking what the difference is between a random, arbitrary universe and one where consciousness holds metaphysical value. The gulf is enormous.
I could just as easily say boring dry academics need to make everything boring and dry to grok it, if you're gonna accuse spiritualists of needing to wax poetic about everything
Interesting and thought-provoking argument regardless
>>796891
That is a point I didn't mention, but have considered. I will briefly commentate on it [because I want this thread to be mostly others discussing the idea, rather than me 'defending it' like its some doctrine of mine.
Many spiritual worldviews do have a slightly more 'anthropomorphic' cosmos than ours is [as some form of immortality is generally guaranteed, and some form of enforcement of law is done], but I would not say its sufficient to claim those universes grant consciousness metaphysical value. Value is dependent upon evaluation. To be valuable ultimately means 'to be valued by someone'.
The Abrahamic worldview is just as subjective in terms of defining values as any other proposed cosmos, the only difference is that an especially powerful Subject enforces his view on everyone else. The only way out of this is through making 'value' a feature of things that are valued [that is, objective value exists because value is a property of valuable things], a la natural law. But if that is the case, valuable could just as easily be a property of valuable things in an atheistic cosmos, or a polytheistic cosmos.
There is a reason most Christian theologians do not believe divine command theory.
Occasionalism denies your interpretation of reality.
If God is always the agent, and he gives the soul agency, then humans have agency, it's that simple.
>>797117
I don't see how your point even addresses my argument.
>>797131
>The mind is a system, subject to causality, just as all things are. If the mind is somehow exempt from causality, then whatever property allows pure mental phenomena to be exempt could theoretically also apply to mental phenomena contained in matter.
Occasionalism denies the existence of causality in the first place.
I didn't address the soul as a body because honestly, I'd have to think about it for a while, and I'm procrastinating on an essay.
>>797157
That doesn't actually say anything about my argument in that sentence. Most conceptions of free will requires that the mind be exempt from causality, either by way of each mind acting as a kind of prime mover, or by way of the ability for the same causes to result in different effects, or in some as yet unknown way.
My argument is that almost any framework that allows a shapeless mind to violate causality would also allow a physical mind to do so.
Your argument not only doesn't propose a reason why that is incorrect, it contradicts itself. If God is the direct cause of all things, that extends to thoughts, meaning free will doesn't exist anyway.
Which is certainly an argument, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
"Spiritual" meaning relating to consciousness.
Consciousness is the soul.
The observation of non-physical philosophical, causal principles in the natural world is spirituality, and the basis of this is consciousness.
"Science" is empiricist reductionism, which is merely the application of the scientific method to reduce the natural world into it's smallest, most base constituents in an attempt to discern meaning.
Scientific study was never at odds with mysticism, as holy men considered mathematics, music, medicine, architeture, chemistry, etc. to all have their origin in the source of all knowledge, which is The Absolute, or "the ground of all being." They merely approached it differently; they saw it as an emanation of a divine principle.
Spirituality is only materialist in that it does not discount the material world. Mysticism, which is the science of consciousness, isn't rooted in the material. Holy men say human beings are multi-dimensional, that is, existing in different dimensions simultaenously.
>>797170
>My argument is that almost any framework that allows a shapeless mind to violate causality would also allow a physical mind to do so.
Why?
>The mind is a system, subject to causality, just as all things are.
Is this the brain or the soul?
I need to understand it before I can argue about it. Sorry, I'm dumb.
>>797192
>Mysticism is the science of consciousness
So much this
>>797192
Also misses my point. The point is that even if your spirituality was true, it would still be composed of things that are recognizably material, either being forms of subtle matter, or forms of energy. The only exception to this is spiritualities that view consciousness-soul-etc as pure mental phenomena.
>>797193
1. It doesn't matter if its the brain or of the soul
2. Because they're both under the same limitations. Any conception of the soul that is simply "the mind as it exists, only instead of being held in the brain its held nowhere in particular" is under most of the same limitations as a material mind. The mental phenomena itself stays the same whether its housed in a brain or not, so if its possible for ANYTHING to violate causality, its just as likely that an object that is spacial can do it as one that is non-spacial.
>>797232
I'll elaborate.
The material is the lowest plane. The emanations of the higher order are felt in it, can be observed in it, but do not originate in it.
Mystics say the human being has different bodies that coexist on different planes, sinultaenously. To illustrate, anger in the material world may manifest as flushing, the release of neurochemicals, certain bodily sensations, etc. On the mental it could be violent ideations. On the subtle, an energetic vibration, and so forth. The more purely material a thing is, the more inert it is. A purely material spirituality would be, well, materialism.
>>797232
So you are saying that since the consciousness and the brain think the same thing, they are subject to the same limitations?
Have I got this right?
Assuming I have:
>The mental phenomena itself stays the same whether its housed in a brain or not, so if its possible for ANYTHING to violate causality, its just as likely that an object that is spacial can do it as one that is non-spacial.
God is causality, causality by itself does not exist. Probability doesn't come into this, since God chooses when he wants to not follow the rules he normally follows.
Also
>The mental phenomena itself stays the same whether its housed in a brain or not
How do you know this? Do you know a consciousness existing without a brain?
>>797232
Okay, sure, but spirituality is not mysticism. Obviously what mystics talk about is composed of something, whether it's subtle energy or vibrations or whatever. what really are you trying to get at?
>>797340
Spirituality is not materialism*
>>797278
The problem remains. Your spirituality IS materialism.
>>797288
I'm not sure I know a consciousness existing in a brain. The point of the matter is that human minds are human minds regardless of whether they are connected to the brain, or ARE the brain. The actual mental phenomena is the same.
>>797340
What I'm trying to get at is that almost all spiritualities are merely materialisms involving fictional materials. That is my prime argument. That given most conceptions of the soul are actually just immortal bodies composed of an unknown material, they too are a form of materialism.
>>797443
Well sure, spirituality is materialism if you expand the definition of reality to everything outside reality. Metaphysical "objects" are immaterial by definition unless you expand the definition.
Is it actually unclear why this is a moot point?
>>797443
Materialism in that they posit some substance the spirit, soul etc. is composed of but no, mysticism is not science + dude soul vibrations lmao
>>797466
Not quite. The main moral argument against materialism is that
1. If the universe is "Just" chemicals, atoms, etc, then there is no value in the universe.
and
2. If the universe is material, it must necessarily be fully casual and thus free will is impossible.
My argument is that all spiritual systems, or almost all, are actually ALSO materialism. Most conceptions of the soul and spirits are by classical definitions, both matter, and bodies [given they take up space, have shape and form, etc]. Even those that are 'purely' mental conceptions are subject to the same limitations.
When people say that "The universe is just atoms, therefore its meaningless" they are employing an argument that would be just as true if applied to any other understood universe. They could just as easily say "The universe is just cosmic energy, therefore its meaningless"
Their argument rests entirely on reification, not on the idea that composition determines value.
>>797472
Mysticism is EXACTLY science+dude soul vibrations lmao. It is literally just, supposedly, opening up new senses, and perceiving new phenomena. The difference is in methodology, not the nature of reality.
If the objects of mystical study were understood scientifically, mystics would lose interest in them.
it´s all about densities
>>797484
Suppose the following: human beings, which in the material world are just flesh and blood, have a metaphysical "spirit" attached to them beyond our own universe. However the "material" world consists solely of our reality, and therefore these spirits wouldn't count as a "material" in any sense; for this to be a valid argument you'd have to drastically redefine materialism.
Such a spiritual system cannot be materialist by definition.
>>797497
You're simply defining spirits as "things that aren't material", you aren't demonstrating they aren't material. Let me ask you about these spirits
1. Are they bodies in the sense of classical physics? That is, do they extend into space and have solid dimensions?
2. Are they composed of a substance? If so, they are a form of subtle matter.
If you answer yes to both of those, your conception of the soul is material. If you answer no, your conception is not material, but its subject to the arguments I made about pure mind in the OP.
>>797488
No. It isn't. Have you read any primary sources? Mysticism is self-knowledge, not scientific models with extra funny names
>>797513
Here I think it depends on what you mean by 'mysticism'. If you mean the "look within yourself" form of mysticism, that is more a form of introspection and isn't the target of my argument. I'm referring to the forms of mysticism where the mystic seeks to perceive higher/other dimensions through the opening of non-traditional senses, such as a third eye.
This form of mysticism, if it was actually possible, would merely be observing phenomena that normal people cannot observe.
>>797505
Vibrations aren't matter.
>>797523
Conceptions of the soul that view it as energy or vibration are also still a form materialism.
>>797520
States of superconsciousness are inherent to both
>>797534
Irrelevant. They would still be perceiving phenomena, either purely imagined and mental, or actual material worlds that simply are not accessible to normal people.
>>797505
> 1. Are they bodies in the sense of classical physics? That is, do they extend into space and have solid dimensions?
No. They don't extend into space but rather exist entirely outside of it. Metaphysical concepts are by definition unaffected by physics, or at least the set of physical laws known to us.
> 2. Are they composed of a substance? If so, they are a form of subtle matter.
No. They cannot be conceptualized as having any sort of form or tangible existence, because earthly concepts like those are inapplicable to a metaphysical realm
>If you ask him what the soul is, chances are what he is actually describing is merely a body [that is, a substance possessing shape and form], only one composed of a matter more subtle than normal matter.
I don't remember ever hearing the claim that souls are made of any kind of matter. At most they've always been described as ghostlike projections, but usually souls are described as unconditionally immaterial. This is the standard Christian view of the soul, at least.
>>797544
> At most they've always been described as ghostlike projections
I meant to say that, out of all possible definitions, the one that's always been the upper limit on materialism of a soul is the one where it's a ghost
>>797542
Once again, either way, so what? If you're trying to encompass spirituality with the materialism label you're rendering the definition useless, since mysticism and materialism couldn't be further apart in what they believe the world is.
>>797544
The point of view of the layman Christian has always depicted the soul as a form of subtle matter. They imagine a being who has solid dimensions, is composed of a form of matter, and can walk, talk, speak, etc.
The point of view of some theologians [notably Decartes] has been that the soul was purely a mental object, that did not extend into space or have dimensions.
The point of view of the Bible, is more ambiguous, but spirits are always depicted as having shape, form, and substance.
The Christian view of heaven [prior to the resurrection] is a place that by all definitions qualifies as material, even if its made of a special form of matter. It has shape, form, dimensions, etc, as do its inhabitants, both human and angel.
Which is true for most religions. Only those that view the soul as purely mental phenomena and their afterlives as formless realms where nothing is experienced except thought are immune to this.
All other religions and spiritualities depict souls that are material, divine beings that are material [with the exception of God himself in most abrahamic faiths], and paradises that are all material.
The standard view of the soul is basically an immortal second body incapable of interacting with traditional matter, but capable of interacting with the matter of some other celestial realm.
>>797549
My argument, is that no, they don't. My argument is that almost all mystics and spiritualists are actually materialists, they just believe in different materials than modern science.
>>797568
You're gonna have to break down these "mystical ramblings" bit by bit if you want to advance your argument further than "both science and mysticism believe in a structured reality made of something" wow, Ya think?
>>797568
>almost all theocrats and monarchists are actually fascist, they just believe in a different form of fascist than modern political theory describes
at some point you have to question if there's any value to the distinction you're trying to make
Superstitious conjecture is silly anyways
>>797529
How?
>>797577
You don't see the significance of that? People always make the argument that the universe is meaningless because it is composed of matter, yet the reality that most of the people who make that statement also believe the universe is composed of matter, just different kinds of matter, does nothing for you?
It literally shatters the entire anti-materialist moral argument that a material universe is meaningless because its material.
ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS are material, except those lacking material aspects, such as form, shape, substance, etc.
>>797579
You're failing to understanding my argument.
>>797565
>The point of view of the layman Christian has always depicted the soul as a form of subtle matter. They imagine a being who has solid dimensions, is composed of a form of matter, and can walk, talk, speak, etc.
Even if this statement was accurate across all branches of Christianity - which is definitely incorrect, speaking as an Eastern Orthodox - the view of the layman Christian does not encompass church doctrine and therefore cannot be presented as an accurate representation of Christianity.
>The point of view of the Bible, is more ambiguous, but spirits are always depicted as having shape, form, and substance.
The only point in which a spirit is actually described is roundabout - it happens in Genesis, when God creates Adam. The soul appears because God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". Since God is widely viewed to be a metaphysical being, his "substance," as it were, would also be metaphysical. The only parameter potentially qualified here is substance, MAYBE, and again you run into the obstacle of whether metaphysical "objects" can be quantified as having any sort of matter.
>The Christian view of heaven [prior to the resurrection] is a place that by all definitions qualifies as material
Once again, different denominations have different views. This statement is so broad you might as well be talking about Judaism.
>The standard view of the soul is basically an immortal second body incapable of interacting with traditional matter, but capable of interacting with the matter of some other celestial realm.
Materialism by definition concerns itself with our tangible world. Even if one supposes that there is another realm similar enough to ours to be qualified as "material" existing somewhere in the afterlife, materialism when applied to a hypothetical reality ceases to be materialism.
>>797592
>ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS are material, except those lacking material aspects, such as form, shape, substance, etc.
You're failing to understand mine. These aspects cannot be meaningfully applied to metaphysical "worlds", because such "worlds" are outside human understanding. They cannot be fully comprehended or described in earthly terms.
>>797615
1. Spirits are described in multiple places, both whenever angels appear [always being depicted as existing in a localized space and having set dimensions] and in Revelation when John is in heaven. Many denominations say that these scenes are 'metaphorical' of the actual reality, but I see no reason to interpret them in that way. Even if you do so, it still ends in a pure mind interpretation of the spirit, which is really the only truly 'non-material' view.
As to this point.
>Even if one supposes that there is another realm similar enough to ours to be qualified as "material" existing somewhere in the afterlife, materialism when applied to a hypothetical reality ceases to be materialism.
I disagree entirely. Materialism is the point of view that the entire cosmos is composed of matter and its interactions. The moral arguments against materialism is that a universe that is 'just' material is without value. The fact that most spiritual objects discussed are actually material objects made of an exotic form of matter is an absolutely crushing argument against this view.
>>797592
Nobody's failing to understand anything, you're merely conflating two separate modes of thought. Ideas are not matter. Archetypes are not matter. The platonic forms and the world thereof, not fucking matter.
The purely materialist conception of the world implies that ideals such as morality, etics, altruism, virtue, etc. have no inherent existence or meaning, and therefore are of no consequence in a mechanistic universe. It also implies that felt experiences are trivial because they are resulted from chemicals in the brain that can be administered to manually in a pill capsule. Materialism is most present in the greedy, the envious, the sociopathic; their focus lies in the acquisition of material things.
>ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS ARE MATERIAL
Nope. The higher realms have moved past, id est: transcended materiality.
You were already proven wrong in that vibrations are not material.
>>797590
Respond to this.
>>797622
The fact that these worlds may be composed of forms of matter and energy that are unknown to human beings or may even require entirely new senses to perceive them does not negate the fact that almost all 'spiritual realities' are described as worlds that are material, phenomenal, and contingent and thus subject to all the same moral limitations levied against materialism.
The idea that atoms and chemicals are incapable of meaning, but chi and chakras are, when both are functionally the same [namely, acting as a form of matter of energy that is the medium of intellect and consciousness], is ridiculous.
>>797636
>The fact that most spiritual objects discussed are actually material objects made of an exotic form of matter is an absolutely crushing argument against this view.
This is absolutely not a fact. I don't understand how you can't make the connection yet. Metaphysical "objects" cannot be accurately described in earthly terms at all! Claiming they're traditionally material is fallacious, in the same way that a blind person claiming that a motorcycle seat and leather jacket are the same based on texture alone is fallacious.
>>797642
>>797590
Because viewing the medium of consciousness as a form of energy instead of a form of matter is a trivial distinction.
A mind housed in vibrations is endowed with metaphysical meaning, but one housed in electricity isn't? Bullshit.
>>797638
The pure materialist conception of the world implies none of those things, and if it did, so too would all the 'spiritual' worldviews that are actually materialist.
There ARE legitimately non-materialist worldviews, but they are rare among most people. Most people's ideas about spiritual things are purely material.
Only philosophers argue for worlds or realms or spirits composed purely of mental phenomena.
>>797664
You are getting it wrong, anon. It is not the case that the "soul" or "will", whatever you wish to call it, are originated from an ultimately material source, but that matter itself exists as consequence from the divine will, or God, if you prefer.
Let's put it like this: God is a stone, and matter is the ripples created when it strikes the waterbed. In other words, on a strictly scientific term, God is causalty, altough that is a cringeworthy simplification. God does not have material form, but manifests itself through matter.
>>797661
Metaphysical conceptions that view spiritual things are purely mental phenomena are extremely rare compared to those that view spiritual things as merely esoteric material things. Most people imagine the soul as having shape and form, and the afterlife as having solid dimensions.
Only a small set of philosophers argues for purely mental conceptions of spiritual objects.
>>797664
>There ARE legitimately non-materialist worldviews, but they are rare among most people. Most people's ideas about spiritual things are purely material.
Have you got any source for this?
>>797680
While I will agree that most conceptions of God ARE purely immaterial [that is, they imagine a being who lacks space, dimension, etc], I do not at all agree with how any of that matters to this discussion as to why one materialist conception lacks metaphysical meaning, while another does not.
Under the example you just gave, I see two ways of interpreting it.
1. These vibrations which house consciousness are themselves supposed to be the source of value, an argument that results in yet again, materialism. The fact that the mind is housed in spiritual vibrations as exposed to electricity carried by neurons does not alone grant metaphysical value.
2. You're claiming mind being the result of God grants it value. An argument that, as I addressed above in my third post, has no merit. It amounts to a subjective account of value and ethics, albeit with a very large Subject, that even most theologians do not agree with.
>>797690
The fact that the common person, the common priest or pastor, and even the common philosopher imagines spirits as things with shape, form, dimension, etc.
Ask the average person, or even the average philosopher about spirits and the afterlife, and the overwhelming majority will give you accounts of things that extend into space, are composed of substance, and are subject to causality. Only a very few will give a more Decartes-style answer of a world of pure thought, or of a mind suspended without material basis.
The average person believes a spirit walks, talks, speaks, possibly even eats and sleeps, albeit while interacting with a celestial form of matter in another world.
>>797718
That's not a source, that's rationalization for this philosophy, which is unnecessary. Everyone understands your argument but I'm questioning the basic assertion that:
>The fact that the common person, the common priest or pastor, and even the common philosopher imagines spirits as things with shape, form, dimension, etc.
>>797734
I can not give a source for a mass generalization of a popular idea.
I am asserting that the common ideas about spiritual things are actually describing material things, with only a small number of people arguing for purely mental spirits and purely mental afterlives.
If you think most people actually DO hold to highly obscure philosophical views of the soul and the afterlife, I really have no argument to persuade you otherwise other then to ask what planet you live on.
>>797664
>Because viewing the medium of consciousness as a form of energy instead of a form of matter is a trivial distinction.
No, this is wrong. You're being intellectually dishonest. It's that very distinction on which your entire arguement hinges on. You cannot just wave it away because you did not account for it in your OP. This is how I know you're just being obstinate.
>implies none of those things
Yes it does, if it isn't materially reducible in a series of empirical studies, it does not exist. Therefore it is inconsequential. If it cannot be "proven" then it is at best, a superstition.
>only philosophers argue...mental phenomena
No, Hermeticism is an esoteric spiritual tradition which claims the All is Mind, and the Universe is primarily a mental construct.
Materiality and vibration, this was addressed by mystics. And the difference between the immaterial and material is density, which is the frequency of vibration. An immaterial thing vibrates at a higher rate than say, a rock.
>Does that not make the immaterial thing actually a material thing?
No, because like I said, the immaterial thing has transcended the material state. It is no longer material. So to call such a thing material does not make any logical sense, and to deny the immaterial state also, does not make any sense.
>>797701
>1. These vibrations which house consciousness are themselves supposed to be the source of value, an argument that results in yet again, materialism. The fact that the mind is housed in spiritual vibrations as exposed to electricity carried by neurons does not alone grant metaphysical value.
You misunderstood me. I never meant that these vibrations house consciousness, but that the consciousness in itself is a manifestation of the divine will. Again, materialism is manifestation of the divine will.
>>797742
>If you think most people actually DO hold to highly obscure philosophical views of the soul and the afterlife, I really have no argument to persuade you otherwise other then to ask what planet you live on.
The fairness of this statement greatly depends on which demographic you're talking about. The description I gave (with a human spirit outside of reality anchored to the material body) is the one that most people in my religious community (Serbian Orthodox) ascribe to. Granted they don't necessarily have a very good understanding of the idea, but there it is.
>>797746
1. It is not wrong. Anyone with any kind of knowledge of physics knows that the distinction between matter and energy is comically insignificant. But we're not talking about physics, we're talking about values. So please explain to me, why energy can confer metaphysical value, but matter can not?
2. No, it does not. Materialism does not in any way imply that ideas do not exist or have value.
3. The idea that density is what grants something metaphysical value is hilarious.
4. You calling it immaterial doesn't make it immaterial. When it stops extending into space, possessing dimensions, etc, it stops being material.
I am a solipsist. Hello, little parts of me!
>>797758
Well as an American I can say that viewpoint is infinitely rare in the West. A fact I'm sure you take comfort in as regards your religion being 'the most spiritual', but I have no stake in that.
>>797750
Being 'a manifestation of the divine will' does not grant a form of value that is not subjective. It simply means the value is derivative of an infinitely powerful Subject. Its a 'universal' morality only because of sheer realpolitik. Because no one else can stand up to Him.
The subjectivity of this approach is why most Christians [in the West anyway] subscribed to more scholastic leanings, where value was a real property of valuable things [as in virtue ethics and natural law theory].
>>797770
What is this "metaphysical value" you keep talking about?
>>797796
Nothing special, only the idea that certain things are capable of mattering.
People who argue against materialism often say "If the universe is material, we must become nihilists, because nothing matters"
I am arguing against that, first of all by discussing what value is and where it comes from [an argument that is not the topic of this thread], and secondly by pointing out most other common worldviews are actually materialistic universes too, just ones with very strange unknown materials.
If you wanted a massive simplification of the point of this entire thread, its me arguing that the statement
"Nothing matters, its all chemicals!"
apples just as well to
"Nothing matters, its just chakra!"
"Nothing matters, its just qi!"
"Nothing matters, its just the soul!"
Etc, etc, etc. The composition of a thing does not determine its value, and knowledge of the composition of a thing does not de-value it.
>>797790
>Well as an American I can say that viewpoint is infinitely rare in the West. A fact I'm sure you take comfort in as regards your religion being 'the most spiritual', but I have no stake in that.
Fair enough. I do enjoy the mysticism inherent in the Eastern churches but that's not why I felt the need to join this discussion. If you're arguing in a Western context, your assertions may be perfectly on point; what I took issue with is the implication that this view was common everywhere.
>>797809
You're right tbhfam
>>797815
No, I fully admit that there are worldviews that proclaim that the mind, spirits, God, and the afterlife are purely mental phenomena.
My beef is with those worldviews that treat these things as material things in every respect, ascribing to them form, shape, dimensions, etc, and then trying to act like its somehow not materialism in a funny hat.
>>797790
>Being 'a manifestation of the divine will' does not grant a form of value that is not subjective. It simply means the value is derivative of an infinitely powerful Subject. Its a 'universal' morality only because of sheer realpolitik. Because no one else can stand up to Him.
You lost me there. Do you mean:
A) God is subjective, and that makes his existence somehow less viable
or
B)The only reason God is relevant is because it is absolute, therefore it should not be considered as any less divine than natural laws
>>797809
So according to your logic a soul is about on the same level of value as say, a chemical.
Your values do not apply to everyone else, anon. Of that I can assure you. You're also autistic.
>>797844
I am saying that if value is derived from the will of God it is by nature subjective. The fact that the Subject in question is all powerful does not negate this. It was for this reason that Christians trended for most of their history towards natural law theories, which made value an inherent part of valuable objects. This value of Goodness was possibly merely reflective from the Goodness inherit in the essence of God, but that was insignificant to the overall worldview, which was that good things were good in the same way that red things were red. Even if there was no God, they would retain those traits [ignoring for a moment the fact that under their worldview a universe without God would cease to exist].
>>797858
Actually its the opposite. I'm saying that a chemical is about on the same level of value as a soul. The value of a mind is not determined by what it is made of.
What we're really discussing is what serves as the medium for consciousness. And assuming you believe it has a medium, that medium is by definition material, if it occupies space and has substance, which 99% of views of the soul do.
>>797860
option A, then?
>>797900
Of a sort.
>>797907
So God cannot exist unless he is a material, conscious being? If that is your only conceivable notion of God, then yes, God is of material nature, since you refuse to accept anything not material as God.
>>797940
No. Most monotheistic conceptions of God treat him as a purely mental being devoid of space, dimensions, or physical substance.
My argument that most common place ideas about spiritual things does not extend to Him. Everyone except utter laymen knows that God is not supposed to be physical in any regard, unlike spirits, angels, the afterlife, etc, who are usually imagined as physical.
My argument to what you were saying just now is that even if God exists, that fact alone would not be sufficient to give the world objective value.
>>797970
>My argument to what you were saying just now is that even if God exists, that fact alone would not be sufficient to give the world objective value.
So you're saying god exists, but is not worth following/considering? That the only God worth believing in would be a tyrant that imposes his will and presence over everything and everyone? By your logic, the existence of free will by itself negates the existence (or relevance) of a greater divine will.
Seriously, at this point it just sounds like you are trying to justify picking a fight with god and/or reliion.
>>797996
*religion
Me make mistake. Must commit seppukku.
>>797996
No, I'm saying that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant when it comes to whether value exists or doesn't exist, and that this view was actually widely held by Christians as well [given their adoption of moral systems such as virtue ethics and natural law] until relatively modern times.
Regardless of whether a God exists or not, he can not simply declare what is Good by fiat. Or rather, he could, but it would hold no objective meaning. In order for goodness to hold an objective [that is, mind-independent] meaning, it would have to be a real property of good things, not an authoritative pronouncement.
>>798033
>No, I'm saying that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant when it comes to whether value exists or doesn't exist
The existence of God, as one or something who exerts his divine will or presence, directly implies the existence of values. Anything imcapable of that would not be considered as God.
>and that this view was actually widely held by Christians as well [given their adoption of moral systems such as virtue ethics and natural law] until relatively modern times.
There were many schools of thought, of varying influence and relevance, with different ideals and conceptions about the subject and beyond. Let's please not resort to generalizations yet, we are dealing with much broader matters here.
>In order for goodness to hold an objective [that is, mind-independent] meaning, it would have to be a real property of good things, not an authoritative pronouncement.
Be a real property of good things, you say? Therefore:
A)God is a good thing, therefore his will is also good by nature.
B)God is a bad thing. For God to be a bad thing,
there must have been another source of cognition that deemed him bad, something like, say, another God or being that refuses to accept Him, such as you.
From that we can infer that either there is another, more powerful God, thus proving the existence of God (Gods, actually) or that, since you can deny his goodness, he is not good. Again:
>By your logic, the existence of free will by itself negates the existence (or relevance) of a greater divine will.
>>798106
1. You making it a prerequisite for God that he be able to define mind-independent values into being does not make the concept any more sensible. You're literally asking for a mind to define mind-independent values. Its a contradiction in terms.
2. That God is good does not confer upon him the ability to define other things as good in a mind-independent way.
3.
>By your logic, the existence of free will by itself negates the existence (or relevance) of a greater divine will
This is partially correct. The existence of subjects capable of valuation means that if values do not derive from a property of valued things, then valuation is by definition a subjective process, on par with taste, not an objective process such as sight or direct perception.
The reason the scholastic [correctly] said that God could not declare values by fiat, is because those values would be by definition subjective. The fact that the Subject in question is God does not negate this simple concept.
That is why they defined Goodness as a property of real things, and then just tacked on a clause at the end about God being the Creator, and therefore the indirect source of Goodness. In short it made morality a property of the universe, not legislation imposed from outside it.
>>798126
1. I never meant that God was a mind, but that we and, by extension, our minds, are products of God's will. See:
>God is a stone, and matter is the ripples created when it strikes the waterbed.
2.If you consider, as proposed, reality as an extension of God's will, and God is good, therefore he not only defines, but embodies the concept of goodness.
3. Well, i really cannot argue any further than that. If you require solid, tangible proof that God exists, such as, say, the fact that a tyranical God is imposing his will upon at this exact moment, i am afraid i can offer you none.
Religion is, and probably always will be, a matter of faith after all.
