The red hue represents the limitation of our reason.
The objects represents what we perceive.
Immanuel Kant reminds us that we can never know the world in itself, for we only perceive the world as it is to ourselves. Everything we know about this world is limited by the capability of our reasoning, as the form of ‘space’ and ‘time’ always precedes all of our experiences.
To Kant, it is pointless to prove or disprove God as it is a matter beyond the capabilities of our reason. However, Kant maintained that it is through faith and logical postulates (explained in his ethics) that God exists.
Similarly, when Christians talk about ‘God is love’, it is an expression of the necessity of faith as part of love itself. Yes, the feelings of love can be observed from scientific analysis of the various chemicals in the brain. But, we mustn’t forget that (usually) people don’t continue to love each other based on scientific reports, they base it on trust and faith. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the same thing about how there are various paths towards the common truth i.e Reason, Experience, Faith.
All in all, I found that I shouldn’t be complacent with the limited capabilities of my reason, I believe in the possibility of something beyond the inferior form of knowledge (the world it is to me/you).
Remember Plato’s cave? That’s exactly what Plato was trying to say:
The picture above – The shadows on the wall of the cave (Inferior representations of the true forms/The world as it is to us)
The real objects outside the cave – The world of forms/The reality beyond the material world (The world in itself)
I am not trying to prove anything. I am only writing about the philosophies of philosophers as it is.
Cool blog.
Everyone has to accept the possibility of the existence of noumenons/unknowable’s (Some just call them gods).
But what is the reason that you have chosen to act upon the belief of this “possibility” (affiliating yourself with it)?
Considering that this possibility is the possibility that,
as George Carlin put it, “there’s an invisible man… living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every day. And has a list of 10 specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire, and smoke, and torture, and anguish, for you to live forever, and suffer , and burn, and scream, untill the end of time. But He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”
Not to mention that this belief system of something “beyond us” was constructed/compiled by other mere mortals such as ourselves which are confined to our perceptual bubble.
What is within the priests/prophets/preachers/popes that gives them the authority of something beyond us when they are, after all, just human?
Thank you for the feedback. I must admit that this blog entry is poorly written due to it’s lack of flow and analysis.
Before I can go any further, I must make it clear that I do not intend to demonstrate the proof of the existence of God as my understanding of philosophy is still at its infant stage.
However, I feel that George Carlin is guilty of setting up a straw man by misrepresenting the whole concept of Christianity itself. A cleverly disguised straw man that may deceive those who are unsure of Christianity itself.
Speaking of the doctrines, traditions and practises of Christianity is entirely different from the argument for or against the existence of God. Once the existence of God is agreed upon, then the doctrines, practises and traditions will follow (which is a totally different matter to discuss about).
Lastly, it is unfair to beg the question that the origin of religion is of humans/mortals. What I meant by begging the question is that: One cannot prove something by assuming a proposition which supports the conclusion. In other words, the entire argument is self-proving.
The syllogism is valid:
All that is beyond us is constructed/compiled by mortals
Religion is beyond us
Therefore religion is constructed/compiled by mortals
However, if we were to take the concept of religion into context, we cannot ignore the fact that priests/prophets/preachers/popes are inspired by God. I know that all atheists do not believe this, but for the sake of argumentation, this must cannot be ignored.
As I’ve mentioned earlier, I do not intend to convert anyone who reads this. Religion is a matter of faith which one must believe in through experience and reason. Also, it is important to note that there is no way that the doctrines of a religion can be discussed unless there are common premises to start with.
Lol, don’t worry, I’m not prashanth, I’m not planning on discussing any doctrines of any religion.
George Carlin’s quote was also just for laughs, because it is, after all, the most vague deflation of the concept of god.
This isn’t even about whether or not god exist.
I just want to understand your psyche.
2 questions.
1)Why do you CHOOSE to believe in god and not other superstition?
2)What qualifies certain individuals to be trusted as “messenger of gods” and be “inspired by god”? After all god should be beyond them.
What makes THEM special? I thought he loved all of us equally?! *cries a little*
Does god even speak in their language?
Or can different burning bushes act as translators?
Note to others: blackberry bushes? BAD burning idea.
Haha. Shaun if you think hard enough, everything will start to become a superstition.
I am not interested in convincing you that God exists and why things are such and such. It’s just something you have to experience for yourself with an open mind.
I am not an atheist or agnostic because its philosophy does not appeal to my reason. Maybe there are different philosophies that echoes your thoughts.
Just please stop arguing like Richard Dawkins. I respect him as a brilliant scientist and writer. But he is definitely one lousy philosopher.