Go to How the Universe looks from here
- Add a comment
- Go to I don't believe in non-believers:
Thanks Ciel, I'll most definitely do that. It'll be a pleasure.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on February 6, 2007 at 1:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Bhaskar.ing, for the generous compliment, and for sharing your
harmonizing article.
If you have the time and inclination, you might enjoy perusing some of my previous bits and pieces. As a whole, they will give you a better idea of hwo my thoughts and beliefs run. and it would not surprise me at all to find that we share some further common ground, Universally speaking!
posted by
Ciel
on February 6, 2007 at 1:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Ciel, a very grace fully written article.
Your appreciation of Avant's comment drew me here, and I must say it was a fine comment. That is why we call it a Universe and not a multiverse, despite the multiplicity. I am taking the liberty to post a write up of mine that addresses the question you ask at the end.
Be a Good Atheist to be a Proper Theist
Today, as I sat down to write on my PC, I thought it better to do a mental stocktaking of my writings since the time I have been here at Blogitville. Here is my finding
There have been occasions when, in my attempts at mingling of a variety of cultures and thoughts, seemingly antithetical to one another, has often not been received well and considered indiscriminate or both incongruous and irreverent by some readers on the grounds that they lacked aesthetic appeal. But to me, despite my Puritanical leanings, I am no sour Puritan but a lover of beauty that gives me joy, no matter whether this beauty is found even in the pagan world. Again, some may object saying that there are no beauties to be found there, but I can assure you that there are, as Troosha can vindicate by saying, “if only you had the eyes of a lover”.
Man’s quest is but one appearing as two - an increase in happiness, or the lessening of distress. Both are same - like the two sides of a coin, the former being associated with religion and the latter, with materialism. So, in one sense the theists and the atheists are not in conflict, at least not in the object of their search.
This has led me to believe that to begin with, the proper subject should be man’s study of Man, not God. A direct entry into religion without the adequate precursor of faith will never allow one to comprehend God’s nature and purpose. It will then be more an exercise in futility and a folly tantamount to sacrilege in probing the ways of God who is inscrutable and totally beyond man’s finite understanding
Man should, therefore, devote himself to knowing as much as possible about Mankind, of which he is an individual member. But to gather knowledge about man is no easy task. Man is placed midway between vaster worlds. He lacks inner illumination to be truly wise, and also lacks fineness of perception to be consistently great. He is more knowledgeable than the sceptic or doubter, but then he is less firm in mind than the steadfast stoic who keeps his mental composure even in trying circumstances.
He is ever at a state of doubt or uncertainty and hence is incapable of taking a decision. Thus he is in doubt whether to act or not to act, whether he is as lofty as a god or as lowly as a beast, and whether his mind is superior and therefore preferable to his body, or vice versa. His knowledge always ends up in doubt. The only certainty is that he is born only to die in due course.
Man’s limited reasoning faculty is incapable of reaching the truth and, in fact, it leads him in the direction of error. Hence he remains equally ignorant, no matter how hard or how little his mind thinks. His intellect and passions, working at cross purposes, make an odd bundle of confusions, and, consequently, he is never able to distinguish the truth from falsehood. He is either led astray by his passions or else is reclaimed and led along the right track by his thought.
God created Man as neither too high nor too low. If he can rise up to a limit, it is only to fall to that extent. Man is the master of all created objects, and yet he lacks mastery over them. He has the power to know the truth, and yet he strays into countless errors.
In short, if man is the crowning glory of all creation, he is at the same time a clown. And in the co-existence of these polarities, Man is indeed a bewildering and baffling creature, a perpetual paradox.
Can there be a way out of this cul-de-sac? I wonder. How many of you think that dogmatic faith is the only solution to salvation?
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on February 6, 2007 at 12:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Great comment, Avant-garde! I will remember this one--
Form is only one kind of manifestation-- Very neatly put!
posted by
Ciel
on February 5, 2007 at 11:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel
I went through a radical change in understanding, from believing that God is only in one form to realizing that form is only one manifestation. Life really can be eye opening!
posted by
avant-garde
on February 5, 2007 at 3:45 AM
| link to this | reply
if you go here:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Ciel2752/s110
and scroll down a couple of items, you will find the Table of Contents of this blog, and several previous articles on the nature of God, as I perceive it. I think the actual items are in the earliest pages-- "I used to believe in Old Man God..." and "What God Has To Be, To Be God" are the two I'm mainly thinking of...
posted by
Ciel
on February 3, 2007 at 1:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Decshak, I think what you're saying here is that you recognize God
by a different set of charactersitics than the ones you were originally taught. This is also my viewpoint, that God is
everything, not just some sort of uber-human.
posted by
Ciel
on February 3, 2007 at 12:57 PM
| link to this | reply
You're right, straightforward-- agnostics fill the spectrum between
theists and atheists.
posted by
Ciel
on February 3, 2007 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
ciel
posted by
richinstore
on February 3, 2007 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
It should be something like: We debate therefore WE exist. And, no, I
don't believe in a "personal" god. I think that, if God exists anywhere, then God is everywhere, in everything. God may even BE the universe, both seen and unseen.... I'm more of a Budhist and a Spinosan.
posted by
WindTapper
on February 2, 2007 at 11:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel is that a dig on I think therefore I am?
posted by
Straightforward
on February 2, 2007 at 10:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Don't forget that between atheists and believers, there are agnostics
posted by
Straightforward
on February 2, 2007 at 10:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Whackey-- You think, therefore He am?
posted by
Ciel
on February 2, 2007 at 8:04 PM
| link to this | reply
If I exist then so does God. I think.
-^..^-
Bo is.
posted by
Whacky
on February 2, 2007 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply