Slavof Zizek: God In Pain

[veritasluxmea]

This conversation makes me want type up an entire chapter from Fulton Sheen's book Old Errors and New Labels called The Lyricism of Science. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow regardless of knowing I'll be hit with "TL;DR"

Maybe a link? Copy and paste? 

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Maybe a link? Copy and paste?

I wish there was an online resource I could point you to, sadly, there isn't one.

[Era Might]

I'm just going to lay this out here. This is the best I can offer at the moment. 

 

Basically, if you've ever asked yourself if something is true- anything from Does God Exist? to Does my cat like to eat fish?- and decided yes, no, or I don't know, you've used logic (reasoning). It's more than just a discipline or mathematical exercise or feeding your cat fish to see if she enjoys it (oh, see, she purred and pawed me for more- these are signs of her liking it, therefore she likes it!). Logic is the little voice running in your head trying to figure out if something is true or not. Of course I use it to decide what I believe- I want to believe what is true and reject what is false, therefore I use logic. 

 

In its bare form, logic can be pretty mathematical with stuff like K then Q, K, therefore Q. Technically that's true, and that's what's happening when you're thinking, but no one is going to recognize that until they recognize how they are already using logic in their daily life. Let's say I tell you your friend is in England. Then someone come up and asks, "Oh, is your friend in China?" No, you say, she's in England. How do you know that? 

 

Because you know the truth:

If she in in England, she is not in China. (geography fact which you have good reason to believe is true, England and China are two separate places and you know you can't be both places at once and you have good reason to assume this is true for every other human!)

She is in England. (I just told you that)

Therefore, you know she is not in China. 

 

(Mathematically put, it would be 

If K than not P

K 

Therefore not P but that's boring) 

 

That is logic. Of course you use logic to figure things out. I soon as I told you she was in England you knew she wasn't in China... Not because you've experienced this truth, not because you've memorized every geography fact, but because you knew if point A and B are different, she can't be in both at once. (And you know both places are separate.) That is how you know it is true she is in England, not China. Unless I told you...

 

Turns out in the town we live in "England" and "China" are the same names for one place, a club down the street. Well, you know that it is possible for one one place to have two different names. When I told you she was in England, you assumed I meant the country, but I didn't! I meant the club in our town! When the person asked if your friend was in China, she meant the club as well, not the country! 

 

So now we know the truth: 

If she is in England, she is also in China (They're the same place.)

She is in England (the club)

Therefore she is in China (the club)

 

"Yes," you tell your friend. "She's in China." How do you know that? "They're the same place." Both of you subconsciously reason the truth here- you both know she is in China, in England. They're one and the same, you now know. 

 

Logic is just spelling out in words the reasoning process. Unfortunately most people are not quite aware of how they figure out if something is true or not. They just kind of intuitively do it.

 

When you thought the club referred to the two countries, you knew she, your friend, was only in England. If you friend had pressed why, you might have said, "Because Veritas told me she was in England." So? they other person might say. "Don't be silly," you would say, "you can only be in one place at one time- she is in England right now, and can't be in China." (Ah yes, logic here.) No, your friend insists, she really *is* in both places at the same time. "This person is being ridiculous," you think (hopefully not say!) "This person believes you can be in two places at once. They must have no experience with reality." That person has a flawed start- you can not reason truth from a lie. Of course, you now know that there was a truth you did not realize at the moment- England and China are the same place, a club. So fortunately that person was not deluded by a lie. And once you knew that truth, you were able to figure out that yes, your friend is in England and China. And you all went clubbing, happy end to the story. 

 

In the end, logic is the question of what is true, and how do you know it is true? Everyone uses it, whether they know it or not. 

 

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

 

This website below is pretty fun, very, very informative, and very user-friendly and not at all complicated. I'd highly recommend checking it out.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

Like I said, I don't have a mind for K then not P kind of thinking lol, but I did pretty good in my logic class, and then forgot immediately all the rules I learned there.

 

But I don't see how any of that kind of thought process has any real value for faith. Once you start looking at the Resurrection, or Transubstantiation, or the slaughter of the first born, as "This, therefore that," I think you lose the meaning of all those things. How can I prove by logical means the existence of angels, and their activity in the world?

[Era Might]

Again, this seems to be going from the basis that religion=fills gaps for unknown, and is dropped as soon as we learn more about the world or progress in scientific understanding. Which is partly false. I think a lot of "natural" based religions, like Native American shaman stuff and African tribal religions are somewhat used this way. Or it is just a form of cultural expression and is dropped as soon as culture changes and modernizes, like the ancient Greek and Roman religions. Catholicism is different in that it actually makes real-life truth claims (the Resurrection and transubstantiation are real events while anyone could walk to the top of Mount Olympus and see there's no one living there- well, better keep people away from the mountain and just live it as a religious myth), and while Catholicism is expressed culturally it's not culturally based. 

 

I think that's a good way of putting it. I think mystery absolutely is the reason for the existence of religion. What other reason would there be? The Resurrection is not a "real event." It's impossible for historians to prove or disprove it, all they can do is look at the sources and see what people said about it. One can desecrate the Eucharist and see there are no consequences, and conclude from that it is not sacred, etc. Even with the church's process of approving miracles, the method is to exhaust all logical explanation, and only then to accept the miracle. 

Edited January 25, 2015 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Peace be with you Era Might,

 

 

Let me first emphasize that I'm referring to mindsets and not technology. Mindsets are plastic, as they can be molded, developed, and then conditioned into a person. It's a modernist mindset that identifies the mind with the brain, the individual as supreme, pragmatism as holding the only value, and reducing intellect to reason. The Traditional worldview on the other hand is one that recognizes the supra-human element in life and seeks to conform to it. From this single principle stem all the others, and anyone who is transitioning from a modernist worldview to a traditional one knows that this is a process. It takes a lot of time because the two views are mutually exclusive and one can not possess both simultaneously. 

 

That's not entirely true. One can find "supra-human" elements in modernism (for example, Jung and the Collective Unconscious). I don't think one can be truly "modern" and "traditional" because modernity is part of a process of secularization, technique, method, etc. Traditional culture and religion had very different assumptions (and I consider myself a traditional person in that sense, I don't believe absolutely in modern civilization, though I believe in the overall project of modernity). And "modernity" is a broad idea...one can look at, for example, changes in how the "text" was conceived in the middle ages, how it influenced the scholastic mind, etc. and distinguish it from traditional ways of being, before a text was sliced up into format for quoting, compilation, etc. Technology absolutely has a huge affect on how religion is conceived. The alphabet, for example, is a technology that shapes how we conceive our inner world, and in the Middle Ages that became increasingly as a way to see conscience, as a sort of text of the soul from which we read our sins. But that is not a "traditional" way of being for less alphabetized societies.

[Ark]

Peace be with you Era Might,

 

That's not entirely true. One can find "supra-human" elements in modernism (for example, Jung and the Collective Unconscious). I don't think one can be truly "modern" and "traditional" because modernity is part of a process of secularization, technique, method, etc. Traditional culture and religion had very different assumptions (and I consider myself a traditional person in that sense, I don't believe absolutely in modern civilization, though I believe in the overall project of modernity). And "modernity" is a broad idea...one can look at, for example, changes in how the "text" was conceived in the middle ages, how it influenced the scholastic mind, etc. and distinguish it from traditional ways of being, before a text was sliced up into format for quoting, compilation, etc. Technology absolutely has a huge affect on how religion is conceived. The alphabet, for example, is a technology that shapes how we conceive our inner world, and in the Middle Ages that became increasingly as a way to see conscience, as a sort of text of the soul from which we read our sins. But that is not a "traditional" way of being for less alphabetized societies.

 

The hypothesis of a collective unconscious would not apply because it is still within the human domain. Concepts like Maat or Dharma which men must conform to, on the other hand do reflect the principle of something being over and above the human person. Modernity is a rejection of any higher principle, and from this all other issues stem: Rendering the individual as supreme, reducing intellect to reason, the myth of continual progress, moral relativism, focusing on profane sciences. 

[Ice_nine]

so era I don't know if you're just way more intelligent than I or if you're simply mad but about 75% of the time I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Am I the only one? I feel like I'm reading this thread in Russian.

[Era Might]

so era I don't know if you're just way more intelligent than I or if you're simply mad but about 75% of the time I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Am I the only one? I feel like I'm reading this thread in Russian.

 

Sorry, I tend to just write in bursts, I don't really go into a lot of context, and just respond to snippets that catch my attention. I tend to write to provoke thought, and to understand my own more clearly, so maybe that's confusing. If I'm reading a book at the moment it's probably shaping what I say at the moment, might change tomorrow. With this thread, for example, I saw a video on YouTube, had some thoughts swirling around in my head, and threw them into a post. I don't premeditate too much on these kinds of things, I think best by intuition.

[Amppax]

so era I don't know if you're just way more intelligent than I or if you're simply mad but about 75% of the time I have no idea what you're talking about.

Am I the only one? I feel like I'm reading this thread in Russian.

Нет, русский гораздо более ясным.

Just kidding.

[Kia ora]

Again, this seems to be going from the basis that religion=fills gaps for unknown, and is dropped as soon as we learn more about the world or progress in scientific understanding. Which is partly false. I think a lot of "natural" based religions, like Native American shaman stuff and African tribal religions are somewhat used this way. Or it is just a form of cultural expression and is dropped as soon as culture changes and modernizes, like the ancient Greek and Roman religions. Catholicism is different in that it actually makes real-life truth claims (the Resurrection and transubstantiation are real events while anyone could walk to the top of Mount Olympus and see there's no one living there- well, better keep people away from the mountain and just live it as a religious myth), and while Catholicism is expressed culturally it's not culturally based. 

 

I think that's extremely uncharitable to Native American shaman stuff and African tribal religions.

 

Or rather, extremely charitable to Catholicism. Religion as a way to fill in the gaps for the Unknown is just as applicable to Catholicism as Native American religions. What is God if not the ultimate Unknown?

 

But anyway, I think that religions actually do something else, which isn't to fill in the Unknown, but to better understand and live with what IS Known.

[veritasluxmea]

 

Religion as a way to fill in the gaps for the Unknown is just as applicable to Catholicism as Native American religions. 

 

 

No, Christianity would be different because it's a revealed religion, whereas the more "basic", "natural" religions are human-made.  I respect if followers of those religions feel that their religion is divinely given, but I don't care if me starting that it isn't is offensive (uncharitable) to them. 

 

 

What is God if not the ultimate Unknown?

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If that was true, then Christianity wouldn't be, at least. 

 

 

But anyway, I think that religions actually do something else, which isn't to fill in the Unknown, but to better understand and live with what IS Known.

 

That's a thought-provoking perspective. 

[veritasluxmea]

I'm sorry, I messed up my last post and now it's too late to edit it. Here's the corrected version: 

No, Christianity would be different because it's a revealed religion, whereas the more "basic", "natural" religions are human-made.  I respect if followers of those religions feel that their religion is divinely given, but I don't care if me stating that it isn't is offensive (uncharitable) to them. 

 

 

(I was reading fast and completely misread some words you posted and unconsciously edited your sentence so it meant something else. my bad, just forget what I posted above.)

 

 

That's a thought-provoking perspective. 

 

Edited January 27, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Kia ora]

No, Christianity would be different because it's a revealed religion, whereas the more "basic", "natural" religions are human-made.  I respect if followers of those religions feel that their religion is divinely given, but I don't care if me starting that it isn't is offensive (uncharitable) to them. 

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If that was true, then Christianity wouldn't be, at least. 

 

 

That's a thought-provoking perspective. 

 

By charitable, I mean really with caritas - With love. Personally, I see love in other religions (or should I say, I see Love in other religions). To live charitably is to live seeking love in other people.

 

Christianity is a revealed religion, alongside the other revealed religions. As I believe, it is THE ultimate revelation in the form of Jesus Christ, but to believe that Christianity is not man-made is to do a disservice to Christianity. Christianity is the meeting place of man and God. Man brings as much to our religion as God does. The Bible is a man-made collection of documents, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

The natural religions, as Christians have sometimes, if not usually, acknowledged, have a fruitful relationship with God. God does not abandon those who have never met Christ.

 

But anyway, my point was that religions are not ways to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, but ways to understand our knowledge better (and acknowledge the limits of them). This is as true for the Scholastics, the great St. Aquinas' and Bonaventure's as it is true for the Native Americans.

 

People who dismissed their religions as 'barbaric idolatry' or 'superstitious savage nonsense' were uncharitable and could not see God in their neighbours, let alone their enemies. They were blind and moreover, did not want to see.

[veritasluxmea]

Like I said, I don't have a mind for K then not P kind of thinking lol, but I did pretty good in my logic class, and then forgot immediately all the rules I learned there.

 

But I don't see how any of that kind of thought process has any real value for faith. Once you start looking at the Resurrection, or Transubstantiation, or the slaughter of the first born, as "This, therefore that," I think you lose the meaning of all those things. How can I prove by logical means the existence of angels, and their activity in the world?

 

You may not have a mind for formulas like K and P, but assuming you believe some things, don’t believe others, and come to your conclusions, you’re reasoning. Which I’ve seen you do- you’ve made statements like “mystery is the reason for the existence of religion,” “The Resurrection is not a real event,” and so on. No matter how you came to those conclusions, you’re reasoning in some way or another.

 

Even if you straight-out believe exactly what someone else tells you, you’re reasoning. Let’s use an example Gabriella posted in the open mic- they said that they were attracted to the Church and just believed, from the start, what She taught. Their reasoning would look something like this:

Whatever Church has divine authority (founded by God) teaches truth

Based on my attractions the Catholic Church, she’s the Church founded by God

Therefore whatever she teaches is true

 

Now, is that the best reasoning out there? No, attractions can be flawed, which invalidates her second point. I’m pretty sure you aren’t convinced by that argument. I’m not. But it is reasoning, thinking.

 

Gathering information to make a decision in any way is also reasoning. I believe/know/think that the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F. How do I know that’s true? I may ask myself. Well, the scientific method has found that is the temperature. So I subconsciously know:

 

The scientific method is a reliable way of gathering correct information about how the world behaves

The scientific method has found that the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F

So the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F

 

I can’t gather in this information and not reason with it. Again, reasoning is the only way we, as humans, have to think about things. Animals can’t gather in information and reason with it. They just experience things and learn by habit. Based on the fact you can talk about what you believe, I know you’re reasoning. Maybe badly, maybe correctly, but always in some way or another.

 

The idea that you can have Catholic reasoning or Atheist reasoning or secular reasoning doesn’t make sense. Reasoning is an action, something we do, universal to humans. How can you have Catholic fishing or go for an Atheist jog or have a secular bath? Sure, you could involved elements of Catholicism into your activity, but it doesn’t make the activity itself Catholic. It doesn’t makes sense. You can say, well, all my reasoning better line up with the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t make the reasoning itself Catholic. If the Catholic Church was wrong then at points your reasoning would start to go wrong as well. Then you would just have bad reasoning, about Catholic things. If She was right, then you would have correct reasoning, about Catholic things. But the reasoning itself wouldn’t be Catholic.

 

 

But I don't see how any of that kind of thought process has any real value for faith. Once you start looking at the Resurrection, or Transubstantiation, or the slaughter of the first born, as "This, therefore that," I think you lose the meaning of all those things. How can I prove by logical means the existence of angels, and their activity in the world?

 

 

Now, how does this apply to religion? Whatever I end up believing- however I come to that belief- I’m doing *some* form reasoning. So… if my reasoning it wrong, so will my beliefs. If my reasoning is correct, so will my beliefs.

 

Let’s go back to your statement: The Resurrection is not a real event.

How do I know whether you’re wrong or right here? Some people agree with you. Some people don’t. What should I believe? You’re right? You’re wrong? It’s impossible to know for sure? I don’t want to sit around and talk about whether or not the resurrection is true or false. But I will use it as an example. Let’s go from the premise that if God did exist and live as a man, it would be possible for Him to raise Himself from the dead.

 

It would go something like this:

In order to know for sure a past event occurred, it must be historical verifiable. (By whatever methods historians use to draw conclusions about past events.)

The Resurrection is historically verifiable (by their methods) and is a historical fact.

So it happened.

 

Or:

In order to know for sure a past event occurred, it must be historical verifiable.

The Resurrection has been shown to be false by trustworthy historians.

So it didn’t happen.

 

Whatever I decide about the Resurrection, reason will play a part. Reason could prove my beliefs are true, or false, or unknowable.

 

As for angels, it could go something like this:

The Catholic Church's doctrines (teachings) are infallible

The Catholic Church teaches that angels exist

So angels exist

 

Of course, that depends the truth of the first statement, which may or may not be true. By there's your example.

All that being said, there are a lot of influences on beliefs, definately- such as psychological factors, cultural beliefs, how you were raised, and “everyone knows” types of things. However, they don’t influence beliefs directly as much as they influence beliefs through “unknowingly” bad reasoning. “I’m going to believe X, Y, and Z because I feel that way- because I trust my parents- because everyone around me believes it.” Well, that may be a good reason to support a sports team but to believe in Jesus and His Church? I’m not convinced, hardly. Again, however you get to a belief, reasoning will show whether it is true or false. Whatever style of reasoning you are used to, whether you use a more intuitive, off-the-cuff method or are very aware of your thought, reasoning, thinking, is the only way humans can encounter and process the world.