-
Posts
-
There are so many relevant and insightful responses to “What besides faith is a spiritual experience” that I hardly know which one to focus on. Spiritual fruits, circle conquest, spiritual assurance, divine fellowship… If there was ever any doubt about the supreme value of philosophy to personal religious experience, these responses should completely dispel every last one of them.
Good points, George. Seems like they all fall under the heading of faith. And faith and philosophy are concerned with divine (supreme) values. Aren’t they representatives of the feeling and the cerebral approach to God? A good faith foundation with a wise philosophy surely can’t help but create a worthy science, can it?
.
Richard E Warren
Hi MidiChlorian,
The description you sketch of your experience of evolving God-consciousness is a most interesting example of a religious philosophy. Philosophy may be an abstract construct of crystallized ideas about reality or it may be a living and growing comprehension of Reality; it may be religious or nonreligious.
“The great difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties.” (101:7.4)
“Philosophy transforms that primitive religion which was largely a fairy tale of conscience into a living experience in the ascending values of cosmic reality.” (101:7.6)
Faith – the realization of the truth of sonship with God – is a purely spiritual experience, which cannot be grasped by the material intellect. It requires the wisdom of philosophy to recognize this numinous feeling or spiritual intuition and transform it into the idea of faith. Faith is a superconscious experience in the soul which cannot be forced into the material memory mold. Higher philosophy provides those ideas which enable the material intellect to self-consciously recognize and respond to spirit realities. A religious philosophy might view these higher ideas as mindal patterns into which the Spirit may breathe life, thus endowing them with experiential power.
Philosophy is necessary for religion. If religious faith is the force behind living, then religious philosophy is the means of empowering this truth. But there is always the danger of becoming overly focused upon religious philosophy at the expense of religious experience.
“Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.” (102:3.1)
As to where exactly all this goes, it is just another perspective on what philosophy is and what it can do for us.
A good faith foundation with a wise philosophy surely can’t help but create a worthy science, can it?
I agree. The problem has always been the absence of a viable metaphysics capable of unifying a transcendent God with the material universe; i.e. a wise philosophy. The visible superhuman teachers on normal worlds must judiciously impart such knowledge as is needed to advance such a philosophy. On this world, we have to rely upon the instruction found in the written records of epochal revelation.
As to where exactly all this goes, it is just another perspective on what philosophy is and what it can do for us.
I enjoy reading your contributions George.
One’s personal philosophy starts out on an interpretive foundation and grows up from there, as one’s ideas and ideals mature. Wherever one lives on our planet, wisdom is gained by personal experience, though personality can learn from looking as well as from leaping. (16:7:3) The revelators conjecture that there can never be a limit to intellectual evolution and the attainment of wisdom, though they admit they do not really know. (55:6:5) I would like to submit my opinion that on higher universe levels philosophy, the search for wisdom, does not pertain to what it can do for us, but rather what it can do to solve unsolved universe problems and unmastered questions. (27:6:0).
27:6:2 The master philosophers of Paradise delight to lead the minds of its inhabitants, both native and ascendant, in the exhilarating pursuit of attempting to solve universe problems. These superaphic masters of philosophy are the “wise men of heaven,” the beings of wisdom who make use of the truth of knowledge and the facts of experience in their efforts to master the unknown. With them knowledge attains to truth and experience ascends to wisdom. On Paradise the ascendant personalities of space experience the heights of being: They have knowledge; they know the truth; they may philosophize — think the truth; they may even seek to encompass the concepts of the Ultimate and attempt to grasp the techniques of the Absolutes..27:6:5 The masters of philosophy take supreme pleasure in imparting their interpretation of the universe of universes to those beings who have ascended from the worlds of space. And while philosophy can never be as settled in its conclusions as the facts of knowledge and the truths of experience, yet, when you have listened to these primary supernaphim discourse upon the unsolved problems of eternity and the performances of the Absolutes, you will feel a certain and lasting satisfaction concerning these unmastered questions..I would like to submit my opinion that on higher universe levels philosophy, the search for wisdom, does not pertain to what it can do for us, but rather what it can do to solve unsolved universe problems and unmastered questions.
It might be the case that this thread has tended to focus more on the inner world, and your point about the mysteries in the outer world is well taken. You remind us of the truly universal scope of philosophy. While the inner world may be centered on the immanent presence of God – depending entirely upon the freewill choice of personality – it is an eternal fact that the universe is actually centered on the transcendent presence of God on Paradise. This eternal fact and its consequences will not only engage our interest in eternity, when we sit at the feet of “wise men of heaven.” It is also essential to our current concept of God.
“The essential doctrine of the human realization of God creates a paradox in finite comprehension. It is well-nigh impossible for human logic and finite reason to harmonize the concept of divine immanence, God within and a part of every individual, with the idea of God’s transcendence, the divine domination of the universe of universes. These two essential concepts of Deity must be unified in the faith-grasp of the concept of the transcendence of a personal God and in the realization of the indwelling presence of a fragment of that God in order to justify intelligent worship and validate the hope of personality survival.” (5:5.6)
The concept of the transcendence of God is so important that our teachers risk telling us about the premier philosophic postulate of the I AM, even though “There are many elements of danger attendant upon the presentation to the mortal intellect of this idea of an infinite I AM.” (105:1.2) It is a fragment of this same I AM who indwells us. There is literally no end to the mystery of God, whether we look inward or outward at the universe created, controlled, and upheld by God.
On this world, we have to rely upon the instruction found in the written records of epochal revelation.
I might add the equal importance of autorevelation.
101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
101:2.12 Revelation as an epochal phenomenon is periodic; as a personal human experience it is continuous.
I would like to submit my opinion that on higher universe levels philosophy, the search for wisdom, does not pertain to what it can do for us, but rather what it can do to solve unsolved universe problems and unmastered questions.
It might be the case that this thread has tended to focus more on the inner world, and your point about the mysteries in the outer world is well taken. You remind us of the truly universal scope of philosophy. While the inner world may be centered on the immanent presence of God – depending entirely upon the freewill choice of personality – it is an eternal fact that the universe is actually centered on the transcendent presence of God on Paradise. This eternal fact and its consequences will not only engage our interest in eternity, when we sit at the feet of “wise men of heaven.” It is also essential to our current concept of God.
“The essential doctrine of the human realization of God creates a paradox in finite comprehension. It is well-nigh impossible for human logic and finite reason to harmonize the concept of divine immanence, God within and a part of every individual, with the idea of God’s transcendence, the divine domination of the universe of universes. These two essential concepts of Deity must be unified in the faith-grasp of the concept of the transcendence of a personal God and in the realization of the indwelling presence of a fragment of that God in order to justify intelligent worship and validate the hope of personality survival.” (5:5.6)
The concept of the transcendence of God is so important that our teachers risk telling us about the premier philosophic postulate of the I AM, even though “There are many elements of danger attendant upon the presentation to the mortal intellect of this idea of an infinite I AM.” (105:1.2) It is a fragment of this same I AM who indwells us. There is literally no end to the mystery of God, whether we look inward or outward at the universe created, controlled, and upheld by God.
.
Whenever I hear the word transcendence the Ultimate level comes to mind. The author of Paper 5 seems to be implying transcendence of time and space. Evolved philosophy seldom sees that far. What could be above and beyond the cosmos??
Speaking of revealing the I AM, Absolutes, etc. The revelators gave us the whole picture, didn’t they?! It feels good that they trusted us so. I think college level philosophy students for centuries will find the UB on the required reading list.
.
Richard E Warren
Whenever I hear the word transcendence the Ultimate level comes to mind. The author of Paper 5 seems to be implying transcendence of time and space. Evolved philosophy seldom sees that far. What could be above and beyond the cosmos??
Not to change the subject but this makes me ask myself why the revealators chose to name the fundamental building block of the cosmos “the Ultimaton”?
Not to change the subject but this makes me ask myself why the revealators chose to name the fundamental building block of the cosmos “the Ultimaton”?
The ultimate in smallness, presumably.
.
Richard E Warren
.
So, what has been revealed by this call for philosophers? One thing, there are many well-versed philosophy teachers already! Most with an excellent grasp of both evolved and revealed philosophy. Your replies, and replies on other Urantia oriented sites, provided abundant proof. The original questions posed have been well addressed, with keen insight and from diverse angles, and might be condensed to this:
To most people the words philosophy, truth, beauty, goodness represent high concepts, elevated standards of thinking, lofty ideals and wisdom that isn’t available to, or attainable by, the average person. However, people with little knowledge and no schooling can have and live a divinely inspired philosophy, one even higher than some lettered philosophers. Teachers of philosophy have but two time honored ways to broach the subject: by instruction and by example, or some combination of the two. If people are not ready for thinking and talking about philosophy, they are usually impressed by one living out a great philosophy. Especially our young ones.
More author definitions of philosophy:
Melchizedek: …Philosophy is to religion as conception is to action. (1080.2) 98:2.12
…The ideal of religious philosophy is such a faith-trust as would lead man unqualifiedly to depend upon the absolute love of the infinite Father of the universe of universes. (1141.3) 103:9.5
Midwayers: …Philosophy is man’s attempt at the unification of human experience. (2096.6) 196:3.30
…Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. (2079.4) 195:7.9
.
Richard E Warren
Ultimate in smallness or maybe forever beyond the reach of finite beings – transcendental?
Maybe! But the finite reach necessarily is made of ultimatons. Hmmm…
Thanks again to all who contributed to this thread. We’ve created 15 pages of truly great conversation and insight from the depths of mind and soul. We explored the germane questions about the fundamentals, the current status and the spread of philosophic thought. We discussed the methods and extent of teaching philosophy. We talked about philosophy’s roots, history and value, both evolved and revealed, from the terrestrial to the transcendent. And we have probably only slightly scratched the thin outer layer of the surface of the subject. In the final analysis, philosophy is an attempt to define the entire cosmos, to make sense of the diverse realms of obvious fact and inner hunches. Philosophy is an indispensable link between the understanding of things physical and the comprehension of values spiritual.
Philosophy, at its highest, is an attempt to understand the humanly comprehensible elements of God’s nature: Truth, Beauty, Goodness. Please join us as the conversation continues, with a closer look at each of these three God traits, beginning with Beauty.
Here: Is Beauty Really Necessary?
.
Richard E Warren
. . . or maybe forever beyond the reach of finite beings. . . .
Your question is interesting to me, though I do not have a clue of an answer, except to agree that answers to this and other questions are beyond the reach of finite beings, because we are pint-sized finite beings and embryonic in our morontia-ness. More and more I think philosophy is all about trying to answer questions about the whys and wherefores of life and existence in the cosmos, as well as one’s individual place in it. And in religious philosophy the individual must envision a goal, a soul-satisfying destiny for the individual.
3:6:3 All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God. Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.In contrast the universe philosophers ask huge questions, such as this one.
56:9:2 The major philosophic proposition of the master universe is this: Did the Absolute (the three Absolutes as one in infinity) exist before the Trinity? and is the Absolute ancestral to the Trinity? or is the Trinity antecedent to the Absolute?In contrast the universe philosophers ask huge questions, such as this one:
56:9:2 The major philosophic proposition of the master universe is this: Did the Absolute (the three Absolutes as one in infinity) exist before the Trinity? and is the Absolute ancestral to the Trinity? or is the Trinity antecedent to the Absolute
in a way it is gratifying that superhuman master universe philosophers do not have a definitive answer for a question like this. Maybe challenging is a better word than gratifying? Or maybe enlightening, or even all of the above! Or even reinforcing knowing that philosophic thought patterns that we can experience do not end on Urantia.
wonderful quotes, thank you.
I’ve always considered myself a philosopher, and like Rick, I find that it’s underrespected and undervalued. But also like Rick, the pearls in modern philosophy are very few and far between. Nevertheless they are there and worth looking at. I will give an example. Watch me turn bad philosophy into good philosophy.
Let’s start with Albert Camus. He’s a french existentialist philosopher and fiction writer who popularized the school of absurdism. Reading Camus is like reading a bored psychopath as he journals. Bored because he’s disinterested in anything with value, and a psychopath because he doesn’t seem to experience empathy. Read just the first paragraph of this plot synopsis from his book “The Stranger.” Emphasis mine.
Meursault, a young Algerian pied-noir, hears news of his mother’s death. He receives this information with mild annoyance. He must now ask his boss for two days leave in order to attend the funeral. It is the custom, in his culture, for the bereaved to sit all night in vigil by the coffin of the departed loved one. At the vigil and during the funeral the following day he shows no grief, sadness or even regret. He only feels the physical inconvenience of sitting through the vigil and the heat of the sun during the funeral procession to the cemetery. At the funeral he makes mental notes of the physical objects that strike his eye; shining screws in the walnut coffin, the colours on the dresses of the nurses and the large bellies of the elderly mourners.
What a repulsive and nauseating description. Yet doesn’t everyone experience these feelings at some time or another? Not the feeling of being unmoved at a funeral, but the feeling of knowing that you should be moved by something and aren’t. When the drops of sweat dripping down your spine and the sun beating on your face are more noticeable than your friend or family member who is graduating from college?
I’ve thought about this one a lot, and I’m 100% sure that the “existentalist feeling” is a result of the disconnection/garblement and disintegration of values. This is evidenced by their reasoning. But if you start with Descartes and just follow the logic through to the existentialists, the cause of the breakdown is easy to see.
Ayn Rand wrote a great article on the cultural consequences of “Value Deprivation.” The Urantia Book steps this concept up by bringing in the new idea of Universe Values; values which extend beyond evolutionary values, cultural morays, survival values, and speculative values. Universe Values apply to other beings on other worlds and are equally reliable there as they are for us here. Universe Values allow for the growth and assimilation of new values. Since they are tiered, you don’t need to abandon old values as you ascend the ladder of values. On the contrary, universe values are mind-expanding and soul-challenging. They are not dogmatic and reserved, nor are they flagrant and brazenly extrusive. They are always open-ended, but they open into true freedom, which expands values, rather than false freedom, which destroys values.
The good that I see in Camus is directly and intrinsically related to these types of positive real values. Having a philosophy that demonstrates firsthand the madness and absurdity of atheism (his philosophy is called absurdism for a reason) by painting the ugly picture that he does is the most powerful weapon against an absurd hypothesis one can imagine. Showing the logical consequences of a failed idea is probably the only good way to actually destroy it. But you must have logic on your side, and the bad ideas don’t.
The next move for philosophy, in my opinion, is to force the purveyors of awful ideas to admit that theirs is a faith preference, i.e. there’s nothing empirically justifiable about said awful ideas, in fact empirical justifiability presupposes the God concept. Greg Bahnsen did some great work in that area. my 2 ¢.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.