Dear George,

I am happy with BEYOND. Yet, to do so brings the two realms; viz. heaven and the universe; closer together and the rings might metaphorically overlap. I liked the DNA example.

"Who shall lay hold upon the mind of man, that it may stand and see that time with its past and future must be determined by eternity, which stands and does not pass, which has in itself no past or future." - Augustine of Hippo

Augustine's notion of timelessness is related in such a way that God's realm is ouside of space-time (a term not known to hum, of course). God isn't eternal because enternity implies an infinite, linear series of cause-and-effect events. the measure would be something other-than eternity.

Consideration of God verus the Universe being its own first cause, I a fair, comparative contemplation. The various historical gods would seem to rely on faith/trust, being aided by appeals to nature (design) and revelation (believing scriptures/epiphanis) are
direct by God. I am less sure that the case presented in this paragraph is as substantial as the first paragraph. The first case would seem more fundamental and less likely to wrest on socialogical and antropological involvement.

One reconciliation would that God "is" beyond (George) existence yet humanity is drawn to substitutionary constructs: i.e., the religions. The other case is the universe "is" and the religions are culural phenomena.

The can study the origins of the universe in this century. Hume in his time, in his argument against intelligent design, said unlike a house, we have not seen the generation of a universe adding:

"Have you ever seen nature ... arrange the first elements?"

We, today with our knowledge of neuclear and particle physics we can come very close to understanding chemistry, fundamental particles and simulating the very, very early universe.

While inability to explain the universe was meant by Hume to counter divine creation; unexpectedly, our near-ability to do so, provides an alternative physical non-theistic alternative. Herein, we find ourselves back with the first paragraph, wherein God verus the Universe, rather than Zeus verus Allah.

More later.

"The simple answer is “we don’t know“ ... I personally believe that the differences between various advanced religions are only temporary and superficial, that they converge to something that is yet beyond our understanding... " - George

I believe George's posit to be a mature observation. Something, from my side of the fence, I rarely see in theism. It essentially treats all advanced religions as models of God's being and relationships. Perhaps, even primitive religions were fueled on more simple observations of aligned to similiar motives. The exclusivity of religious dogma and membership is problematic given the willing of the faithful to believe, yet, each holds only their own account true. Given the thousands of generations of humanity and the many cultures who believe in "something", it seems curious that God would have a "Chosen People" in the first instance and by exprapolation, Christians; and, forget about the Pacific Islanders, Australian aborigines. Likewise, would homo erectus have a special relation with the posited God?

Even the idea one might count God (in a numeric sense) seems to limit divinity. That is, it would not be a case one or many gods, rather the presence of count might even be relevant. (In computer programming there is a concept of a null which does not represent any number, not even zero on the number line.)

The world Scriptures do not converge on a common religiosity, suggesting that, perhaps, theistic dogma of humanity and the religiosity of humanity, are different themes. the question is; how would a God relate to a situation like this and can humans do the same while remaining detatched from scriptural claims: e.g., God communicating with Mohammed?

Regards.

George,
You describe yourself as a seeker. Jesus said that those who seek shall find.

Is there any chance that any of us are going to find some answers here?

---

Squeers - “I have contempt for the way religion (in the popular mind) demotes this world to disposable reality status.”

I can sympathise with your comment. But perhaps you should investigate what a religion really teaches from within rather than how it is related ‘in the popular mind’.

Dear Dan,

I assume you are Christian. What makes your world-view (George) different to that of a Muslim or someone whom believes in Zeus? If it comes down to Clerics and Scriptures are you not indwelling (Polanyi) in an historical domain? The penchant to believe in a particular religion would seem to familial and/or societally biased. Moreover, should not the question of the Agency of Creation (what is called God or the Universe itself) be resolved before adopting a specific deity.

The assessment of an "internal" or "external" cause of existence/creation would seem vailid. The adoption of a specific deity would (for me) appear less tethered.

Squeers, Oliver, Severin, Dan,

I am really glad I was wrong assuming this thread had degenerated into a mere ping-pong between Oliver and me. Thanks for your inputs, which help us to better formulate our own positions.

Dear Squeers,

I agree, “contempt“ was a strong word, perhaps I should have used “ridicule” or something in between. Nevertheless, now you use it yourself:

>> What I do have contempt for is the certitude religious folk often profess in their beliefs <<
I agree, although I think the problem is not certitude, that is rather a state of mind, but the way it is thrown in the face of people with other opinions, which I think is called anything from insensitivity, disrespect to arrogance. It is usually not a statement about the object of this “certitude”, but actually about the person’s own insecurities, another state of mind. I have had enough of that also on this OLO, mainly from people whose “certitude“ was actually a negative attitude towards religion. I have learned to first be polite towards them and then just ignore them.

>> religion should not be conflated with empirical science, and science shouldn't be conflated with doctrine <<
There are many things that are somehow related to each other but should not be “conflated“.Usually not empirical science but interpretations of scientific theories (models of reality) are relevant to world-views, philosophies, “religious” or “areligious”. My view on this is in the four lines stated e.g. in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#175072. I never heard of conflating (“combining into one“, in my dictionary) science and (religious)doctrine.

>>I'm not sure why you've selected a denominational lens, or why you don't discard it. Isn't it better to remove all cultural-tinting …<<
I cannot jump out of my (cultural, Christian) skin, and neither can others. Aware of this bias I am still trying to look through other “lenses“ as well. As to why I feel my “lens” is worth looking through, here is Jürgen Habermas, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers, who put it better than I could: (ctd)

(ctd)
"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Habermas#cite_note-25)

So I do not think I need to be that apologetic about my Christian “lens”.

>>or at least to try to critique doctrine with a more phenomenological eye?<<
I do not know how and why I should critique this or that (religious) doctrine; probably for the same reason you would not want to critique this or that mathematical concept or construct. The same about appropriating Husserl’s phenomenological outlook (if that is what you mean). So please elaborate.

>>(I) think science and philosophy/mysticism offer valid lines of enquiry--I just can't accept the findings as gospel<<
I do not know what you mean by gospel (only that you use it disparagingly). However if you mean that religion should not masquerade as ersatz-science and science as ersatz-religion, that religion should not offer scientific certitudes (to use your word), and science religious certitudes, I agree.

>> I have contempt for the way religion (in the popular mind) demotes this world to disposable reality status.<<
I am not sure what you are referring to - mysticism, transcendental meditation, belief in afterlife, striving for nirvana or what? Or do you have contempt for the consolation people in hopeless situations (terminally ill, starving, ill-treated, etc.) find in the belief that there is a “higher“ justice and compensation? Otherwise I would endorse Dan’s response.