Dear Squeers,

>>nit-picking through each others constructions, sharpening points and correcting interpretations is as (in)efficient as any method for getting to the "kernel" …<<
I am not sure whether you meant “inefficien” or “efficient”, but I got the message, and will not nit-pick on your post, only try to understand you.

Thank you for explaining what you meant by “disinterestedly enquire into our mysterious reality in such a pre-conceptual fashion“, though I am not aware I was “enquiring into our mysterious reality“. I think I understand now what you mean by “reality pre-conceptualised for us via language“ and I try to correlate it to (my) approach to reality through conceptual models, built on familiar (c.f. visual but also mythological, narrative) or formal (e.g. mathematics) situations, and proceeding therefrom to other constructs via abstraction.

The concept of language is somehow hidden in this approach, and language, semantics, is my week point (although I tried to read Gadamer). So I thought perhaps you, as a philosopher, might elaborate on this: Is there any explicit correlation between the language‘s and models‘ approach?

[I know that people call mathematics the LANGUAGE of physics (Galileo called it the language in which the Book of Nature is written) whereas for me mathematics lives in a (Platonic) world of itself and only provides concepts, formal constructs and relations between them, to be assigned to physical concepts that are more directly related to physical phenomena we observe, and predictions we can make.]

I completely agree that we need this sophistication because we have “no direct access to reality“ (presuming you meant this when you wrote “no access to direct reality”). (ctd)

(ctd)
Thank you also for the rest. I read it carefully but am not going to nit-pick on it any more, since these are more or less standard views and objections, and - as I said - after all I was interested more in stating clearly the world-view alternatives (which cannot be done without using a priori undefined concepts), including my own, without wanting to argue for or against.

There are many things I dislike and many attitudes I disagree with, and I am grateful to you for letting me have an insight into what you dislike or disagree with, contempt or no-contempt. There is certainly an overlap between our perspectives and tastes, although Christianity apparently does not belong to it.

I am also using OLO to “test my ideas”, therefore I try to avoid a confrontational style, though sometimes I let myself get provoked and fail.

Dear Severin,

Thanks for the sincere words describing where you stand on a variety of matters related to religion. Even if I wanted to react separately and critically to each one of your sentences (as I do not), I would not dare it, lest I be accused of nit-picking :-).

I think one has to keep in mind that the phenomenon of religion can be looked at - favourably or not - and studied from a number of specialist standpoints. I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist , a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). I think one has to have this in mind when one criticises or defends religion.

The debate between Oliver and me was mainly on its ontological (metaphysical) claims, and even that only considering the basic ones offered by Abrahamic religions. There are many other aspects of religion, some of them you refer to in your post.

Having said that, I agree with much of what you wrote, obviously not with everything. Taking the supernatural out of religion is something many people do, however, that redefines religion. There are philosophies that are compatible with the theist outlook, and philosophies compatible with an atheist outlook. Until recently the former prevailed in our (Western) tradition. There are Christians, as there are atheist, without much understanding and need for philosophy. And there are Christians, as there are atheist, who find in this or that philosophy inspiration and existential fulfillment (please don’t ask me to define what that means).

I am not sure how much experience you have with meditation and prayer; in my opinion they have much in common, although one can pray, but not meditate, superficially, mechanically.

Educated Christians find the “Creation Museum” silly or worse. I agree that religion (Christianity) has often been abused, and that the Church is clinging too hard to positions it held for centuries when there were no viable alternatives on which to build social and personal ethics and organize society.

Dear George

I really appreciate your last post. Very informative and straightforward for one such as I.

While I was reading, the thought struck me, rather than pulling the supernatural out of religion (I actually have an open mind that there is a lot we don't know, it is mainly the Abrahamic God with whom I have issues and the paternalistic nature of the ME religions in general), perhaps taking the dogma out of religion would be a better start. Of course, that will never happen, churches would founder, priests would have nothing to preach and general anarchy would ensue.

I do remain adamant that religion gets too much of a free ride as it is held less accountable than other organisations. I don't need to reiterate and I am sure you are also concerned about these issues, although from the atheist perspective "could do more".

I also understand where philosophy can be inclusive of a theist perspective and am comfortable with that.

As for prayer v meditation; I am familiar with the mechanistic type of prayer and the transcendental type of meditation. Generally, I find Buddhism easier to understand - up until reincarnation and other such supernatural claims.

Now your use of the parable that religion needs be viewed in its entirety else we are but viewing a single part, is a common one, often used by religious people when criticism is made. That can equally be applied to the study of the universe. How long is a piece of string?

I don't know. And that is the joy of science.

Dear George,
I also find much in what you say (the parts I understand) that I agree with.

Dear all,
I'm going to (try to) take a short sabbatical from OLO; incongruously, so I can work!
Happy hunting :-)

Hi George,

I agree we have been applying Occam's Razor in different ways, with me seeing a natural creating agent simplier than a complex God. I see physicality as less complex than divinity.

Naive religionists seem to intent on fighting a loosing battle, The scriptures are their castles and 20th-21st science artillery. The God of the Gaps representing the rubble.

On the other hand;

Should theism, demote the various religious, and, emphasize an external "worked" creation agent vis-a-vis an internal self-creation agent, we have a richer field of discourse. Such changes have been made before, the polytheistic religions once practised syncretion (Eygptians, Greeks and Romans). Even with Yahweh (War/Volcano god), the God of Moses was to worshipped above "other" gods, whom where nevertheless were held to exist. Jewish monthesism came later, the trinity later (325) and final ratification of the divinity of Jesus latter still (341).

Were I a theist, I would look to a new discussion, treating much of the Bible (especially the OT, as allegorical and quasi-historical (many believes do already). Even the Fist Commandment should seen in the context om Moses and The Exodos. Moses (interestingly an Eygtian name) could not have an agricultural god (say, the calf), where a war god was more appropriate for a nomadic people claiming a "Promised Land". Similarly, Mohammed needed to unit the Arabs against power powerful empires and believe systems coverting his turf.

Such a radical realloation of "forces" away from monothesism and polytheism, towards God verses Science as the cause of existence, would allow Beleivers to re-group. Science can knock-out non-allegorical Genesis, yet, without appeal to little understood QM, the formation of Lifes' peptites in the classical world, is a challenge for SCience.

Do the religious need a new-era Akhaton?

p.s. I cheated a little, comparing the creation of the Universe with the creation of Life. I think science is current weaker at exlaining Life than the creation of matter