Hi George,

Being reminding of Tillich's schema begs Kierkegaard's opposite to the Meno. According to Kierkegaard, as I understand him, knowledge is not innate the learner does not a priori know fact from fiction and therefore does see truth without miraclous enlightenment. The enlightening agent is God. We don't recollect (Socrates) we are gifted from God. If Tillich's god were beyond objectification, said non-temporal entity becomed entangled with temporal reality. Temporal reality is objectifiable and finite, yet, for God, means some aspect of God, is not god by the definition of what God is. A part of God is diminished which show an attribute that is ungodlike. Moreover, if said God, engangles, with some to know "faith", yet, leaves others in igorance, even, this situation would have signicant implications with regards "free will" and personal revelation.

I do hope we have dialogue. I think what some might see as two monologues, is on closer investigation, the interia of predispositions: Two ships travelling in parellel, for a while,having different destinations, can still send each other messages: e.g., Morse Code on a search light.

Dear Dan,

I have forgotten the context, where I said that mutation was not a creation agent. It "may" have been I suggested mutation and natural selection are evidence of organisational direction in the universe; yet not of the creation of first life, which requires an understanding of the assembly of amino acids in an environment hostile to said assembly, because of the second law of thermodynamics. Yet, if we think non-classically, nano-structures inside the first cell, may have assembled from superpositions, without decoherence, because these were not observed by the macro-environment. What would be happening is the time issue and entheopy issue are not realised whilst the peptites are close to the QM world, from all possible arrangements between two amino acids are known. What could take trillions of years in the classical world, might occur quite rapidly. The assembly would stop upon the envirornment observing the assembled replicator in the cell. The cell could then replicate and would be subject to mutation and natural selection.

Corection:

"Being reminded of Tillich's schema* begs Kierkegaard's opposite to the Meno. According to Kierkegaard, as I understand him, knowledge is not innate. The learner does not a priori know fact from fiction and therefore does NOT see truth without miraclous enlightenment." - Above

- Atheism is a result of God's no involvement, in not enlightening some. Unlike the slave boy, we are ignorant (of knowledge), unless God intervenes. On the other hand, where God intervenes and enlightens the theist, it is God's hand's on involvement, unlike the unknowable God of Tillich, because it God itself that has made the knowledge known, objectively via faith. God makes the faith known to an elect to suit the purpose of God.

Yet, the posssession of knowledge of the was of the self-organising universe would be the alleged God's gift of knowledge too, only here God delimits the comprehension of the Atheist to the immanent realm, by the order of God.

The naive fundamentalist finds God, the Atheist science and the so called sophisticated Atheist, science with God added. Herein, I think, Kierkegaard would have all the players puppets, without free will. Our relationship with God is determined by God.

Severin,
Well, I still don’t know what you wanted me to do, except not to blame Dawkins. OK, I won’t, if you think that solves your problem. And apologies for having taken the name of Dawkins in vain.

Dear Dan,
No, “making an idiot of oneself” is not language I use on this OLO.

Dear david f,
I accept your correction: some Christians and Jews who take Genesis verbatim are thinking persons.

>>There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalize.<<
Cicero’s “there is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it”, says something similar, and is usually quoted by those who feel uneasy about the variety of philosophies (or world-views), which I am sure is not your case.

Hi Oliver,

I agree that “being led by scripture” is not the proper attitude towards understanding one’s own world-view, let alone that of others.

The sentence ”the ‘justifications’ … lie in the realm that combines the objective with the subjective … where culture and psychology reside” was put together hastily. I only wanted to place what is behind this or that religious outlook between

(a) pure “illusion” - as many atheists claim - and
(b) pure “objective reality” (term pinched from Marxists who tried to educate me) independent of human (personal and collective) perspectives - as those who want their faith translated verbatim into philosophical stances, claim).

Jungian psyche, archetypes, etc. are probably relevant here, but I do not want to go further into what for me is foreign territory.

Thanks for the Sagan quote I did not know. Especially the last sentence sounds more tolerant than I would have expected from him.

“Theists” can study the Hartle-Hawking (or other) models the same as atheists, provided they understand the relevant parts of mathematics and physics. They both can draw conclusions illustrating/enhancing their own world-view. As for “theists needing to reinterpret the role of their scriptures” I think some Christian and Jewish (to a lesser extent also Muslim) thinkers have been doing this for years, Christians call it Exegesis.

Thanks for your elaboration on Tillich. More perhaps later.

Dear Squeers,

Freud was an original (and controversial) thinker, and - like most of them - had followers and “anti-followers” among both those who could, and those who could not, understand him. His anti-religious polemic might have been original in the thirties, it is certainly not original today - unless I missed something - the same as e.g. Marx’s. Neither do I think that his commitment to “rigor and evidence” was something unusual even among scientists of his time. His contribution to psychology was, of course, ground-breaking, but so was Jung’s and - though perhaps to a lesser extent - Alfred Adler’s and Victor Frankl’s.

However, I said I did not want to comment on Freud as such but rather on his appropriation of the term “scientific world-view” implying that world-views of those whose philosophical outlook is different are necessarily somehow against science. I am not sure how people argued with him 80 years ago, however since then we have advanced in understanding HOW Christian world-views CAN BE compatible (or not) with (natural) science, although there are still many on both sides of the divide who, like Freud - or our Dan re evolution - prefer the conflict scenario.

If I wanted to further delve into psychology of world-views - which I don’t since psychology is not exactly my territory - I would probably try to read Karl Jaspers’ “Psychologie der Weltanschauungen” (I don’t think an English translation exists) since Jaspers is an existentialist, and some years ago I was flirting with existential philosophy.

I wanted to comment on your last paragraph in this post, however when I read your reply to OUG, I thought I better not. As can see, I have been called, sophisticated, condescending, sanctimoniously or not) so maybe you will allow me to express my disappointment:

I thought your reasons for rejecting religious (Christian or other) world-views - certainly a legitimate position from which also “theists” can learn to broaden their outlook, see e.g. Oliver’s reply to Dan - were more “sophisticated” than this.

George:
<I wanted to comment on your last paragraph in this post, however when I read your reply to OUG, I thought I better not. As can see, I have been called, sophisticated, condescending, sanctimoniously or not) so maybe you will allow me to express my disappointment:>

Dear George,
in all sincerity those epithets were not intended for you, indeed they were intended as no more than a reproof even directed at OUG, who is clearly sincere, but yet does condescend to the rest of us from his perceived privileged position. OUG holds forth from a position of certitude, whereas your position seems to me to be genuinely conflicted, as, believe it or not, is mine.
When I said above that I have "a very healthy respect for your perspective, and others here, not least because our elders have processed far more data than their juniors", I was alluding to your good self, and I meant "Elders" also in its honorific sense.
So apologies for my strident tone, but if you recall I've been just as strident about scientism and other matters I feel strongly about. As I've said before, George, I find you eminently reasonable and have no wish to offend. I shall desist from this thread now but look forward to considering your thoughts in the future.

Dear OUG,
can you see that you, on the other hand, are inflexible and dogmatic? Btw, I have a history of being critical of Dawkins.

Dear Squeers,

No apologies needed, and I certainly did not feel offended.

One could discuss the appropriateness levels of “strident tones” in expressing disagreement or just a different opinion, or - I think more interestingly - the difference (psychological?) between “positions of certitude” and a position “genuinely conflicted” (I believe mine is both, depending on how you look at it).

Perhaps some other time, but I shall also be looking forward to “considering your thoughts in the future”.