< super natural..is only the natural..made more special
in affect..the spirit realms..are totally*..natural..[with a marketing spin]>

Dear oug,

You apparently believe there is such a thing as the spirit realm. If you want to say it is natural you can say so. You can say anything you like. However, the spirit realm only exists in the imagination and saying the supernatural is really natural is nonsense.

Dear George,

I mentioned several attitudes towards science. One was “an inordinate faith in its ability to solve all kinds of problems” I admit that attitude is not confined to those ignorant of science. Sam Harris, a prominent atheist and neuroscientist, maintains that one can construct an objective morality based on the scientific method. I disagree with that and maintain that one simply cannot construct an objective morality by any means

I differentiate between the Inquisition and the Crusades in their connection with Christianity. Pope Urban II called for a Crusade. Primogeniture which left the younger sons of the nobility with lesser status and resources, disparities in wealth between the Muslim and Christian worlds and a disaffected peasantry were all factors which were not inherent to Christianity but were factors that brought on the Crusades.

I think the Inquisition is a logical consequence of the missionary imperative which is basic to Christianity and Islam. Until the fourth century Christianity was independent of the state. Under Theodosius Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and other religions extant at the time were persecuted. The union of church and state may exist without the promotion of any particular religion but a preference for religion over irreligion. In my view the religious beliefs or lack of it among its citizens should not be the business of government at all.

I oppose the union of religion and state and the union of ideology and state that existed and exists in the Marxist countries. The latter can be countered by saying democracy is an ideology. I consider democracy a mechanism for making decisions rather than an ideology.

continued

Continued

In Australia there are chaplains in the public schools and subsidies to religious schools. I oppose both uses of public funds. The US is the most religious of all the developed countries. In the US chaplains in the public schools and subsidies to religious schools are not allowed under US law. I oppose chaplains in public schools and subsidies to religious schools.

Religion can flourish with separation of religion and state. In fact the separation leaves religion freer to criticise the state. In Australia the Catholic bishops were expected to issue a pastoral letter opposing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the basis of its regressive nature. Prime Minister Howard announced an increased subsidy to Catholic schools, and no pastoral letter appeared.

Atheism is an inherent part of Marxism. However, the reverse is not true. Marxism is not inherent to atheism although I have met those who equate the two. On an Adriatic ferry between Brindisi and Patros I talked to a man who couldn’t seem to understand that I could be an atheist without being a Marxist.

Materialism may be other than dialectical materialism and consumerism. Materialism in philosophy is the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. I subscribe to that materialism.

Dear david f,

Again thanks for the insights that I can mostly share.

>> I disagree with that and maintain that one simply cannot construct an objective morality by any means <<

As you might know, my worldview is built around Plato’s beauty, truth and goodness, i.e. that one can approach everything from an aesthetic, rational and moral perspective. The moral is about norms of conduct, and they can be of an evolutionary type, inbuilt into us (“natural laws” in Catholic terminology) or determined by an external (to biological evolution) source.

That is my off the cuff description of morality. I know of attempts to reduce it to the rational dimension, that you mention. And also to the aesthetic (as somebody put it to me, “I would not murder for the same reasons I would not eat excrements”). I agree with neither of these forms of reducibility of the moral to the rational or the aesthetic.

I also agree that with our hindsight Crusades are more excusable than Inquisition. Of course, I never experienced Inquisition, only “inquisition” when we were asked to renounce our religious beliefs before HSC. Well only indirectly, since they interrupted the procedure - I never found out why - before it reached my name at the end of the alphabet. So whatever may be true about the reasons for Inquisition, it is a fact that - unlike this atheist “inquisition” - it was practiced many centuries ago.

I can understand your misgivings about the too slowly process of totally separating the state from Christianity in Australia (and elsewhere). Perhaps inertia plays its role not only in physics but also when passing from what used to be Christendom to a secular society.

I agree that there are atheists who are not Marxists, and dialectical materialism is only one form of atheism (or anti-theism). What you describe as “your” materialism is what I used to call the Sagan maxim, a belief, that there is nothing that science cannot potentially explain, or, as I like to put it, that all reality is reducible to the physical.

.

Dear George,

.

[ >>I consider that the restriction you propose is “void ab initio” <<

Of course, you are entitled to consider thus a worldview you do not share. I hope I am more open minded than that. ]

.

That is an interesting way of seeing things, George. But I think that what you are looking is their reflection in a mirror.

Your proposal had a restriction attached to it which I took off, thus opening it up to a much broader perspective (world view).

However, nothing is lost. The more restrictive version is contained in the broader version. The inverse, naturally, is not possible.

I also took the precaution of asking you your justification for the restriction. Though you have not yet replied, please be assured that I have an open mind on the subject and am more than willing to revise my position if you show good reason for doing so.

I am particularly attentive, when engaging a debate - any debate, on any subject - in examining the hypotheses which are to serve as the basis of discussion.

Experience has taught me that the type of minced meat you can get out of a mincing machine is determined by the type of meat you put into it. If you put chunks of beef into it, there is no way you can get anything out of it other than minced beef– no minced pork, minced veal or minced lamb, for example.

I directed a risk analysis a few years ago for a major French multinational industrial group. The engineer in charge of the mathematics part of the study produced a very thick report which I submitted to my chief actuary for opinion. He took it home and studied it over the weekend and reported back on the Monday that the mechanics of the analysis were absolutely impeccable and the conclusion perfectly logical. He added, however, that he had no way of verifying the initial data and hypotheses on which the final outcome was dependent.

Hence my analogy of the mincing machine.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued)...

.

None of this is specific to our present discussion.

I have no desire to resemble Richard Dawkins or any of his religious opponents. I have no axe to grind. Whatever be the conclusions of the debates and discussions in which I participate, here or elsewhere, I welcome them with pleasure – provided the discussions are frank and open and the dice are not loaded.

.

[ >>Proof or evidence are elements which establish the truth of something.<<

Please read my question again. It was about what proof or evidence for the "supernatural" (or God) you would suggest that would convince you. It was not about a dictionary definition of proof or evidence in general. ]

I re-read your question. Here is what it said:

“As I said many times, I do not understand what you mean by proof (or evidence) of the existence of the “supernatural” e.g. God?”

My reply to that question is:

Proof or evidence of “the existence of the supernatural e.g. God” are elements which establish the truth of their existence (reality). Such elements may take the form of falsifiable material evidence and/or circumstantial evidence and/or the testimony of credible eye witnesses.

I can subscribe without reserve to the rest of your long post though the following comment you made has got me thinking:

“The Christian equivalent of “believe in God as long as they feel the need to do so, irrespective of whether he exists or not” would be claiming that atheists “cannot help it because they are unable to see the light of Truth” or something like that.”

I can’t help feeling you are somehow comparing apples and oranges here. There may well be a Christian equivalent, but I’m not sure you’ve got the right one.

.

<<The/supernatural..(Medieval Latin:..: supra.."above"..+..naturalis.."nature",..
is.that..which is..*not subject..to the laws..of physics,..>>

which/physical/laws?

<<..more figuratively,..that..which is..said
to exist..above..and beyond nature.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

<<..In/Catholicism,..while..the meaning..of the term..and its antithesis/vary,..the “Supernatural_Order”..is the/gratuitous production..by God,..of the/ensemble..of miracles..for..the elevation of..man..to..a state/of grace>>..

man/used generally..but..lets
get..to specifics..[grace=universal]

<<..the gratuitous/production..by God,>>.is..that..we see
in nature..[full_stop]..[anything..not natural..is of mice/men..[creations/productions..thus not..gods]

<<..of/the ensemble..of miracles>>..david/me..are
agreed..that/there..are..no god/made miracles..
[ignoring god..creates/sustains..life/living..[the*real..miracle..as witnessed..in creation..[true_miracles]..

david says..no god..
thus..*only..'nature'/natural-process
so..what..is..'natural'..NEEDS include..all that we see/hear/feel/say/do

have..you seen..domino?..or chriss/angel
we know..that's..a trick..yet its..*all PERFECTLY..natural*

we/have..reports..of flying-saints=thus seen=natural
the/reasoning..being..he/was just..an effective/jumper

the whole..super*natural..thing..
was invented..by religion..[thus/spin]

<<..The supernatural/order..was analyzed
primarily..by..scholastic and post-Tridentine..*theologians.>>.

<<..the supernatural/order,..are historically
classified..into three..groups:[3]

1..present.de/facto..condition
{Pelagianism,Beghards,Stoic influence),

2...the original/status..of man

3...possibility..and evidence
(Rationalist School,..from Socinus to the present Modernists)

<<>.From..the commonly/received axiom..
that..“grace*..does not destroy..but only..perfects nature”..

<<..they..establish between..the two/orders..a parallelism..
that..is/not mutual-confusion..or reciprocal-exclusion,..*but distinction..and..sub-ordination*..>>...

<<..The..novel/theory*..consists
in..making nature..postulate..the supernatural...Whatever/be..the legitimity of the purpose,..the method*..is ambiguous..and full-of pitfalls.>>

<<..Between..the Schoolmen's/potentia obedientialis..and appetitus moralis..and the Modernist tenet..according to/which..the supernatural..“emanates*..from nature*..spontaneously and entirely”..there is..space and..distance;

<<..at the/same time,.the Catholic/apologist..who
would attempt..to fill some..of the space..and.,.cover some/of the distance..should keep..in mind the admonition..of Pius X>>

but those.who..arnt bound..accept
the clear..separation..from that able..to be seen/heard
and felt..and that..a/mere trick..of a/clever maggi..or..a decree..or a flaw..or..a hope..or faith..

we must see..gods domain=the natural/the nurture=life/love/logic/light..[the basics]

a..super/nature..would..*require a..super god..
as if..the natural/nurture..good/god..isnt good enough

david..it all..hangs
on..what you mean..by natural/nature..and super nature..

i see/the miracle..in the mundane..
why..do you need*..to say..anything is..super..mundane?

what..for you..comes naturally
is informed..only..by super effort..
but that..all depends on..how..we define natural

[for you
all..that exists=natural..[naturally]
for you..nature..is mundane..[natural]

all..i see..is super..
[the miracle..of logical..natural..law/flaw]
all..i experience..i..*know is..natural..[naturally natures/nurture]

its..all super..[for me]
tell me..what means SUPER+NORMAL?

extra normal..?..
or cliche..mundane normal?