Dear david f,

>> it does not follow that rejection of a supernatural of any kind and having a high regard for the scientific method as a means of obtaining information about the world means that one maintains that science can explain everything or that there are not aspects of reality beyond the reach of science.<<

I read this a couple of times to understand what you mean. Do you mean that “rejection of a supernatural of any kind” does not imply that one maintains “that there are not aspects of reality beyond the reach of science”?

Well, I always put “supernatural” in quotation marks - to distinguish it from the occultists’ supernatural with its ghosts and ‘spiritual energies’ - meaning EXACTLY that it refers to reality, or its aspects, that is beyond the reach of science, whatever one calls it (the Divine, Kant’s Noumenon, Otto’s Das Heilige, spiritual world etc.).

I think, where we differ is that you see this “supernatural” reducible to the mental, whereas I don't. That is a clear and fair distinction.

Therefore I prefer - see again my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 - to speak of WORLDS (the three Penrose’s, physical, mathematical, mental plus a “supernatural”) where worldview differences are expressed as beliefs in the REDUCIBILITY or not of one world to another. As mathematicians and physicists can communicate irrespective of whether or not they are mathematical Platonists (believing in the irreducibility of the mathematical world to the other two), so can they coomunicate irrespective of what they hold about the reducibility or irreducibility of the “supernatural”.

I know, this approach bypasses the undefinable terms “exists” and “reality” just by introducing another such pair “world” and “reducibility”.

By the way, my fondness for quotation marks comes from my PhD supervisor many years ago: whan explaining (in the Introduction) what your thesis is all about you should be able to define any terms you use. However, when you put something in quotation marks, you assume the reader can guess what it means, in spite of the fuzziness that does not allow for a precise definition.

AJ Philips,

I never claimed “the Christian god” did not (does not) communicate with us, only that He does not COMPEL EVERYBODY to reciprocate His attempts to communicate. That is usually referred to as granting us free will.

I accept that I do not satisfy your understanding of what is Christian.

Most people use mathematics in their everyday life, but their understanding of what mathematics is all about is often naive compared to that of a professional mathematician. Similarly my understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology is on a level rather naive compared to Dawkins’ understanding. Similarly there are also different levels of understanding (interpreting) Christian beliefs in the 21st century, although - as you know - the level of understanding is not a criterion for being a “good” Christian. There are other criterions.

Sorry for all that, but this is how things are, and I cannot help it. Neither can I stop you from keeping on accusing me of all sorts of things that are irrelevant to the understanding of what I was trying to say.

Dear George,

Without any other qualification I feel there are aspects of reality which are out of the reach of science.

I do not distinguish the supernatural conjured up by the religious theorist (the Divine, Kant’s Noumenon, Otto’s Das Heilige, spiritual world etc.) from the occultists’ supernatural with its ghosts and ‘spiritual energies’. You are correct. I see the former reducible to the mental. I also see the latter reducible to the mental. It may be something the religious theorist sincerely believes in or merely the creation of the flimflam artist. It doesn’t matter. It has no existence outside of the human mind. If no humans existed the supernatural conjured up by the religious theorist (the Divine, Kant’s Noumenon, Otto’s Das Heilige, spiritual world etc.) and the occultists’ supernatural with its ghosts and ‘spiritual energies’ would not exist either since it only exists in the human mind. However, the phenomenal world would still exist. We do exist, but I think we will never be able to completely understand or even to access the entire phenomenal world by science or other means. I make an analogy of Gödel’s theorem applied to a computable axiomatic system with the scientific method applied to the phenomenal world. Our knowledge must remain incomplete.

I see no reason to equate aspects of reality that we cannot know about with anything 'spiritual'.

Dear david f,

Ghosts or no ghosts, I see that you can agree with my description of our worldview differences expressed as belief in the reducibility or not of the world I called “supernatural” - or spiritual or what - to the mental.

We still can make statements, express our feelings, etc regarding this and the other three worlds and thus communicate. Certainly I have learned a lot from some (albeit not all) of your beliefs and opinions. Like two mathematicians - one a Platonist who believes in the irreducibility, the other, say, an intuitionist who does not - can discuss mathematics in spite of their different philosophical approaches to it.

i want to pose an impulse/question..as it comes to mind

what if i..said only prime number exsist..
because i believe..only that..which PROVES prime numbers..
proves anynumbers reality..is real..[able to be proved/prime]..

all them..un-prime..*not provably*..to be prime numbers..
thus cannot be *validated..[falsified]..into existence

[ignore the math..that proves they do
how could it be proved true..in word/..alone

yet there we are..
what are prime number falsification?
cannot deny..that the non-prime numbering..dont exist

disproving a double negative?

[there possibly..is a better number example
[say only whole numbers exist..and fractions..are a figments of mind thing]

till i can prove it..to those
not able to grasp..the math conditioning

can a thing..exist..without proof..*that it exists..?

ps re the detraction..there are many truths
but it seems only..one type of atheist..
wherever religiousness post

[no that is wrong..
david proves there is more than..one type
and my atheism..[against religion creeds tricks]..yet believing in god..is atheist me[type 3]

we sort of..clarified all this long ago
when the at-heist.[now secular]..party said..it spoke for us all

but then my guides remind..
dont feed the off topic troll
some..may try to heist..at-heist..ism

anyhow i sort of tried refuting aj's impost
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15086#15086

but i expect it will disappear in editing

.

Dear George,

.

« So my metaphor about walking did not convey to you what I thought it could.”

.

Yes it did, George. I understood you perfectly. You are a great pedagogue.

Who could doubt that science has its limitations (your expert advice) ? Who could doubt that they are constantly evolving (my layman’s observation) ?

Let us, therefore, content ourselves with defining its point of destination and set it free.

As Bertrand Russell observed:

“Science may set limits to knowledge but should not set limits to imagination”

.

“I assumed you saw yourself as an atheist (not necessarily an anti-theist, the distinction that has been introduced in the terminology rather recently).”

.

I am not an atheist. Nor am I an anti-theist.

I am just a man. A very ordinary man.

And if I may invoke Bertrand Russell just one more time, please allow me to remark (as he did) :

“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong”.

.

“[Even on a naive, level - seeing god as a being comparable to e.g. Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747 - you cannot demand of such an earthly “superbeing” to communicate with you on your terms. And if he does not, and communicates only with those he choses, you cannot imply that this is so because he is unable to meet your terms.]”

.

Don’t worry, George, I won’t be offended if god does not contact me. I know it’s impossible.

.