Upon reading the above I regret my previous dismissal of the comments that my articles provoke. This is all rather interesting. I find myself firmly in the middle of the realist/idealist argument. As a scientist I would affirm the existence of a reality apart from us, that we may know in fair detail given that we navigate through it and manipulate it in increasingly complex ways. As a theologian I tend towards the idealist though with feet firmly planted in the realist. Christian theology can never be disengaged from the world to float freely in the ideal scheme or the socially constructed. The creation stories affirm the existence of the world as does the incarnation the centrality of the body.

As for the word "soul" I agree with George. As I tried to say in the article, it is no longer possible to believe in the way Augustine, for example, believed. We live in a different time in which "nature" has, through natural science, become a dominant mode of thinking about the world. This has largely displaced the theological mode, much, I would argue, to our impoverishment.

Dear Peter,

<<We live in a different time in which "nature" has, through natural science, become a dominant mode of thinking about the world. This has largely displaced the theological mode, much, I would argue, to our impoverishment.>>

Very true indeed.

Then why would you want to give this sad mode of thinking even more power? Just tell it: "Get behind me, Satan" and keep your gaze away.

<<it is no longer possible to believe in the way Augustine, for example, believed.>>

Why not? Why such defeatism? If there is a will, then there is a way!

.

Dear Sells,

.

You confessed :

« Upon reading the above I regret my previous dismissal of the comments that my articles provoke »

.

Redemption is near, Sells. A few lashes on the back should do it …

.

AJ Philips,
Thanks for reminding me where I got the quote, I have the book in front of me and it’s also available as a preview online: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HgyCdsO3paoC&pg=PA248&dq=always+already+presupposed+in+all+our+acts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7fNuVMWYEsG3mAX4pYDICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=always%20already%20presupposed%20in%20all%20our%20acts&f=false
so you can check out the section yourself, page 248 on. Apologies for the wrong attribution; sloppy note taking, not sloppy googling. However, according to ZIzek, Dennett’s position is far more radical. It’s a difficult passage but according to my reading, Dennett allows the subject far less autonomy, assigning to words a primary function whereby they suggest themselves in concert with the brains ‘software’ to write new ‘adaptations’, a la evolution. According to Zizek’s paraphrase, “The human mind is thus a pandemonium of competing forces: words impose themselves, want to be spoken, so that we often say something without knowing in advance what we wanted to say. The function of language is thus ultimately ‘parasitic’…” (254).
This “allows no place for the Cartesian ‘cogito’, or transcendental self-consciousness” (254).
I hope you’ll read the section and get back to me with your response to my challengs:
“Ironically it’s you, AJ, who must account for the objective stance/use of language you believe you possess”?

Am interested in your stuff, George and shall get to it as soon as I may.

Yuyutsu,
You talk about belief as if it is something we screw up our nerve and do rather than be convinced of the truth. I have been reading Augustine lately and it is obvious that we must move on from where he was. It is not true that the closer to the source a writer is the purer the stream. Augustine was working under all sorts of limitations that we cannot own in our time.

George:
while I think scientific realists overestimate its 'adequacy', It's not that I dispute that there is a legitimate third person stance, and more that I think that underestimate discursive 'interference'. Though in any case we still need an explanation for our a priori insight that goes beyond Kant. I might as well stress here that I am not an idealist, and certainly accept the reality of the phenomenal universe. And it's not that we have no direct access to it, a la Kant, but that our minds are ideologically diverted (not constructed).
The more important upshot of this (for me) is the politico-economic 'heading' that scientific innovation takes. Hence my comments above: "...its trial and error accomplishments ... often have negative consequences because the feigned objectivity has no higher directive (which is not to invoke God), only an economic or political one, generally cynical".

So it's not science--I've read a great deal of the accessable stuff and love it--or reason I'm objecting to, but it's default support ('objectivity') for an indefensible (on so many levels) social order.

The difference between 'soul' and the others is 'immortality' is it not?

I did indeed read you through, and looked at links, but yes time was pressing : (