The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A veritable miracle: fine tuning without a fine tuner > Comments

A veritable miracle: fine tuning without a fine tuner : Comments

By Rowan Forster, published 24/12/2014

'The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Yuyutsu, which God? is it the one who lives on planet Kolob with more than one wife, in the form of a human being, (Morman) or is it all the other Gods created by man's. Imagination throughout the world, all are weird beyond belief and nearly all create havoc to the human population because of the belief system. All religions are selective in their readings in church, always the God of love, never the God of rape or hate, that being what we all want to hear, unfortunately all these God's have a long way to go before love and peace through religion extends to Mother Earth.
Posted by Ojnab, Sunday, 28 December 2014 10:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

You obviously meant Chickszentmihályi not Csikmentihaliy (the name derives from Chickszentmihály, a Hungarian village in Romania).

More importantly, I fail to find the “common denominator” of the names you listed. In particular, how you see Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory applied to the problem of the relation between the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and “God of the philosophers” (more precisely the two models or representations of the same God) that Sels and I view from different angles.

As far as your other views of religion - about looking but not seeing, listening but not hearing - I, of course, agree, though I would be more careful with quoting Einstein in support of the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. His idea of God was that of Spinoza.

Yuyutsu,

>> religion and those who are serious about it, should not get involved in science, but instead look at the other side of the scientific coin and say: "whose face is this? isn't this Caesar (representing the desire for egoistic control over nature)? then give him back his coin, it's his and we want nothing to do with it!" <<

The parable about the two sides of a coin was given as a warning against MIXING the two different things, not as an argument for the REJECTION of one in favour of the other. As I noted above, without science you would not be able, for instance, to communicate to us over the internet your, otherwise insightful, thoughts.

Anyhow, as a Christian I find Galileo’s two Books (of Scripture and of Nature) a better parable or metaphor for this relation. A non-Chistian might replace the first one with another sacred book or spiritual tradition rooted in his/her culture, including saying nothing about the Author/Inspirator of the two “books”.
Posted by George, Sunday, 28 December 2014 10:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
If you look at Aquinas' Summa you will find that he takes 26 questions until he gets to the Trinity and hence to an incorporation of Christ in questions about God. If you look at Calvin's Institutes you will find a similar development of the existence of god from natural considerations. Barth broke the mould in skipping the philosophical establishment of the existence of god and began with Christology. In short, he turned traditional theological method on its head. This, as you say, does not mean that philosophy is not important, although he was constantly picked at for not taking Kant seriously! The problem with natural theology or philosophical theology is that little copulatory "and" that destroys the simplicity of god. There can be no "and" when talking about God. He is either the God of A, I and J or he is not. He is either revealed hanging on a cross or he is not. That little "and" gives us a way out of the crisis for god and us in the crucifixion. We must be scattered like the disciples only to meet Christ anew in the resurrection. We cannot have a parallel account spun out of other considerations be they psychological, philosophical or what.

By the way, I have very much appreciated your contribution to these threads, especially those associates with my articles.
Posted by Sells, Sunday, 28 December 2014 10:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Somebody said that if you asked Aquinas which parts of his writings were philosophy and which theology, he would not understand your question. The explicit distinction between “God of A, I, and J” and “God of philosophers” comes from Pascal probably as a reaction to Aquinas, and others trying to “prove” God’s existence.

Aquinas was 13th century, Pascal 17th, both far away from contemporary epistemological insights. We cannot see Aquinas’ “proofs” on the same level as e.g. mathematical proofs, neither should we treat the two views of God that Pascal spoke of as mutually exclusive, although practising Christians, including philosophers, pray to the “God of A, I, and J” and not the “God of philosophers”, a fact that Pascal, and probably also Barth, stresses. What Aquinas and other philosophers say about God, as far as it is meaningful (and not everything of classical metaphysics seems to be) is compatible with the Christian image. (Incompatible with it might be what other religions say about God or the Divine: that would be what you refer to as “parallel account”).

The Trinitarian idea of God as represented (for Christians, revealed) in the Bible and Christian tradition, gives a FURTHER description of the God of philosophers that is not within reach of any metaphysics. As your wife can give a better description of you, than a whatever complete medical report would be able to. Because she knows you personally. And this is exactly what I believe Incarnation means - make us know God personally.

This, however, does not mean we must build our philosophy without the concept of God. Truely, without Revelation we cannot know God directly, only indirectly through his “creation”, more precisely through a philosophy of (contemporary) science inspired by the idea of God. The God who Thomists refer to as ipsum esse subsistens (the sheer act to be itself ). Other philosophers qua philosophers prefer Witgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”, some theologians among them switching to Barth’s approach.

Thanks for this opportunity to clarify my views on matters where I am far from an expert.
Posted by George, Monday, 29 December 2014 1:39:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George, I meant Mihaliy Cziksentmihaliy, yes (the 'Cz' is pronounced 'Ch').

The general systems theory, along with the game theory that Nash and Aumann have helped to develop into an important branch of mathematics, and Deutsch's enormously ambitious Constructor Theory project are a way of understanding relationships between states (conditions) by describing interactions at an individual level and iterating to the group. One of the huge problems for the leaders of societies throughout history has been the enormous complexity of human groups, which can often be driven in seemingly unpredictable ways by the influence of a single person.

The great religious texts have all focussed on defining how individuals should behave (limit possible choices). The great religious upheavals have all been driven by some individual or small group behaving in some way that was not defined, usually in response to a numinous experience that they felt allowed them to redefine righteousness.

The God of Abraham is perhaps the shining example of this, whereby the outcomes for the group are clearly linked to the behaviour of individuals. The God of the philosophers is a god of those who have to make decisions in the absence of the numinous. That God wants us all to make rightful choices because we are able to define what is right from within ourselves. It's still defined by boundary conditions, but they are often poorly defined. The human sciences have lagged the natural ones quite badly, but they are catching up, hence my suggested reading list.

I had an interesting discussion with a RC priest a few days ago on this and he had no problem understanding it or agreeing. On the other hand, I've tried to raise this discussion elsewhere and it's usually adherents to scientism that are most resistant.

I suspect that reflects the great need of people to be able to grasp simple ideas rather than complexity, which takes us full circle back to Abraham.

And the numinous is still with us, but it requires time to develop and recognise, which few have in their busy lives today.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 29 December 2014 7:01:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

<<The parable about the two sides of a coin was given as a warning against MIXING the two different things, not as an argument for the REJECTION of one in favour of the other.>>

Right, so it is not wrong if you have money and other things of the world, especially if the Holy Spirit inspires you to use it to do God's work - the main point is not to become attached to it, so if Caesar asks to have it back, then you give him what is his without clinging, without a second thought.

<<As I noted above, without science you would not be able, for instance, to communicate to us over the internet your, otherwise insightful, thoughts.>>

When you live in God, then there is nothing but God, so even the world and science and the internet are just God - you do those scientific things not because you care about the outcome or about the world being this way or that, but because it is your calling at the time to do so, so you are not really doing science, you are doing God's bidding - and whenever your calling changes, you leave it all behind without clinging, without a second thought.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 29 December 2014 7:45:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy