The author muses, supposes and postulates as he or she tells us what he or she believes and what he or she thinks others may or may not believe? But nothing about what he or she knows.

I know a couple of things.

#/1 Energy can neither be created or destroyed and what we see as our visible universe is created out of it in many altered forms.

#/2 And as mass composed of rapidly vibrating atoms with vast atomic spaces in-between.

#/3 Moreover, this visible discernable universe is but a small fraction of the mater in the universe, with dark matter representing the bulk of it.

#/4 And in the most plausible theory yet, the actual source of the energy component that was transformed to become the known universe, which includes you and I, every living breathing being, plant-animal and inanimate objects air water and the entire planet that serves as host for the latter.

As for intelligent design? We know that e.g., we can create pseudo-life in a laboratory. i.e., viruses, but only in carefully prearranged formats and under carefully controlled conditions, and even then, only ever in the presence of an overseeing intelligence.

As one gazes at a night sky resplendent with more visible stars than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the entire world!

It simply and completely beggars belief that all this and the many steps that proceeded it was the result of serendipity or fortuitous happenstance!
Alan B.

Meanwhile what about Consciousness, and Light which is The Energy of Consciousness.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/broken.html

Plus the contents of this book provide the answers to all of the points/questions that George posits - and much more too.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/index.html

Just face it George, being an atheist is totally irrational. No one is stupid enough to believe something comes from nothing and that design requires a Designer. No amount of excuses for such ignorance from educated men passes any sort of intelligence test.

To George Virsik,

I must say, philosophy is a world of wonderment. Often it will tell a story and help us understand a story from a whole different perspective, a different world view, and a different world one person lives in compared to another. At least in so much as their situations, and their experiences differ that would make them live worlds apart.

However it is easy to get lost in the world of philosophical reason. Without a foundation to ready oneself against what is real and what isn't almost anything can be believed, sometimes even spoken well in spite of it being real or not. A look at politics shows how bias judges the same events and cuts to different conclusions. One would see a failed approach and say, this failed, we should never try it again; while another will look at a failed approach and say we failed this time, but if we try harder it will work this time. With a bias against certain politics and policies, any political view can look at their own party's failures and say "we need to try harder, and this time succeed," while at the same time look at the other parties' policies and say "they fail over and over again, when will we learn to throw them away."

(Continued)

(Continued)

My point is that it's easy to get lost in just philosophical reasoning. Without a foundation to say, "this is real," anything can be believed. Without a measure of what is real, anything can be misunderstood, exaggerated or ignored.

In this case I would wager that these philosophical musings paint a story and a landscape to tell it's tale, but it doesn't get the details right. So how can it accurately decide if either side of the argument is real or if it is just lost in thought.

Please, don't take that as an insult. I appreciate you trying to see the world from a theist's perspective. But there are details missing. And theologies that are merged or ignored from different religions united under the banner of religion and theism.

I can not speak from the details of a Muslim, nor from the scope of a Hindu. But I can give a better picture from a worldview within Christianity. If Christianity is true or holds the truth in it's different views, then understanding it based on what it actually is should be the method. Not a mixing of all religions. The same idea is true if Hinduism is true, or Islam is true. Or if anything else is true. It can only really be weighted and measured accurately if it is represented accurately and not a mix of other religions.

Since I am not from a background of other theistic religions, I can not give you a better understanding of many other religions as a whole. But if you are interested, I can give you a better picture of a Christian theistic view. If you are interested. For the sake of philosophical understanding, or for the sake of seeking what's true and measuring it from the the truths of Jesus and God being a firm part of the world we live in.

.

Dear George,

.

1. You wrote :

« Reality - objective, all that exists independent of whether or not thought of by humans - has aspects or features that are principally not accessible by (natural) science; these aspects one calls transcendent, (divine, spiritual, supernatural) »

[Would you kindly provide a few examples please ?]
.

2. You also wrote :

« … if some properties assigned to God seem to go against common sense … so do some properties assigned to matter ... Put simply, in both physics and metaphysics, one needs to go beyond a naive common-sense approach »
.

In other words, transcendence and metaphysics are one and the same phenomenon – which you refer to as God.

Much has been attributed to “God” ever since primeval man invented the concept to explain anything and everything he did not understand. Though, the list has somewhat diminished down the ages.

But let’s not jump to hasty conclusions regarding that which continues to remain “inaccessible” to our understanding today. Future generations may yet achieve that which we have not.

I, personally, am happy to go along with your default position: that “there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world”.

As you very wisely observed, when all is said and done :

« the final arbiter is personal faith » – at least, for those who may be a little impatient and feel the need for it !

.

To Banjo Paterson.

I know you're talking to George, but there's a few points you've made that aren't right.

An ongoing problem is to philosophize other people's positions as a means to dismiss them altogether instead of consider them on what they've said and accept or reject them based on what they've said.

The two points you do this are these:

<<Much has been attributed to “God” ever since primeval man invented the concept to explain anything and everything he did not understand. Though, the list has somewhat diminished down the ages.>>

<< <<the final arbiter is personal faith » – at least, for those who may be a little impatient and feel the need for it !>>

We live in an age where people make excuses for dismissing and not listening to others. And it's gotten to the point where people are good at making themselves sound wise, when they only go to make dismiss a group of others to sound foolish.

No, look at what a person says on an individual basis, instead of grouping all people of faith as trying to explain what they don't understand. Look at what one person says or another, before listing them as only speaking from a needless need to believe. There are too many examples from people I see that don't fit into either generalization. Both people that I agree with, and people who I don't agree with who are religious that don't fit into these generalizations by their words, actions, or faith.

Though those generalizations make it easier to address your concerns of religion or of faith, they aren't accurate. You can tell they aren't accurate by listening to a variety of people in any faith. Their words don't match the generalizations attributed to them.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« An ongoing problem is to philosophize other people's positions as a means to dismiss them altogether instead of consider them on what they've said and accept or reject them based on what they've said »

Isn’t that a “general” statement ? Are you not “philosophizing” my position, doing precisely what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing ?

If you carefully re-read my previous post you will see that I was commenting on two specific statements made by George which I quoted in inverted commas. I was commenting precisely on what he said.

He said that “reality … has aspects or features that are principally not accessible by (natural) science; these aspects one calls transcendent, (divine, spiritual, supernatural) ». He also said that “if some properties assigned to God seem to go against common sense … so do some properties assigned to matter” and that “in both physics and metaphysics, one needs to go beyond a naive common-sense approach ».

Having clearly quoted what he said, I commented as follows :

“In other words, transcendence and metaphysics are one and the same phenomenon – which you refer to as God”

I reminded him that “much has been attributed to “God” ever since primeval man invented the concept to explain anything and everything he did not understand. Though, the list has somewhat diminished down the ages” [as has the number of gods].

And I added a note of caution : “let’s not jump to hasty conclusions regarding that which continues to remain “inaccessible” to our understanding today. Future generations may yet achieve that which we have not”.

I agreed with his default position (which he indicated) that “there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world”.

I also agreed with his observation that « the final arbiter is personal faith », adding : “at least, for those who may be a little impatient and feel the need for it !” – those who cannot wait for scientific explanations which they fear impossible and feel the need for God.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for your comment touching on a weak point in my quasi-philosophical essay.

>>[Would you kindly provide a few examples please ?]<<

Examples of aspects or features of reality that people believe(d) in and are principally not accessible by science? Please note that I speak of an assumption, a belief (or rather an unbelief in the sufficiency of natural science to provide knowledge of everything that there is), not a claim I should provide examples for to support it.

Of course, there are many religions built around many mythological beings that you would not consider as worthy objects of scientific investigations, hence transcendent in this sense. Here you touched a weak point. I refer to transcendence as that part of Reality that cannot be investigated by CONTEMPORARY natural scientists: today no scientist would look for hell or heaven using the same methods as when looking for e.g. Earth-like exoplanets, although a medieval person might think hell was deep underground, heaven above the clouds, etc. See also the second last paragraph of the article.

Most important of all those “things” believed to exist although science has no access to them is, of course, (the concept of) God, modelled (understood) differently by different religions or philosophers, who represents this transcendence.

>>In other words, transcendence and metaphysics are one and the same phenomenon – which you refer to as God.<<

Transcendence is an attribute or a realm of Reality, not a phenomenon. Neither is God, and as physics is a branch of science so is metaphysics “the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, … ” (New Oxford American Dictionary).

>> Much has been attributed to “God” ever since primeval man invented the concept to explain anything and everything he did not understand.<<

This is the famous God of the gaps that e.g. Richard Dawkins believes in, and rightfully calls it a delusion.

You need personal faith to understand “why there is something rather than nothing”, like you need mathematics to understand what contemporary physics is all about.

Dear Alan B.,

>>I know a couple of things.<<

So do I and one of them is that you did not understand what the article was about. The same for runner.

Dear Daffy Duck,

Thanks for the links. Although I do not know what questions I asked that you have all the ansers for, I dowqnloaded and shall certainly read http://www.consciousnessitself.org .

Dear Not-Now-Soon,

Thank you for your concern. Since I am 81, I probably was a practicing Christian before you were born. This, however does not mean I could not engage with an atheist in an eye level philosophical debate without an urge to proselytize.

Dear George, et al,
People at large believe many things, proven and unproven; and many theorize about many things which are totally beyond their comprehension.
Knowing may be a part of being, but merely being does not mean knowing.
The human capacity for folly appears boundless.

However, re:
<<You need personal faith to understand “why there is something rather than nothing”, like you need mathematics to understand what contemporary physics is all about.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:25:29 AM>> (Thread P2)

I can't agree with that postulation, for merely being I am already aware that there is something, and that I am something.
However, you may be alluding to the burning question of where it all came from - the universe, the Big Bang, energy, order, physical and mathematical constants, the myriad wonders of structure and form, and the greatest wonder of all - of life itself, of ourselves and our awareness and neurological capabilities, as well as the myriad of other life-forms which share our existence.
However, I do not need faith to accept the apparent miracle of our being and of our capacity to learn and to understand many things.

There are many unknowns, including whether there may be a God, a many-faceted one God, or indeed many gods - and, if so, whether God or many gods may now be busy building another universe or busy 'tweaking' one to avoid some of the major apparent weaknesses of ours.
As Christians we are taught that there is only one true God, but it is not made clear whether this God is also the Allah of Islam, or the Zeus, or Krishna or ...?

We exist, and I believe we have a responsibility to value this life, and to value and have due regard for all life, human and otherwise.
As a supposed superior 'creation' (whether by accident or design) we are decidedly making a muck of it.
(Cont'd):

Continuing:)
So many problems in the world today, so many created by human kind, so many disagreements and conflicts - with so many of the latter supposedly founded on religious differences. How unfortunate that a supposed ultimate creation (us) can be so flawed, so self-serving, so lacking in tolerance and understanding, so 'sinful'.

Were it not that a total lack of religion would almost certainly result in total anarchy and chaos, I would almost pray for it.
But, pray to what? Perhaps to an unknown insight, a willow-the-wisp which might enlighten the world of humanity with the essences of integrity, of ethics, of honour, and of a genuine brotherhood of humankind.

Islam appears frazzled and torn by dissent in many quarters.
The Buddhists have severely damaged their copybook in Myanmar - though the Delhi Lama (of Tibet) continues to be a shining light in the wilderness (in my humble opinion).
We Christians continue to have quite a lot to answer for, and I'm not sure that Judaism is coping all that well.
However, the Hindus appear capable of exhibiting enormous stoicism - given the very poor lot of so many.

What to choose as a reliable way forward?
Creation or Evolution? I'll stick with evolution, and sheer luck.
The best of luck, humanity - we're going to need it.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I refer to transcendence as that part of Reality that cannot be investigated by CONTEMPORARY natural scientists … »

In my view, that part of reality can and possibly is already being investigated today, not by “contemporary natural scientists”, but by neuroscientists (or neurobiologists) working in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and, perhaps, other specialists as well.

It seems to me that reality, as you defined it, (“objective, all that exists independent of whether or not thought of by humans”), is not auto-transcendental. It cannot transcend itself. If, indeed, it can be transcended, it can only be transcended by an “other”, i.e., an “other reality” endowed with the faculty of consciousness.

By the way, allow me to add that I think your definition of reality should be enlarged to include not only “humans” but all life-forms endowed with the faculty of consciousness, as, for example, my definition of “other”.

I agree with Kant that reality exists as a “thing-in-itself”. But I disagree that it possesses any objective, transcendental aspects or qualities as you suggest. In my opinion, any such visions or interpretations are simply mental or, should I say, psychological projections of particular observers.

In other words, in my view, "transcendental aspects of reality" are simply figments of the imagination.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think it was Heidegger who said that “the idealism of transcendentalism gave way to existential angst a long time ago”.

Needless to say, I disagree with your statement : “Transcendence is an attribute or a realm of Reality, not a phenomenon. Neither is God”.

And as for your concluding remark : « You need personal faith to understand “why there is something rather than nothing” », I see faith (in God) not as a means of understanding, but as a motive of acceptance of reality as it is, despite lack of understanding of why it is as it is.

I, personally, have no need for faith in a God in order to do that - patiently waiting for a possible, acceptable explanation.

.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thanks for the post. There is not enough place here to react to all the topics you touch upon, mostly unrelated to the article. So let me just point out that I agree when you say

>> I do not need faith to accept the apparent miracle of our being and of our capacity to learn and to understand many things. <<

Neither do I - see my reference to methodological atheism - the emphasis being on ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND - which is not an answer to the fundamental metaphysical WHY question that I stated in relation to personal faith. Of course, you do not need to ask that question.

Personal faith is related to this or that religion, which has not only philosophical but also psychological, anthropological, sociological, historical, cultural etc dimensions that I did not deal with in this article. So, in my opinion, the answer to that WHY question is also a many-faceted approach to God.

Allah is the Arabic word for God used also by Arab Christians. You apparently did not understand my allusion to physics - c.f. “a God” or “many Gods” as in “a gravitation” or “many gravitations”. There are a couple of theories of gravitation and there are many representation, I use the term “models”, of God.

I am surprised that you see Creation and Evolution as alternatives. The default Christian position in the 21st century is that creation, that the Bible is referring to, happened (and is happening) through evolution in time.

Dear Banjo,

What you mean to say is that for you what I called transcendent part of Reality is an empty set. That is the standard atheist position. By the way, look up the definition of transcendent, if you do not like mine - no mention of phenomenon.

If that is what Heidegger said, then he was sadly true, even more today than then.

You are right to object to my clumsy “You need personal faith to understand 'why there is something rather than nothing'”. faith indeed does not lead to UNDERSTANDING, only to accepting a satisfying - hence PERSONAL faith - ANSWER.

>>I, personally, have no need for faith in a God in order to do that<<

Only you can tell what you have a need for. Besides, this article was not about having a need for anything.

Dear George,

I'm sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted the purpose, or ultimate message, of your extremely detailed article.

Perhaps, however, I may be allowed to offer a few suggestions.

I glean that you, personally, retain a start-point of the absolute existence of God, and that God has indeed created the universe and all that it contains - though over a somewhat extended period, judging by your response to me that:

<<I am surprised that you see Creation and Evolution as alternatives. The default Christian position in the 21st century is that creation, that the Bible is referring to, happened (and is happening) through evolution in time.>>

At this point I have to say that my personal evaluation of the possible existence of a Creator is based on physics and probability, not as a physicist but as a mere mortal entranced by the myriad of questions relating to how all we see, observe and record could possibly have come about. Questions relating to the Big Bang's origin and causation, as to the formation and composition of the Universe, and particularly of the virtually miraculous formation and operation of our Solar System, and as also to the extraordinary beginnings of life on this planet.

Unfortunately I have to reject your positing of 'extended-creation' as an explanation for (or a/the purported mechanism behind) Evolution.
The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs.

Whereas possibility remains (in my estimation) of some outside 'intervention' in the origination of our universe and the subsequent arrangement of matter in its early development (or evolution), and in the subsequent beginnings of simple life on this planet (including perhaps the 'chance' formation of the first multi-cellular life), I do not believe, or accept, that any further 'tweaking' or intervention has been necessary to account for the subsequent Evolution of Life on Earth as we know it, and as has been recorded or alluded to.

If God does exist, I feel He/She would have to be very disappointed with our squabbling over 'transcendental machinations' (or neurological happenstance) while 'Eden' is driven to destruction.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

« What you mean to say is that for you what I called transcendent part of Reality is an empty set. That is the standard atheist position. By the way, look up the definition of transcendent, if you do not like mine - no mention of phenomenon »

As I indicated, I disagree with your statement that “Transcendence is an attribute or a realm of Reality, not a phenomenon. Neither is God”.
If, indeed, reality can be transcended, I consider that it cannot be transcended by itself, but only by an observer endowed with the faculty of consciousness.

I consider that what you interpret as "transcendental aspects of reality" are simply mental or psychological projections of the observer, a figment of his or her imagination – which is why I suggested that such phenomena (projections of transcendence, God, etc.) are possibly already being investigated today, not by “contemporary natural scientists”, but by neuroscientists, or neurobiologists, working in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and, perhaps, other specialists as well.

The reason being, of course, that such phenomena are more likely to be found, not in any observed reality, but in the minds of those particular observers, due to their personal biological, neurological and psychological processes.

That, to me, is the most satisfactory explanation of the “transcendence” you describe in your very interesting “quasi-philosophical essay”.

I am not surprised to learn that it is also the “standard atheist position”. It makes good sense to even an ordinary person such as myself.

The phenomena I had in mind, of course, were not the transcendence and God, but the mental or psychological projections and imagination.

Sorry for the confusion.

.

To George.

<<Thank you for your concern. Since I am 81, I probably was a practicing Christian before you were born. This, however does not mean I could not engage with an atheist in an eye level philosophical debate without an urge to proselytize.>>

I honestly don't think that lumping all religions together as the same thing is a good idea. (Nor an honest one). But it is a common philosophical stance. If there is a generalization to be made, try to make it as accurate as possible. That's just one of the concerns I was trying to make, not that I was trying to prosseytize. But just that I thought the record should be streight before conversations continued. I can't speak for those following other religions, but the psychological points of theists and pre-theists aren't an accurate representation of Christian stances. I assume it's probabley not accurate of other religious stances either.

None the less if you three want to have a philosophical debate on religion without anyone from a religous perspective intervene to set the records streight, then by all means go ahead. In the end though, I want you guys to know that you have a lot to talk about before it reaches an accord of truth and the reality of the people of religion being philosophized about.

I'll step away from it. If you guys can discuss your way to the truth of the matter, (essentially the reality that is being philosophized about) then you'll have to be able to discuss your weak points among eachother to strengthen eachother up, and correct each other on the matters that aren't accurate.

None the less I'll step out of it. This is an atheist conversation about theists. No religous persons allowed.

Dear Saltpetre,

You are right that my position on the theist-atheist controversy is the standard Christian one, although the article was not about what I believe but an attempt to clarify misunderstandings about the controversy.

Physics does not say anything about God-Creator (as understood by e.g. Christians) as it does not say anything about e.g. Shakespeare. I agree with most of what you say about HOW the world functions (to find out is the task of natural science) and for that you do not need the concept of God (c.f. my reference to methodological atheism). God is one answer to WHY everything exists and can be known by us, a question not everybody today wants to ask.

>>The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs.<<

Neither of evolution, gravitation theory, quantum mechanics etc - terms unknown to the original addressees of the Bible which is not a textbook of science as understood in the 21st century.

If God exists then he is the Creator (i.e. the ultimate cause) also of time (or times if multiverse is assumed) in which evolution happens.

Dear Banjo,

We began to go around in circles. You cannot disagree with a definition - c.f. my calling transcendent aspects or features of Reality that are principally not accessible by natural science - you can only offer a different one (as you apparently do). An atheist believes that this set that I defined is empty or that its eventual members are just figments of imagination hence not part of Reality independent of perception. If such feature or aspect can be investigated by neuroscience, it is by definition not transcendent. A neuroscientist can, and many do, investigate belief in God but not God as such assumed to be beyond such investigation, hence non-existent for an atheist. Similarly he can investigate a mathematician's brain at work but not the mathematics he vreates unles he is a mathematicuan himself

Please note that the article was not an argument for the existence of God, that you seem to be urged to dismiss, only an attempts to study the philosophical differences between theists (who model God as a personal Being), pre-theists (who do not care about God, but believe in a spiritual/transcendent realm of Reality) and atheists who believe that all Reality is principally, (as ambiguous this term is), accessible by natural science.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

>>the psychological points of theists and pre-theists aren't an accurate representation of Christian stances<<

I never claimed that. The fact that you know Wasington is the capital of the US is part of your knowledge, of who you are, but certainly not an accurate representation of who you are.

>>None the less I'll step out of it. This is an atheist conversation about theists<<

You are probably right, this afrticle and the ensuing discussion, is not fot you.

.

Dear George,

.

The depth and perspicacity of your analysis commands my respect. You have taught me a lesson that provides me with a model of dialectic for which I shall be eternally grateful – no pun intended with Kantian epistemology : “transcendental dialectic” (the study of the fallacious attribution of objective reality to the perceptions by the mind of external objects).

That said, I note that you often evoke Kant as a reference in your articles and discussions. I presume, therefore, that you are probably aware of what he had to say on “transcendental dialectic” which, I think you will agree, applies (a fortiori) to your concept of “transcendent reality”.

Here are a couple of articles that throw some light on Kant’s views on the subject :

http://generation-online.org/p/fpkantdialectic.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/
.

You draw my attention to the fact …

« … that the article was not an argument for the existence of God, that you [me, Banjo Paterson] seem to be urged to dismiss, only an attempts to study the philosophical differences between theists (who model God as a personal Being), pre-theists (who do not care about God, but believe in a spiritual/transcendent realm of Reality) and atheists who believe that all Reality is principally, (as ambiguous this term is), accessible by natural science »

Point well taken, George. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I guess I got side-tracked by the “pre-theist world view assumption” of “transcendent reality” that popped-up in pole position in your “quasi-philosophical essay”. I must admit the runners-up, theists and atheists, got left behind and lost from view.

On closer scrutiny, I notice, only now, the absence of a few other contenders such as deists (e.g., Einstein), agnostics (e.g., Kant) and ordinary people (e.g., myself). Perhaps it is because you consider that each of us falls into one of the three categories you mention, or somewhere between them, or that we are simply less important – at least in number.

Whatever the reason, we all feel we have major, incompatible, philosophical differences with the three categories you mention and with each other.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for pointing out that Kant had a critical view of transcendent, although his critique might be understood as only rejecting the possibility of rational arguments about the “structure” of this transcendental or spiritual world. I am not a philosopher to critically evaluate Kant. I only know that he believed in God, afterlife etc, and I do not think he saw them as being pure imagination on one hand, or something that science could investigate on the other hand. So he was not an agnostic, i.e. sitting on the theist-atheist fence.

The article was not a philosophical treatise (otherwise I would have sent it to a peer-reviewed journal of philosophy) so I had to use shortcuts, e.g. by DEFINING myself transcendental and immanent (physical) realities disregarding the complexities associated with the use of these terms in the long history of Western philosophy.

Anyhow, I am grateful that you made me think deeper about these matters, especially about the distinction between pre-theists like Einstein and Spinoza (at second thought I think I should have called them quasi-theists) and theists who not only assume the objective existence of a transcendent reality, but also a personal God as representative of it.

Dear George,

I find it very unfortunate that so many mere fallible mortals (and are we not all fallible) have found it necessary to embellish and then to covet their particular view or interpretation of the 'Divine Instrument', so often to the detriment of maintaining what would generally be considered universal mores of morality, integrity and even grace.

As an example, one Muslim might kill another solely on the basis of difference of a narrow point of view, or might kill an 'infidel' with little compunction (or even as a 'spiritual dictate') - perhaps with an expectation of future attainment of 'Eternal Paradise' with bucket loads of virgins at their disposal?
(Inferring an intolerant and vengeful God - but with reward for strict faithful following.) Coercion?

Or perhaps the Orange and the Green in Ireland?

A belief or 'faith' ought ensure reasonable adherence at least to 'The Golden Rule' or equivalent (as fundamentally prescribed by 'The Ten Commandments'), as a start-point to a moral and humble life.
As a start, and by no means as an end-point in itself.

Why the embellishments producing schisms, intolerance, and in some cases pure hatred?

You have given me food for thought, but I have trouble with the following (in response to my 'no dinosaurs in the Bible' comment):

<<Neither of evolution, gravitation theory, quantum mechanics etc - terms unknown to the original addressees of the Bible which is not a textbook of science as understood in the 21st century.>>

But dinosaurs are purported to have predated the Bible, whereas these other constructs, theories or scientific findings certainly did not. (Unless possibly by some undisclosed early protege or 'mystic'?)
God would surely have knowledge of dinosaurs - as an early experiment perhaps?

<<If God exists then he is the Creator (i.e. the ultimate cause) also of time (or times if multiverse is assumed) in which evolution happens.>>

And now they tell us 'time' is not a constant? Perplexing.

(TBContinued)

Dear George,

(Continued):

With so many world religions, with so many differing views or interpretations of The Almighty (or equivalent) and of His nature or His will, it is difficult to accept that any current individual's 'insight' or 'transcendent' experience of the soul or the spirit could really be any more than a passing fancy or a reassuring 'inspiration'.
But, that does not mean necessarily that it's beyond possibility, just somewhat hard to accept.
When we come to personal 'revelation' however, that becomes a very long bow.

I can only hope that mankind at large may eventually come to an understanding that personal morality, responsibility and virtue provide the ultimate path to actualization, fulfillment and true reward in this life - and perhaps beyond - rather than any tricky little (serious or otherwise) performance or observance.
Of course I may be wrong?

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I am not a philosopher to critically evaluate Kant. I only know that he believed in God, afterlife etc, … pre-theists like Einstein and Spinoza (at second thought I think I should have called them quasi-theists) … »

Judging from their writings, as I indicated in my previous post, I tend to see Einstein as a deist and Kant as an agnostic, i.e.,"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God" (OED).

This is indicative of the difficulty of categorising people according to their religious beliefs and personal convictions. We have ample evidence of this here on this forum.

Apparently, there is no consensus on the religious beliefs and personal convictions of such well-known figures as Einstein and Kant. We all have our opinions on the matter. Each category claims them as one of theirs – and they all point to authentic, published evidence (or, at least, their interpretation of it) to support their claims.

Here is some documentation on the subject :

Einstein :

http://owlcation.com/humanities/Einsteins-Religion-Theist-Deist-Pantheist-Humanist-Atheist

http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html

Kant :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

http://archive.org/details/religionwithinb00kantgoog/page/n3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics

.

Dear Saltpetre,

If I understands you properly, you are questioning the need for mythological, anthropomorphic or rational (systematic theology) “models” of the Spiritual, Divine (or transcendent Reality as I called it), provided by religion. This is not what the article was about, nevertheless I concede that this is a common expression of contemporary existential skepticism.

Why is there any need at all for religion - whether primitive, mystical or with a sophisticated theology - given its many negative applications throughout human, especially Western, history? The answer is that it has had also many positive applications. A knife can hurt you - the more the sharper it is - even stab you to death, but it can be also useful, again the more the sharper it is. [And e.g. Christianity has proven itself to be very “sharp”]. The pluses and minuses put together, one could not imagine life without knives. Western Europe, where I now live, is an example, where the denial of its explicitly Christian roots is, in my opinion, not leading to a religion-free society, but to the arrival of Islam in its public square in competition with a plastic replica of Christianity (most of the populists fighting “islamisation” in defence of Europe’s “Christian tradition” are areligious).

Dear Banjo,

Wikipedia about Kant:

“The nature of Kant's religious ideas continues to be the subject of philosophical dispute, with viewpoints ranging from the impression that he was an initial advocate of atheism who at some point developed an ontological argument for God, to more critical treatments epitomized by Nietzsche, who claimed that Kant had "theologian blood" and was merely a sophisticated apologist for traditional Christian faith.” Hence, in my language, he was a pre-theist, not a theist.

Wikipedia about Einstein:

“Einstein stated that he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.” Hence, in my language, he was a pre-theist, not a theist.

Dear George,

Thank you for your consideration and your patience.

You know, I can't help wondering if God may have departed the scene, in favour of more promising or hopeful endeavours. After all, from early relayed 'accounts', God intervened to assist Moses to 'save' His People, and convinced Noah to save his family and various species (perhaps leaving dinosaurs behind), and even sent His Son to offer much needed guidance, but now, when many things have gone quite badly awry, nothing, a vacuum.

I have to wonder why some (or all) of those who would lead others astray, who pretend to have been given 'insights' - or who pray on the weak and those seeking reassurance - have not simply been struck dumb, or otherwise had their abuse of position, or their lying for personal glory or gain, revealed for what it really is.

Still, I guess 'free will' is one explanation: humanity has been left to sort out its future, and let the bricks fall where they may.

Things of course may not yet be sufficiently off-track to warrant intervention, and it is also possible that we need to be careful what we might wish for.
Or, the future may be written.

Either way, my 'faith' in humanity's evolution towards 'perfection' is rather strained.
I will be satisfied to save what I can.

.

. Dear George,

.

Re : Wikipedia about Kant and Einstein :

I am very wary about labels – particularly when they apply to religious beliefs and personal convictions.

We are all persuaded we know exactly where we stand so far as our own beliefs and convictions are concerned, but others often see us differently. Even the common definitions of labels evolve and change with time. Language itself is evolutive. So who is right and who is wrong ?

I like to consider myself as an ordinary person. But judging from the discussions on this forum, a number of others see me differently. I obviously represent different schools of thought for different people.

I have to admit that they all may well be right, without exception. After all, perhaps that is because I am an ordinary person with my paradoxes and contradictions – just like everybody else – and it is so difficult to be original !

.

Dear Saltpetre,

>>You know, I can't help wondering if God may have departed the scene, in favour of more promising or hopeful endeavours. After all, from early relayed 'accounts', God intervened to assist Moses to 'save' His People, and convinced Noah to save his family and various species (perhaps leaving dinosaurs behind), and even sent His Son to offer much needed guidance, but now, when many things have gone quite badly awry, nothing, a vacuum.<<

Unless you mean it as sarcasm, this is simply questioning why the Bible was written this way and not that way. You can ask such pointless questions about any text, sacred or not.

>>Still, I guess 'free will' is one explanation: humanity has been left to sort out its future …<<

Not only humanity but every individual - I see you answered your own question. Free will allows you the option of not believing (in an existence beyond the material) as well as behaving immorally (against accepted e.g. “natural law, and/or against your conscience). In case of humanity this freedom includes the option to commit suicide, but Christians believe God will find a way to prevent it without violating the free will of individual persons. At least this is how I see it.

>> my 'faith' in humanity's evolution towards 'perfection' is rather strained. <<

It depends on how you look at this evolution. Think of it as a movement upwards along a vertical spiral positioned in an xyz coordinate space: The “optimist” projects the movement onto the z-axis and sees a steady progress upwards; the “pessimist” projects it onto the xy-plane and sees it as a futile circular movement without any progress.

Dear Banjo,

I can tell that authors of mathematical entries in the Wikipedia are professional mathematicians. Not being a professional philosopher, I can only believe that similarly authors of philosophical entries are professional philosophers.

Dear George,

I'm sorry you appear to have misinterpreted my post.
No sarcasm, no joking, no intent to mislead.
I am as I state, and I believe only what I actually say I do.

I have to believe if God created humankind (and it cannot really be 'in His own image', can it) that this encompasses all of humanity, beautiful, ugly, brilliant, challenged, strong, weak, black, white, red, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Arab etc.

I expect there would be religious charlatans in every arena, but life is difficult enough for so many that they deserve better than to be led astray by persons in, or held to be in, authority.

In politics we see many examples of those thinking only of themselves, but we have come to expect this; but religious leaders who purposely lead their flock astray and into unconscionable attitudes must surely deserve a special place in hell.

I was serious when I suggested God may well have taken His leave to focus on more promising fields, for the current path of Man (and man's inhumanity to man) appears surely to approximate some of the worst scenarios recounted in bible texts.

I am not trying to test or rebut your faith or beliefs, but am only relaying my own perceptions which give me cause to question our teachings and expectations.

Man is fallible, I am fallible, and will continue to do the best I can, and to question.

Faith has failed many - as revealed here in recent Royal Commissions - with many hurt, betrayed.
There is much to answer for, here, and probably throughout the world. In our case Christian leaders have been the ones found most wanting.

There is also good example here of Muslim 'teachers' betraying folk.

A 'universe' of misdeeds, 'faith' notwithstanding.

My faith in 'natural evolution' (beyond the first cellular 'life' in the primordial 'soup', and perhaps that first dual-celled bacterium (whose DNA apparently appears in all life on Earth) remains unswayed.
(Scientists may 'create' life, but only using a 'living cell' as 'host'.)

My best to all.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for advising that from your experience as a professional mathematician, you consider Wikipedia as a reliable source of information in your particular sphere of competence.

As you say, I think we can presume “that similarly, authors of philosophical entries are professional philosophers”.

However, you quote Wikipedia as indicating :

« Einstein stated that he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve »

Doesn’t this classify him as a deist i.e., “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator, who does not intervene in the universe” (OED definition) ?

If so, should I understand that by “pre-theist” you mean “deist” ?

As for Kant, I note that he figures in Wikipedia’s list of agnostics (as an “idealistic agnostic” in the section “philosophy”), for which I provided a link in my penultimate post.

According to the OED, an “idealistic agnostic” is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of any mind-independent thing, including God".

Here is the link to the Wikipedia list of agnostics once again :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics

Should I understand that by the term “pre-theist” you also include “agnostics” ?

In other words, do you consider that deists and agnostics are both potential theists or what you call “pre-theists” ?

Sorry to insist, but, as you can see, I am a little confused.

.

.

Dear George,

.

In case you missed it, here is an interesting article that just appeared in the South China Morning Post, entitled “Chinese scientists go in search of the soul with world’s most powerful brain scanner”.

For the time being, it’s just a (spectacular) announcement of intention, but maybe it will materialise in about ten or fifteen years’ time (hope we’ll still be around !)

Who knows, they might even come up with some interesting evidence of the existence of the hypothetical God we so often discourse about here on OLO, as I suggested in my post on page 3 of this thread :

« I consider that what you interpret as "transcendental aspects of reality" are simply mental or psychological projections of the observer, a figment of his or her imagination – which is why I suggested that such phenomena (projections of transcendence, God, etc.) are possibly already being investigated today, not by “contemporary natural scientists”, but by neuroscientists, or neurobiologists, working in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and, perhaps, other specialists as well.

The reason being, of course, that such phenomena are more likely to be found, not in any observed reality, but in the minds of those particular observers, due to their personal biological, neurological and psychological processes »

Here is the link to the article :

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2177064/chinese-scientists-go-search-soul-worlds-most-powerful-brain?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailchimp&utm_campaign=enlz-scmp_china&utm_content=20181210&MCUID=10f922cc72&MCCampaignID=ae8809223b&MCAccountID=3775521f5f542047246d9c827&tc=1

.

Dear Saltpetre,

You can find a standard interpretation of Genesis 1:27 (God created man in his own image etc) for instance in https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/1/Genesis-1-27.html .

You raise many points, some are going against my understanding of God, e.g. as the Creator - hence not subject to - time. Most are justified, usually concerning the human element in religion that this article is not concerned with, and to address each one of them, even if I could satisfy you, would take more space and time. So I can only refer you to the metaphor from one of my previous posts about the usefulness vs harmfulness of a sharp knife.

A theist believes that God created the world including time in which his creation evolves since the Big Bang. An atheist believes the world is creating itself through evolution in time since the Big Bang. Natural evolution is part of that “global” evolution in both views.

Dear Banjo,

Kant is not mentioned in the list of agnostics you gave, and the Wikipedia entry about Kant you refer to contains the part I quoted before as well as:

“However, as Kant was skeptical about some of the arguments used prior to him in defence of theism and maintained that human understanding is limited and can never attain knowledge about God or the soul, various commentators have labelled him a philosophical agnostic.”

I presume the words God, belief/faith (no distinction in German) and knowledge appear many times in Kant’s writings but I do not think the word agnostic does. So you make your pick which philosopher/commentator you prefer.

An agnostic is by definition neither an atheist nor a pre-theist nor a theist - he/she is undecided or uncommitted, sits on the fence between atheist and pre-theist (or between pre-theist and theist in the sense “I believe in God but am not sure whether this or any religion can say anything about Him I could accept").

As for deists, I state explicitly in the article that “also pantheists, panentheists, deists, etc. satisfy the pre-theist assumption, since they all do not think God as such can be investigated by scientific methods.”.

As for the article about Chinese scientists, the first paragraph states:

“China has launched a plan to develop the world’s most powerful brain scanner, one that could generate an extremely strong magnetic field to observe for the first time the structure and activities of every neuron in a living human brain.”

If they succeed, that would be a scientific achievement that probably will tell us more about the “physics” of consciousness, but would have nothing to do with soul which by definition, if it exists, is beyond the reach of science. Saying they “search for the soul” may be a nice way to put it - like when Hawking says that he “would (like to) know the mind of God" - but is not a proper description of a scientific project.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Kant is not mentioned in the list of agnostics you gave »

He is when I open the link.

Here is a copy of the section where his name is listed :

Philosophy[edit]

Idealistic agnostics[edit]

Confucius (551 BC–479 BC): Chinese teacher, editor, politician, and philosopher of the Spring and Autumn Period of Chinese history. The philosophy of Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. His followers competed successfully with many other schools during the Hundred Schools of Thought era only to be suppressed in favor of the Legalists during the Qin Dynasty. Following the victory of Han over Chu after the collapse of Qin, Confucius's thoughts received official sanction and were further developed into a Chinese religious system known as Confucianism.[187][188][189]

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): German philosopher; known for Critique of Pure Reason[190][191][192][193][194][195]

Laozi (604 BC?–?): Chinese religious philosopher; author of the Tao Te Ching; this association has led him to be traditionally considered the founder of philosophical religion Taoism[196]

.

Dear Banjo,

You are right I overlooked it.

As I said, we as laymen can chase quotes in support of this or that positrion concerning Kant and God. For instanece, in

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#GodOpuPos

you have "it should be recognized that Kant is not only not an atheist or agnostic, but he is not even a Deist. While theoretical reason is agnostic, and pure rational faith likewise is neutral with regards to any particular historical claim, Kant is clearly open to divine agency in the world."

Dear George,

You summed it up perfectly:

«It depends on how you look at this evolution. Think of it as a movement upwards along a vertical spiral positioned in an xyz coordinate space: The “optimist” projects the movement onto the z-axis and sees a steady progress upwards; the “pessimist” projects it onto the xy-plane and sees it as a futile circular movement without any progress.»

Your article seems to classify my views as pre-theistic... or does it? For as I believe it to be meaningless to speak of anything but God, even the atheist scientist, when researching the immanent, unknowingly researches God. Not only that, but once his/her mind concentrates so deeply on the research and eventually grows tired, they may flip and "accidentally" bump into God - that happened to me once when I was concentrating on the infinite infinities of the mathematical group-theory: at the time I described my experience as "I just proved that God exists, but I'm unable to remember that proof"... today I understand that it was not a logical/mathematical proof, but a direct experience of God that occurred at that split-second when my mind could no longer cope and gave up.

On a different matter, using, for example, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" as a model for God is a commendable and useful religious practice which can, under the right guidance, help lead one to God.

Why, however, would anyone actually believe that God exists? What's the need for that?
Had God existed, then He/She/It would have been an object and according to my dictionary, worshipping an object is referred to as "idolatry".

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your kind words. I have to admit that my definitions of pre-theist and theist have a Western, i.e. Abrahamic, bias, as much as I tried to make it general, with philosophy of science (which, albeit is also rooted in Western tradition) as the “home ground”.

>> Your article seems to classify my views as pre-theistic... or does it? <<

From what you say I would conclude that you are a pre-theist, i.e. that you do not think God is just a figment of our imagination or that He could be the subject of a scientific investigation. Scientists who “believe in God” (in whatever sense) when doing their research might encounter God, but not as part of the physical universe they investigate. Fr. Georges Lemaître certainly thought about God while formulating his Big Bang theory, but God did not become part of his theory.

My understanding of Hinduism is very superficial, but I thought the distinction between Atman and Brahman indicates that Brahman/Krishna, unlike Atman, is outside your mind.

You are a theist (in my definition of the term) if you pray to God (like a child talks to his father or mother) and accept that He can talk to you through Revelation - whether or not you can hear Him. How would you evaluate Krishna's "whatever god a man worships, it is I who answers the prayer" in Bhagavad Gita?

>>Why, however, would anyone actually believe that God exists? What's the need for that?<<

It depends on what you understand by “exists”. If you restrict it to be only attributes of objects, then you are right, God cannot exist. However, what I and most people understand by existence is “objective existence” - horses exist, unicorns do not, (although both “exist” as ideas in our minds). So “God exists” means “God is not just an idea” as atheists maintain.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … we, as laymen can chase quotes in support of this or that position concerning Kant and God … »

Not just "we as laymen", George, and not just concerning Kant. That was the point I was making in my two posts on page 5 of this thread when I wrote :

[First post] :

« Apparently, there is no consensus on the religious beliefs and personal convictions of such well-known figures as Einstein and Kant. We all have our opinions on the matter. Each category claims them as one of theirs – and they all point to authentic, published evidence (or, at least, their interpretation of it) to support their claims. »

[Second post] :

« I am very wary about labels – particularly when they apply to religious beliefs and personal convictions. We are all persuaded we know exactly where we stand so far as our own beliefs and convictions are concerned, but others often see us differently. Even the common definitions of labels evolve and change with time. Language itself is evolutive. So who is right and who is wrong ? »

We have just had a perfect illustration of professional philosophers (not just laymen) labelling Kant’s religious beliefs and personal convictions differently in “The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” and in “Wikipedia”. In the former publication he is described as “clearly open to divine agency in the world”. In the latter, he is listed as an “ idealistic agnostic”.

I note, also, that you refer to the popular definition of the term “agnostic” which is, in fact, a derivative of the original meaning (c.f., OED definition).

The term agnosticism was coined by the English biologist, Thomas Huxley in 1869 “to frame the nature of claims in terms of what is knowable and what is not”. He created it from the Ancient Greek (a-), meaning 'without', and (gnosis), meaning "knowledge".

The Wikipedia article on agnosticism is worth a read :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

As is the following collection of papers entitled "Christianity and agnosticism : a controversy" :

http://archive.org/stream/agnosticism00variuoft/agnosticism00variuoft_djvu.txt

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the links about agnosticism. If you google "knowledge vs belief" you get over 75 million hits. I knew about the philosophical entanglements around this problem - many of them not applicable to the philosophy of physics, my home ground in philosophy - so in the article I considered only beliefs, avoiding the concepts of knowing and truth.

I do not think we should now open the can of these 75 million worms, so I better leave it at that, thanking you for a very insightful discussion and wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« If you google "knowledge vs belief" you get over 75 million hits »

For some of the regular participants on this forum, there is really only one “hit”, George.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but some of them are absolutely convinced there’s no difference whatsoever between knowledge and belief. It’s exactly the same thing – particularly when it has anything to do with God !

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours too, George.

Bye for now,

.

Dear George,

«I thought the distinction between Atman and Brahman indicates that Brahman/Krishna, unlike Atman, is outside your mind.»

Actually Krishna (like Jesus) was a human incarnation of God and new archaeological evidence indicates that he actually lived on earth:

http://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/51/1421/Comment/How-science-discovered-the-historical-Krishna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CbTyxy1MWo

Now the distinction between Atman and Brahman is only apparent: one sets out to experience Atman (because it is more practical and relatively easier than trying to experience Brahman), but once they experience Atman they discover that it is Brahman as well, one and the same.

«You are a theist (in my definition of the term) if you pray to God»

Well I do, so presumably it makes me both pre-theist and theist?

«and accept that He can talk to you through Revelation»

The nature of Revelation is that the answer is already there, but is covered, then somehow revealed, so Revelation is not an active act such as "talking". Prayer opens the heart, thus removes some of the covering obstacles and we see/experience what was there all along.

«How would you evaluate Krishna's "whatever god a man worships, it is I who answers the prayer" in Bhagavad Gita?»

It is obviously not the man Krishna, who is now dead for 5000 years or so, but who Krishna knew Himself truly to be - God. When one purifies their heart through prayer, God is being revealed. It is said that God will be seen/experienced by each devotee as their most beloved deity: this is what happens in advanced stages when the experience of God is filtered through just a thin remaining film of mind.

«So “God exists” means “God is not just an idea”»

Yes, I certainly subscribe to this, but if we use the alternate meaning that you mentioned: «what I and most people understand by existence is “objective existence”», then we seem to agree that God has no such existence.

Confusing then, it seems that by Western concepts, my views are all three at once: pre-theist, theist and atheist...

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the insights about the relation Brahman-Atman-Krishna.

I apparently did not express clearly what I, and any Westerner, understand by the statement “God exists”. I should not have used the phrase “objective existence” since you relate it to objects and, of course, God is not an object, which is apparently the same as when I say that God cannot (and never will) be investigated by science. So forget about that unfortunate phrase and let me repeat that “God exists” means that he is not just a figment of human imagination.

If you agree that God is more than just a product of human thought then you are not an atheist.

In my definition - and I am sorry I did not make it explicitly clear - anybody who is a theist is also an atheist (like every group is also a semigroup). This comes from my four steps into being a Catholic (see my http://www.gvirsik.de/What%20We%20Believe.pdf): I am a Catholic, hence a Christian, hence a theist hence a pre-theist. Examples of pre-theists who are not theists are of those who believe in God in some sense (i.e. do not think that He is purely the product of human imagination) but do not believe humans can communicate with Him through prayer: e. g. deists, pantheists, Spinoza, Einstein.

Prayer is communication of an individual with God, Revelation (within a given religion) is communication of God with humanity as such (in the language of that religion).

Dear George,

Thank you!

Sometimes I describe myself over these pages as "technically an atheist", so it was good to read your alternate definition according to which I am not.

I read your letter to your daughter with interest. I appreciate its orderliness and agree with many of its assertions. Yet one assertion stands out that I disagree with: that we are humans, thus the conclusion that God is "above us".

Certainly we ought to pray, "communicating" with God AS IF we were separate, but the paradox is that we are not truly praying to anyone but our true self. I similarly believe in [multiple] Revelations, Christ's included, AS IF God and humanity were separate.

I wonder what you have to say about Swami Vivekananda's definitions of "atheist":
http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/we-are-all-atheists.html
http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html

Dear Yuyutsu,

>> Sometimes I describe myself over these pages as "technically an atheist”,<<

Note that in the article I wrote: “My default position here is that of what is called methodological atheism: there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world.”

>>that we are humans, thus the conclusion that God is "above us”.<<

What I meant was simply a reference to consciousness and intelligence which are seen as positive qualities, hence (our idea of) God must also possess them. Like an adult is above a child as far as intelligence and other qualities are. God is infinite in the sense that (countable) infinity is greater than any number no matter how large.

I know that Brahman-Atman are supposed to be “two sides of the same coin”. In Christianity God is transcendent (Brahman?) but also immanent (Atman?). The “presence of God in ourselves” is referred to as Grace of God (Catholic children are told that communion means that Jesus enters their hearts). The panentheist theology sees God as “greater than the universe which it includes and interpenetrates”.

Well, I am not a theologian. This was just an attempt to see some analogues between the Brahman/Atman and Christian approaches to God. Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity. [What if there is intelligent life out there, i.e. many humanities? Or in the Krishna quote I gave above, is humanity incarnate talking to itself?]

ctd

ctd

Thank you for the links that I perused only superficially. Part of what is written there might be related to what is referred to as methodological atheism. As you know, early Christians in Rome were referred to as atheists because they did not want to worship what they called pagan gods. I grew up in a Stalinist country, where atheism was preached as the only “scientific world-view” and those who did not subscribe to it were discriminated or even persecuted. To appease some friendly atheists on this OLO I prefer to call such militant atheism anti-theism.

The sentence “Mere intellectual assent does not make us religious.” from your link reminds me of John Henry Newman. Maybe you would be interested in my http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf? that Graham did not find suitable for publication here.

«Dear George,

«methodological atheism: there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world.”»

Isn't this position arbitrary? One could similarly, for example, believe that "there is no need for God to tie my shoe-laces". Why would explaining the working of the physical world be so important? Perhaps because atheists consider the physical world as their God...

«I know that Brahman-Atman are supposed to be “two sides of the same coin”.»

Even more accurately, "seeing the same from two different angles".

«In Christianity God is transcendent (Brahman?) but also immanent (Atman?)"

'Brahman' could be etymologically be described as "the great", "infinite" or "all", while 'Atman' means "myself" in the sense of who I really am. Both words are like pointers indicating a direction, but cannot actually express what they refer to. The teaching of the Upanishads is that these "two" which seem to be different: myself-subject and all-object, are in fact one and the same - there is no duality. One cannot understand it, only experience this directly.

«Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity.»

Why, I think we can agree on this.

Thank you for your unpublished article. As you mentioned, Hebrew has no word for "belief", only for "faith": it seems that the ancients had no need for the concept of intellectual-only belief while modern Hebrew uses 'Emunah' for both (which might be confusing unless the context is clear) and its derivative 'Emun' for "trust [in a person]".

I wish you a safe and happy Christmas.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I introduced this, rewarding for me, discussion with the words “I have to admit that my definitions of pre-theist and theist have a Western, i.e. Abrahamic, bias, as much as I tried to make it general, with philosophy of science (which, albeit is also rooted in Western tradition) as the “home ground”.

I should have added that also my understanding of atheism has a Western bias. As a Christian I believe that God exists independent of humanity (as does material reality) but cannot be reached by science (in distinction to material reality).

This distinction between the Creator and creation (including the human self), led centuries ago to the study of the working of material reality (seen as God’s creation) until natural science arose which could explain HOW material reality works without having to refer to God as the Creator. This is what methodological atheism means: “doing” natural science without reference to God in whose existence a scientist might or might not believe. From this position the “explanation of the working of the physical world” (e.g. the study of quantum physics or cosmology) is incomparable (also in its importance for the understanding of the world in and out of one’s self) with the “tying of your shoe-laces”.

I did not understand what you meant by “Why, I think we can agree on this” in reaction to my “Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity”. Did you mean to say that you agree that we differ?

Maybe you are an example that my distinction atheist vs pre-theist and pre-theist vs theist is not applicable to a non-Western approach to spirituality and God.

I wish you also Happy Christmas and all the best for 2019.

Dear George,

Why, I agree with you that God is not reducible to humanity, or to anything else for that matter (existent or non-existent). Specifically, God is NOT a product of the human mind. And yes too, the possibility of different humanities elsewhere in the cosmos is more than likely.

The study of the working of the material "reality" assumes that the world is real and valuable. So long as our faith in God is wanting we attribute value to the world.

While noble, it is naive to assume that the historical quest for studying the workings of the world was initially a form of worship (on the grounds that the world was created by God) - more realistically, it was due to material necessities as well as intellectual curiosity.

I wish you a happy new year.