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.