.

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.