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?