Sells,

I think you misunderstood me. I used the term “out there” inspired not by medieval theology but by the biologist David Hay’s book “Something there”, where he discusses the possibility that “mystical experiences”, spirituality, are not reducible to physiological processes in our brains.

I am aware of the Transcendent and Immanent approaches to God, which I think are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and that panentheism - which, I understand, tries to combine both, with emphasis on the Immanent - has become a fashionable trend in theology. I also think that the “God of philosophers” (today we can add “and Christian scientists”) should not be played against the “God of Abraham and Jacob”: they are, again, two complementary views needed for the “faith to find its understanding”.

All I wanted to show was that since I can “enter” the world of pure mathematics, and be at home with my conceptualisation and reasoning, although it is quite different from the physical/material world, it is easier to accept that there is an existence outside and/or beyond the material world studied by science. This one, however, I cannot enter it with my reasoning and conceptualisation.

Roger Penrose (and others) speaks of the mental, mathematical and physical worlds, and their interaction, expressed as the “unreasonable effectiveness (for understanding the physical world) of mathematics (seemingly constructed in the mental world but possibly belonging to a world of its own). Of course, this distinction of three worlds is only up to a point, after all mental processes depend on the physical world etc. This model of reality with its limitations, is accepted, by many mathematicians as a working hypothesis, believers or unbelievers. So I used it as a model for understanding the triplet: the mental world, the sacred or numinous world, and the world of our concepts and reasonings modelling the latter. But, you are right, I am a theological dilettante.

Waterboy I don't mind reading your thoughts here even though from my perspective they are full of funny stuff like this absolute belief .. "Without the skeleton the flesh is formless." All that I can offer are my own assumptions with some explanations as to why and where they evolve.

Previously, I have been critical of what amounts to an anthropocentric mindset that gives us this reverse notion of mind or intelligence first. i.e. an extraordinary intelligence existed unsustained before any material constituents of the universe. Now perhaps we can only accept this premise or reject it but we can also claim we don't know or that the premise itself is incorrect. I hold the view and there has been a virtual consensus among many philosophers and scientists for years, that the universe is essentially physical where if all matter were to be removed from the universe, nothing would remain ...... no minds, no vital forces and no entelechies.

Materialism holds that everything in existence is a structure with a story from what is material or physical in nature. (i.e. Your "flesh" is a structure too and hardly "formless".) Materialism cannot hold to dualistic theories which claim that body and mind are distinct, and is directly antithetical to a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter.

On a materialist view, all codes of conduct, joy, love, grace, etc. must ultimately be human-made and socially constructed in that there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do.

George.
I had the funny feeling I had you wrong halfway through my reply. Mathematicians do talk about being Platonists. Funny, I was just reading a review of Penrose’s “The road to reality” by Mike Alder of UWA that might interest you (Quadrant Oct 07). Also a lovely repost to Dawkins by Hal Colebatch

Keiran

Thanks for the reply. It seems you read any 'defense of faith' assuming it goes hand in hand with belief in the supernatural. While that is understandable, it is not consistent with observable fact. Clearly Sells is not a big fan of the 'supernatural'. Nor am I but one exception is sufficient to make the point.
Your reaction to the "formless flesh" metaphor is interesting. Are you really that concrete in your thinking?
Absolute materialism works quite well in the scientific domain, less well in the mathematical and not very well at all in the domains of culture, linguistics, ethics, politics, literature, the arts or religion.
Neither materialism nor idealism deserve to be given absolute status. They are both intellectual tools for exploring reality as we experience it. Each has its place. Screwdrivers are for turning screws and hammers are for hitting nails.
We all understand materialism. It is very useful for exploring the simpler aspects of our physicality.
Idealism is less well understood and great minds from Plato through Aristotle to Hegel, Kant and so on have been reluctant to dispense with idealism in one form or another, being aware that materialism leaves so much unexplained.
You may be satisfied with an absolutely materialist world view. I prefer to draw on a wider range of tools in pursuit of my reason for being.

Waterboy, are you saying you hold to the dualistic hypothesis which claims that body and mind are distinct? e.g. Your "wider range of tools" seems to imply a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter which is best described as exceptionalism and from my perspective a delusion.

We sometimes should start with our best information by trying to forget about the historical narratives of a problem. Just remind ourselves of what we know for a fact. Well, this is what we can come up with ..... "the what", "the how" and "the why" from our earliest evolving identity.

Art is creation in the material universe that claims purposeful actions have causal efficacy. "the what"
Science is investigation in the material universe that claims purposeful actions can describe a causal "how".
Philosophy is investigation in the material universe that claims purposeful actions can describe a causal "why".

We don't need to believe that, with the advent of consciousness, we can now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it.... all our actions are evolutionary. We are all artists, we are all scientists and we are all philosophers. Long before the 16th century people everywhere would have asked the "how" question and concerned themselves with cause and effect investigations. It's mind boggling stooopidity to believe otherwise but I guess this is "how" these teddy (god) viruses can disable their hosts like we find with this pathetic Nobel peace prize going to Gore with his shonky ALGORithms.

Some people will never understand, let alone accept, the truth when it upsets their own blinkered thinking.

Keiran would like to have us believe he is *enlightened*.