Keiran

You said
"Your'wider range of tools'seems to imply a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter.."
How so?

It is not necessary to equate idealism with dualism, nor does idealism necessarily deny the material.I do sympathise with your insistence that ideas be rooted in'realities'but this is not quite the same thing as being being enslaved by what you call'scientific facts'.

Since science does not explain everything about existence,an excessive confidence in its results leads us into a dilemma. How can we speak about those aspects of being that science does not touch?Either we ignore them, perhaps assuming that science will one day explain them,or we explore all of our being with all the tools available including the imagination and our narrative propensity. In short we can only explore the totality of our being through ideas,imagination and narrative. Even science depends on these. The'facts'of science are nothing more than our best explanations of causes and effects. They are just special kinds of narrative. Belief in'scientific'knowledge as absolute truth,'facts'as you call them,is what I would call a naive materialism and perhaps itself an incipient dualism in its implicit dependence on the existence of an absoluteness which is out there beyond our reach.

Idealism is the realisation that the greater part of our existence occurs in'idea space'. Certainly'physical space'is a given but'idea space'is not alternative to'physical space'. That would be dualism. Idea space extends physical space in a way that imbues life with meanings,values,purpose and so on.

"The Lord of The Rings" is obviously fantasy but it is rooted in reality without being a slave to science. Its ideas deal with the nature of being and being human. It deals with good and evil, relationships, values, justice and purposeful life that is not nullified by death. Ideas, imagination and narrative are the only tools we have to construct our meaningful world. Why would you dismiss them so easily?

Nine years of studying science at school and university did not help me construct a meaningful life. That came from elsewhere.

George.
I remember discussing this with you before about the similarity between the concept of “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” and the doctrine of the Trinity. Reading Daniel Waterman who opposed the antitrinitarian produced by Samuel Clarke after Newton, he admits that his arguments for the Trinity are practical rather than theoretical. They are derived from the economy of salvation. If Jesus was just a creature, even the most highly exalted creature, (Socinianism) then God has a rival in Jesus for the redemption of the world. Also, redemption loses its power since it is not now based on God coming down but only a creature. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is established on what it does, on its practical application rather than an investigation of the attributes of God a priori. The truth of the doctrine is derived from its facility to order all sorts of thing aright. The doctrine thus has an “unreasonable effectiveness” in that it is not based on a priori theory. Clarke attempted such a theory and ended up with a sterile theology with morality and reward at its base and which can only be described as pagan.

This discussion is epistemological and connects to the inductive and deductive method as has been discussed in this thread

Sells,
I am not able to comment on Clarke, and I am not sure I understand theory vs practice or deductive vs inductive method within theology, unless one means the “God of the philosophers” vs “God of Abraham and Jacob” mentioned above. Neither am I sure how one could “establish” the doctrine of the Trinity or “investigate the attributes” of God.

For me, the doctrine of the Trinity is an axiom (a mystery, because it is based on terms not clearly defined), the same about God Incarnate, etc. These are axioms that one cannot arrive at by philosophical speculation, only argue that they are compatible with the bible (arguments accepted by all Christians in distinction to e.g. the filioque axiom). Again, please keep in mind that I am a theological dilettante.

Something like you have mathematical axioms on which to build “by speculation” a rich theory ignoring its applicability, the “unreasonable effectiveness” consisting in the fact that most of this pure mathematics turned out later to be applicable. [We, pure mathematicians of the sixties, used to tease our applied colleagues by saying that 20th century applied mathematics was 19th century pure mathematics. Today, it’s not that simple any more.]

However, I do not see the analogy in theology, where you could unleash your speculations based on some doctrines ignoring its applications (compatibility with scripture, with human psychology and sociology etc.) and finding later that most of these speculations will nevertheless turn out to be applicable.

George

Notwithstanding how the Trinitarian proposition was derived the evidence of 2000 years of History is that it has been 'effective' in subsequent theological work to a degree which is 'unreasonable'. Perhaps that is as far as we can take the analogy.

Deductive theology has largely fallen out of fashion since it has become very difficult to establish general agreement on any set of propositions which can be agreed to be the premises from which to commence work.

Inductive theology, however, while not offering rational certitude, proceeds from repeated observations of its effectiveness. The Trinitarian formula works Pastorally, Liturgically, Theologically and so on.

The danger with inductive theologies, on the other hand, lies in the subjectivity surrounding the determination of 'effectiveness'. Much of popular religion proceeds from observations of its aparrent 'effectiveness', which are never subjected to critical scrutiny. Fallacies abound!

Waterboy.
Amen to that. The deductive or a priori method when used to produce a proof for the existence of God arrives at paganism. The god so proved looks very much like Zeus. As for theology beginning with induction we get “The triumph of the therapeutic” and the God of the bible disappears below human need. Or if evidence is taken from the goodness of creation we arrive at Aristotle’s first mover, again a stranger to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Peter

The paths of a faith seeking understanding you disparage are just that. If they are accessible paths for people to begin their seeking of the good life, they are useful. We all start somewhere, and indeed use them along the way as paths of rest or distraction to satisfy an intellectual or emotional need.

If they come to know that the good life is one of the dust and grit of human affairs, as a consequence of the 'follow me" command, then they will have found the path set out by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

By way of observation, by the time Aristotle was engaging in his teleologically inspired methods of analysis of life around him, the last of the OT books was completed on the movement of a people, not far away, through the dust and grit of life.

Aristotle was defining the good life through virtuous behaviour and analysing the best of ways to live for citizens and their slaves in the city state. Nicely layered, and based on preceding 300-400 years of the Greek Archaic age. His legacy is a remnant idea battling with human foibles, and a disillusioned, detached distracted people.

The Hebrews' good life was one of a promise, within the Covenant with their God, over the preceding 3400 years. Their legacy is life with hope eternal as we, of faith, slog through it, with trust, in our own epochal times, to participate in Aristotle's grand project of democracy.

Our friends of the enlightened elite have been so successful in their partisan endeavours they have caused a reaction of so called "faith people" which is less subtle, but as ugly, as the former's "long march through the Institutions" (Gramsci) last century. They deserve each other.