relda,
you wrote: >> anything (spiritual reality) that “is not accessible through sense, instruments and mathematics” is not IN FACT knowable by science.<<
I wrote: >> The divine, is that ... aspect of Transcendent (or Ultimate) Reality that is not accessible through sense, instruments and mathematics, i.e. not knowable by science IN PRINCIPLE <<

Spiritual reality or the Divine, I think we speak of the same thing and do not contradict each other (except that 'mathematical theorems' are statements, that can be true or false, but are no reality in whatever sense).

Buddhism, Zoroastrianism etc have different models (mythologies, if you like) of the Spiritual/Divine hence the relation to scientific models would also have to be expressed differently. See e.g. Fritjof Capra in case of Buddhism. Immanuel Kant - whose term (transcendent) Reality or Ding-an-sich (Thing-on-itself?) I borrowed to express the fact that we cannot know Reality directly, but only through models, scientific or religious - had probably only Christianity in mind.

I should clarify, that Kant’s Ding-an-sich, as i understand it, is supposed to be EVERYTHING assumed to exist independently of our mind. It includes that aspect of Reality, called physical, that is accessible through senses and indirectly through scientific models. It also includes the Spiritual/Divine, if you believe in it, accesible only through religious models, or through mystic experience. (It does not include the fictitious realm of ghosts, fairy tales etc.)

Also, I think that lumping "demons, angels, ghosts, devils and other phantasms" together is like in science lumping together e.g. phlogiston, ether (physics), gravity and evolution", of which only the latter two have become universally accepted scientific concepts. Angels, the Devil etc., and symbols from other higher religions, figure in the “official“ narratives that constitute the particular religious model of the unknowable Divine/Spiritual; in distinction to ghosts, poltergeist and other fairy tale characters. If you do not make that distinction you blur the difference between the higher religions and what our atheist friends like to call the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hence my earlier concern about confusing the two different meanings of “supernatural”. (ctd)

(ctd) In your quote, Wittgenstein, roughly speaking, calls language what I called models, and ascertains its/their limitations (the Kant‘s unknowable Ding-an-sich). The ultimate “unknowability”of certain “things“ is expressed by Wittgenstein’s "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" which resonates with Lao-Tse’s “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao”, a nice meeting of Western and Eastern pieces of wisdom. It reminds us also that whatever the usefulness of this or that e.g. Christian theology - and I do not want to deny the usefulness of the rationalisation of faith - it is just a MODEL of the Divine (or Spiritual reality, if you like), rooted in our culture, tradition and limited by our capacity to conceptualise and understand.

Interesting response, Dan.

You've resorted to reducing this debate to mere opinions; misrepresented what the Dover trial was about; confused 'teaching' with 'discussing'; and even slung in a classic Creationist fallacy for good measure.

<<You can use lots of derogatory words like dishonest, deceitful, slippery and sub-human.>>

How else would you describe quote-mining, the exploitation of fear and the countless examples of deception?

Remember, Dan... I am always able to back my claims with examples and I have many more – I've barely scratched the surface.

But we've already been through this several times before and you're never able to provide any examples or reasoning as to why my claims are false.

<<Let’s try and get a grip of who we are here. This is not a scientific forum. If it was, you and I wouldn’t be allowed on, as neither of us has the relevant qualifications.>>

Here, in another attempt to discount everything I've posted, you have used the reverse of another Creationist fallacy... The argument from authority.

While qualifications are important, they're not everything. If an argument is logical, and based on reliable and verifiable real-world data, then the argument has authority regardless of who is giving it.

If you were to apply this argument uniformly, Creationism would fall in a second. For every Creation “scientist” who claims one thing, there are hundreds of scientists with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite.

You're drastically underestimating me, Dan. My first encounter with you sparked an big interest in science. I'm even considering studying it part-time starting next year.

Over the last few months, I have spent hundreds of hours of my own time studying this debate, so I know quite a lot about the science behind it now. So much so in fact, that I am now at the point where I can go through each page of www.creationontheweb.com and pick-out where they've twisted the facts.

<<We’re just a bunch of people sharing some opinions.>>

We're not just talking mere opinions here, like some political Left versus Right issue. We're talking facts versus falsehoods.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...why should I be bothered responding when a half descent response is going to be met with slander?>>

You're making excuses, Dan.

As I've explained once before, “slander” is the use of false words, and none of my claims are false as I am always able to demonstrate with logic, reasoning, examples, etc...

Most of my questions are 'rhetorical questions' anyway, so I don't usually expect an answer.

<<As for your many questions ... Should creationism be taught in schools?>>

Actually, that wasn't one of my questions. But you still couldn't directly answer it – confusing 'teaching' with 'discussing'.

<<Legislating a teacher to teach against their conscience is ineffectual and self defeating.>>

Teachers need to teach objectively, not subjectively. If we allow personal beliefs to enter the classroom, where do we stop? Would you feel comfortable with a white supremest teaching your child with their conscience?

There is nothing “ineffectual” or “Self-defeating”about ensuring the that religion doesn't enter science classrooms. You know this, but you get around it by convincing yourself that evolution is a religion.

Creationism is subjective; evolutionary theory is objective.

<<I’m for supporting a classroom atmosphere of curiosity and open discussion.>>

There is nothing wrong with talking with students about Creationism. But to present religion in science classes as a credible alternative to natural sciences is wrong for so many reasons.

<<It is hard to comprehend why people in America would want to run to the courts to have classroom discussion stifled...>>

Again, 'taught', not 'said'.

The trial wasn't about stifling discussion. The trial took place because a school in Dover, Pennsylvania *required* that teacher's read a statement in science classes presenting Creationism as a credible alternative to evolution.

Presenting religious mythology as science to young vulnerable minds raises many serious issues on many different levels; sets a frightening precedence and should not be taken lightly.

<<If a theory is sound, why would it need protection from open discussion?>>

Suggesting that evolution needs “protection”, not only displays an ignorance of the issues at hand, but a serious underestimation of just how incredibly solid the theory is.

Dan

Even if we ignore the fact that the creation hypothesis has its origins in the Genesis myths and ignore the fact that it is a completely untestable hypothesis it still does not deserve to be taught in schools because as a 'scientific' theory it has proved to be completely unproductive in terms of downstream studies and practical results. Even if it is allowed on the tree of scientific knowledge it is a dead branch and therefore of very little real scientific interest. Teaching it in schools would simply be a waste of time. The curriculum is already crammed and there is no value in teaching oddball theories that have no practical use.

George,
We are both agreed in our sense of the Divine, but in terms of “…EVERYTHING assumed to exist independently of our mind[s]”, this will obviously be highly subjective.

I guess I align myself with Jung in his claim to follow the scientific method and keep a clear distinction between the description of cognitive processes and truth claims attesting to the objective reality of such cognitions. Any reductionist collapsing of philosophy into psychology or vice versa is the cause of what Jung critically calls Eastern intuition over-reaching itself.

Christian symbolism is inherently important to those within the faith and is sacred to expressing truth – however interpreted by the individual. Having been raised within a Christian home I am fully cognizant of this but also understand many of the Christian symbols are in fact borrowed. There are symbols of differing traditions pointing to the same reality – Christian theology properly distinguishes its own deep perceptions. The Bhagavad Gita has a tree that grows upside down, with its roots in heaven and its branches in the world. Christianity incorporated the mythography of the tree/cross from Gnostic and Kabbalist ritual, and echoes of this religious structure can be found even earlier in the Egyptian world – a supernatural world also with the promise of eternal life. The Jungian archetype seems to illustrate something more universal through the four main types of self, shadow, anima and animus.

Personally, I prefer much of the Christian symbolism and the way it has evolved because it is a strong part of my upbringing. That is my emotional side – objectively, however, I can see people can hold equally valid expressions and symbols but differ by an accident of birth into another culture. I have however lost the ancient supernaturalisms generally associated with relgious symbolism - perhaps a legacy of Hellenism.