George,

The notions of presence, action and consciousness are difficult to assign outside of space-time. If extensions of research into Higgs field yield insight of Uncaused Causation, the next step back to any Uncaused Causer, with dynamic attributes, would be empirically unknowable: There is no context in the universe.

In the near future, we may be able to explain the existence of the universe(s). Beyond/before this case, to call the causal agent, if there is a causal agent, God is problematic. At best, we have an unprovable hypothetical construct. Neither, classical mechanics nor QM will take us there. Our brains can build neural pathways, wherein, we believe in phantastic things, yet, we are still constrained as being a part of the delimited universe, without special abilities to comprehend that which that cannot be comprehended by any configuration of matter within the universe.

The best we can do is to assess stories from our historical past and ask do recorded events allow us to know the unknowable? The universe tells us the answer is, no.

Excuse brevity.

Sells,

You ask the wrong question, it is not; is God the cause of the world? Rather, was/is there a proto agent required, to cause, the cause of world? Relatedly, can causation stand alone?

George,
you have a lot to say about "truth"; I think the lesson is that there is no truth--what could be more maleable than truth?
I went to a conference on Continental philosophy recently and gave a paper and argued at one point that Hegel was a conceptual realist. I was looking for a new angle on materialism (not positivism), and someone asked me later, "if you don't believe in a transcendental metaphysic, why not just admit you're an empiricist?"
An excellent question, I thought, that I had no answer for at the time.
Of course it's empiricism that Hegel and co were striving against--and me in my turn. We need something transcendent that also makes logical sense. Conversely, we need something material that makes spiritual sense. The God thing is knee-jerk reactionism. It's not arrogance so much as blind faith.
What is so difficult about humility, about dealing with these conundrums but stopping at the point beyond which we cannot go?
At the conference a very passionate scholar represented Schelling, arguing contra received wisdom that Schelling resolved the Hume/Kant debate in favour of neither--that is that we're beyond the salvation of any dialogic sense. Our debates are pure hubris (Montaigne's position, I would argue).
Perhaps the purpose of life is to strive nonetheless. But these are private concerns. Our business is either to deal with the world at hand or to expedite our relationship with the next.

Oliver,
I doubt we will ever explain anything--beyond our own pragmatic satisfaction.
Life is "unsatisfactory", said the Buddha with profound understatement. He preferred not to be drawn on matters that serve nothing but vainglory. This comment is not intended for you specifically, Oliver.
I would simply point out, however, that logic is a very crude instrument.
George,
the pope surely sites relativism for rhetorical purposes, buying into the theoretical insecurity that's dogged Western philosophy. The fact is, he offers nothing more substantial, he merely covers his equivocal tracks with high sounding mumbo-jumbo. Theology is the mouthpiece of beleaguered authority.

Squeers,
>>I think the lesson is that there is no truth--what could be more maleable than truth?<<
It depends on what you mean by truth (to me it is an unambiguous concept only within mathematical logic); maybe your understanding of it indeed implies that it is “malleable”. This reminds me of the social (cultural) constructivists’ position reiterated during the 1990s “Science wars” launched by the “Sokal hoax”. This is the essence of how the physicist/atheist Steven Weinberg defends “scientific truth” (although he does not use that term) against “relativists“ (he names also Thomas Kuhn):

“(T)he laws of physics are real in pretty much the same sense (whatever that is) as the rocks in the field, and not in the same sense as the rules of baseball. ... The objective nature of scientific knowledge ... is taken for granted by most natural scientists. ... We will need to confirm and strengthen the vision of a rationally understandable world if we are to protect ourselves from the irrational tendencies that still beset humanity” (New York Review of Books, 8/8/1996). Well, some people would have used “belief in” instead of “vision of” in the last sentence, a belief that is part of the belief system of most (theists and atheists).

One could go through Weinberg’s article, and just slightly reword a few (obviously not all) of his arguments to get a good defence also of the belief in (not proof of!) metaphysical reality “whatever that is” against (post-modernist?) epistemological relativists.

A can follow your philosphical insights, though I do not understand what you mean by “God thing”. If it refers to ALL kinds of world-views compatible with “belief in God“, how is calling them “knee-jerk” or “blind” faith different from e.g. Sellick writing disparagingly about atheist world-views? Neither do I understand what you mean by “logical sense”. And if philosophical debates are “pure hubris”, why engage in them? For me they contribute to the broadening of my own perspective - provided I can understand the other side.

You obviously dislike the Pope but that post was not about him but about Tillich.

Oliver,
I did not understand the relevance of Higgs boson to Tillich’s theology.

>>In the near future, we may be able to explain the existence of the universe<<
That is a claim that only philosophy or religion can make. If by “we” you mean science then it is based on a misunderstanding of what science is about: science investigates the physical reality reflected in our senses; it cannot “explain” its existence, it has to assume its existence in order to have an object of investigation, only the workings of which science can try to “explain“ (c.f. the quote above from Weinberg).

Yes, truth, reality, the world or what you call it, is unknowable “as it is” (which I agree with), and you can stop at that (which I do not, since then you would have neither science nor philosophy or religion).

I do not understand how the “universe tells us” anything about “stories from our historical past”, unless you agree that the mythological, biblical etc “fingers” point to Something we can access neither directly by senses nor through scientific investigation.

George,
I know nothing of mathematics, but I draw your attention to the first paragraph on page 3, here: http://home.uchicago.edu/~wwtx/objectivity.pdf
I also want to avoid the endless fall into relativism which, I suspect, for postmodernism is an endless mirroring rather than an epistemological crisis (though Schelling would demure).
But if anything is subject to perspective, surely truth is?
Otherwise I agree with what you say.
By "the God thing" I allude to the leap from epistemological uncertainty ... to deity...? This is a leap indeed! which, moreover, is a luxury, an idle distraction from material issues that should be attended to first. This was my real point---the conference was mostly dry philosophising and abstruse hair-splitting.
I'm as fascinated as anyone about these debates, and yet I suggest God would rather we spent more time on worldly concerns.
I think my posts bare out that I'm equally disenchanted with the hubris of the rationalists; your Weinberg quote is indeed very telling.
I do dislike the Pope--he's the great distraction, the figurehead of institutional angst; he and the various religious franchises parasitise the great human conundrum of "being"---it's their bread and butter.
The consolations of philosophy (and theology) should not distract us from their concomitant violations!

George,
Thanks for your well considered, thoughtful response. I find it interesting that Tillich is mandatory reading for Catholic seminary students but I might add (and with a little tongue in cheek), as Leibnitz supposedly said, "I would walk twenty miles to listen to my worst enemy if I could learn something."

For those who are described as “anonymous Christians” it perhaps becomes more a question of insult (for them) rather than arrogance, where to be branded ‘Christian’ might place their ‘virtue’ as contrived, which is rather unfortunate but nevertheless often true. The problem of being offensive however, is as you infer, quite often unavoidable when an ‘apologia’ for belief is offered as it confronts the differing beliefs of others. Nevertheless, to find common ground is important – through process of dialogue.

You say that for you “something cannot both exist and not exist”, however, if you are to apply the Aquinas ‘model’ of God’s Aesity you must by inference, as Tillich does, say “God does not exist.” You cannot apply the following logic (as for the universe) and as you probably realise for God’s 'existence':
1. Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
To apply such logic (for God's 'existence') would have a 9 year old easily state the obvious, “who caused God?” Like Shrodinger’s cat, the paradox of aesity is a classic reductio ad absurdum.

Tillich’s apologetic method of correlation is hermeneutical and is a means of interpreting religious symbols. He seeks to persuade that the Christian symbols have relevance to one’s situation and to adapt the symbols to a particular situation is to interpret them. Religious assertions are symbolic and ontological assertions are literal (a commitment to a common ontology is a guarantee of consistency, but not completeness); theology attempts to correlate the two, hence the connection between apologia and the cognitive. Whitehead's motto, however, is the best guideline for any philosopher, scientist or theologian: "We must be systematic, but we should keep our systems open."