Dear David,

I apologise for starting a discussion on religion on this thread - this is your birthday thread and my whole intention was to congratulate and compliment you.

You wrote:

"If I have given you the impression that I am in any way religious I have utterly failed in communicating my attitudes."

You are communicating your attitudes very well, but my judgement is not based on the contents of your attitudes but on the kind and wholesome way in which you present them.

Dear Banjo,

>>I find eminently appropriate Toynbee’s choice of the term “vision” to describe this particular phenomenon.<<

I do not think he tried to describe a “phenomenon”, but I agree that “vision” here - where culture and world views (which indeed are “in the eye of the observer”) are concerned - is as appropriate as “representation” (or model, physical theory) is appropriate, in e.g. philosophy of science, when referring to how humans view (physical) reality.

Dear George,

You wrote: “I think the Toynbee quote is not about biblical exegesis, how to understand, interpret, this or that biblical story so as to bridge over the apparent contradictions, but about how he sees these two “irreconcilable” overall visions within the “Judaic group of higher religions”.

I think the contradictions are real and not apparent and see no need to bridge them over. Applying Ockham’s Razor I used the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions. That explanation is that various incompatible legends have been incorporated into Scripture. Those who retain belief must use that belief as one of the assumptions. That requires more elaborate explanations. You incorporated your belief system in the use of the adjective apparent.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

People who believe in and explain those legends need not have different visions. Their need is to reconcile that which cannot be reasonably reconciled.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your kind words. However, I believe you have implicitly equated ‘kind and wholesome’ with religious’. I would not make such an equation.

Words and expression take their meaning through usage. The Australian expression, Bible basher, designates one who brings in the Bible as much as possible. The Bible basher has a great respect for the Bible. However, if we consider the usage of the word, basher, by itself a Bible basher would be one who had little respect for the Bible.

Dear david f,

We have been through this before. It is about biblical hermeneutics (exegesis) that I am not an expert in (and just tried to point out how also a superficial reading of special theory of relativity can be seen as contradicting common sense).

All I wanted to say was that the quoted insight of Toynbee into one aspect of human culture (Abrahamic religions) was not about how to read the bible.

Dear David,

I do not exactly equate 'kind and wholesome' with 'religious', but there is a great overlap - far more than say between 'bible-believer' and 'religious'.

In the words of Hillel: "this is the whole Torah" - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

Remaining kind and wholesome under all circumstances, respecting your fellow and bending back not to hurt them, requires restraint, or austerity, which is a religious quality. While I appreciate that you don't believe so, nor do I expect you to believe it, this quality of austerity actually brings you closer to God.

A 'bible-basher' is even less likely to be religious because there is no austerity in telling others what to believe in or what to do and not to do.

.

Dear George,

.

« … I agree that “vision” here - where culture and world views (which indeed are “in the eye of the observer”) are concerned - is as appropriate as “representation” (or model, physical theory) is appropriate, in e.g. philosophy of science, when referring to how humans view (physical) reality. »
.

Yes, but that is not quite how I should describe the difference between the “projection” and the “reception” of an image.

It’s a bit like the difference between a painting and a photograph. A painting is not necessarily an image of physical reality at a particular point of time, whereas a photograph is necessarily an image of physical reality at a particular point of time.

To me, that is a huge difference. It is the difference between imagination and reality.

In my opinion, any image of God can only be a “painting”, not a “photograph”.

I should also like to add a caveat to your expression: “how humans view (physical) reality”.

It is my understanding that not just “humans” but all forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex, have some degree of awareness of physical reality. They are all have some perception of their environment and interact with it.

It could be said that all forms of life have at least a “photographic” vision of physical reality even if it’s only very limited. But, as far as I know, only humans beings have the additional ability of imagining, “painting” or projecting images that do not represent physical reality.

If, indeed, that is the case, then your expression should read “how living species view (physical) reality”.

On the other hand, so far as any “vision” of God is concerned, it would appear that this should be limited to human beings only - given that our cousins in the animal kingdom, as well as plants, algae, mushrooms and other eukaryotes and prokaryotes, presumably have either a very limited imagination or no imagination at all, and are incapable of making any sort of intellectual projections.

.