The God Debate: Keith Ward and Richard Holloway

I’ve always been intrigued by the origins of things. From whence did they originate? How did they come about? What gave rise to it being done so, rather than not? Now, one can read about the origins of almost anything; man, earth, the side parting. You can do so by using THE great modern invention of our time – the web. Or the old fashioned way, by reading a book. Here you will find a myriad of different theories, put forward by an equally dazzling list of authors claiming to have THE definitive solution. Equally, and perhaps more satisfying, there are events that have occurred that cannot be fundamentally explained, or if they can, certainly not in a way that allows my mind to picture the event. Take, for example, the Moai statues of Easter Island. Now various theories place the creation of these statues at differing periods separated by centuries. What they all agree on is, they were created using stone not indigenous to the island. And certainly not a stone that was transportable by any known means. Which begs the question, “How did they get there?” My mind can’t even fathom such an event occuring…well, actually I can, but to realise it, one would require a Dreamworks production budget and most would then just argue that it was far fetched. Similarly, my mind and imagination hit a vacuum like wall when challenged to imagine what time must have been like prior to what many like to call The Big Bang. This is my favourite description of The Big Bang, “a cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day.” Come again? I don’t get it. First I don’t get how something is growing at an infinite level. What exists on the other side of infinity? It’s growing, right? Well, what’s it growing into? A big space? A big empty space that drops as deep as it ascends high? An ocean of nothingness that drops into an abyss of nada…? Exactly. I just can’t do it. Then, there is the issue of what existed before tick tick boom? Again, we’re told that, “the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10-35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.” Yes but antiquarks, antischmarks…what did the gaff look like? I mean just try and fathom it. Bearing in mind that nothing existed in this ‘infinite density’ you can’t start imagining swirls of clouds, or “C-beams shimmering in the dark at the Tannhouser Gate.” And that for me is the fundamental intrigue, letting the imagination run to a point so far removed from the shackles of time and space that no book or theory can actually paint the picture. It instead requires an experience of the event. The joy of unchartered territory is that no one can tell you you’re wrong…

www.oneloveformusic.com

As a former atheist I considered it more logical to convert to Islam. Can either gentleman please explain to me the scientific miracles of the Koran? How does a book written 14 centuries ago contain detailes of the development of the human embryo ? The Koran contains many other miracles like these, not only is this proof of god but it is proof that jesus and muhammed (peace be upon them) were both messengers of god.

I am happy to give more details of the miracles of the Koran please go to www.nowpublic.com search Sputnic (me) and leave a message. Or search the news

One more pathetically confused and disappointing BBC interview/discussion.

The central question to both of them which was implied in the run up advertising was; what brought you to the conclusion that your previous position had been wrong? And it was a position about the existance of god, not about the value of religion or morality. That question was not even hinted at? Bad bad bad journalism.

Both men are clearly so confused they don't even know what they believe.

Holloway; the term "God" is fluid. I think the ultimate nature of the universe is unkowable. I call myself a "Christian agnostic." (Isn't that an oxymoron.) There clearly is something odd that there is a universe at all. (I exist, therefore I can't or shouldn't exist, a tautological error. Then there is the double error when the statements are taken together, ultimate truth is unknowable but I shouldn't exist. How does he know that?) Religion is potentially inescapably violent. (Then why is he a Christian?) I'm not a pacifist but I'm almost a pacifist. (People shouldn't be killed except when I say it's justified.)

Ward is equally confused. The probability that god exists. What a concept. I'm 95% sure there is a god therefore I am a 100% believer. We do not know what god is, only what god is not. When you look for a rational and intelligent universe you come up with something like an intelligent mind. (What are the odds? What leads to the conclusion that the universe is intelligent? If you cannot know god, how do you know he not only exists but is intelligent? Maybe he just kept throwing the dice and eventually it came up snake-eyes and here we are, dumb luck.)

Holloway; I think that's a rational position, brilliant people down the centuries have held it. (Many so called brilliant people believed the earth was flat too, Maybe Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates did, I don't know. Did that make them right or the world any less round? Another logically flawed argument, brilliant people believe it is true, ergo it is true.) Atheists are repelled by the cruelty of religion. (Is that why they are athiests? Wrong reason. I think it was Joseph Conrad who wrote "God is for men, religion is for women." What does one have to do with the other?)

Ward; Dawkins....does not allow that there can be any reasonableness in other views than his at all. (Funny, that's the same position all theologians take about their own religion, that they have the exclusive path to truth. The difference of course is that Dawkins doesn't suffer the confused irrational thinking process both these men do.) You dont' want to pretend that reason alone will give you the untimate truth, there's something deeper than reason. (And here I thought he'd already been as irrational as he could get. What is deeper than reason to reveal truth, gut instinct? Oddsmakers figures?)

Crawley; Terry Eagle...is drawing a connection between truth and a story that makes life meaningful that works for me. Holloway; if the thing you put your faith in makes you kindly and compassionate then I don't particularly mind. (How could anyone devise a more convincing argument for ??? what was it he beleives in again, Christian agnosticism?) ...I'd prefer something a bit more conditional, a bit more modest (a demi-god who can perform miracles....sometimes?)

Ward was right about one thing, Holloway's self contradiction that he is intolerent of the intolerent.

Ward; truth is very important and truth matters. (hahahaha. He agreed with Holloway that ultimately you could never know the truth.)

These people think and talk in circles.

A trite discussion.

How interesting PublicSputnik. You believe there is scientific evidence for the miracles of the Koran. As I stifle a huge grin, thinking of what the punters on this blog will do with this if you choose to pursue the conversation, let me tell you that if you CAN prove the miracles in the Koran you'll change the world. That's confidence.

Interesting idea for a segment, Will. I'll certainly take time later to listen to the guys talk.

`Take, for example, the Moai statues of Easter Island Now various theories place the creation of these statues at differing periods separated by centuries. What they all agree on is, they were created using stone not indigenous to the island… `# 1 oneloveformusic.

This is no longer uncharted territory. I`m afraid that detailed archaeology and geology show that the Easter Island (Rapa Nui) statues are made from stone formed by its three volcanoes. Volcanic (igneous) stone (tuff, basalt etc) is noted for its toughness. There are many partially completed statues in situ in quarries as well as scattered along roadways. At least 288 statues were erected; many others were at least started. Depending upon the size of the statues, it has been demonstrated (by Thor Heyerdahl and others) that between 50 and 150 people were needed to drag them across the countryside on sleds and rollers made from the island`s trees, then to place them upright using materials and methods available to the islanders. Many of them were later toppled in warfare between clans.

BTW, liked the quote from Blade Runner.

Mark - some good points. What on earth gives these folks the idea that there are truths "deeper than reason" that are somehow "fundamental"?

These are the outworkings of entirely reasonable and rational processes; they sit *on top* of discoverable and comprehensible phenomena; they are emergent. There is no big mystery here, and certainly no requirement for something external/extra to be beamed into the system from Beyond.

I know chinstroking types like to berate Dawkins, but it is precisely the sort of woolly fluff that populated this discussion that gets on Dawkins' tits, and I think he's entitled to sound off on it now and again.

-H

When you look for a rational and intelligent universe you come up with something like an intelligent mind.

To my mind, that's the most valuable thing said during this interview.



Marcus: "What leads to the conclusion that the universe is intelligent"

At the risk of putting words in someone's mouth, i think he perhaps meant "intelligible", and not "intelligent".

And the universe quite clearly is intelligible in principle. The point is that recognition of that fact leads to the possibility, or even likelihood, that it has its source in "something like an intelligent mind"

* I'm new here, by the way...hello.

It seems to me that every time the debate about the existance of God on this forum and others comes up, it always degenerates into a debate about whether religion is good or bad and what is the correct morality to have. Even Dawkins seems to indulge in diverging from the issue at hand whether he actually enjoys it or allows himself to be diverted.

So if that is the case and nobody wants to stick to the primary question which must be answered before any others can be rationally discussed, here's another suggestion. Discuss whether man invented religion to explain god or whether some men invented god to justify the power men who own religion try to wield over others who don't. There isn't one of them who doesn't claim that divine right in one way or another.

I agree, and was disappointed in the direction taken in this interview. The issue of the moral implications of religion is secondary, in my opinion.

As for the debate you wish to have, there's a very good book by Ninian Smart entitled "The Religious Experience of Mankind", which mainly gives a historical account of some of the world's religions, but also includes a brief argument that an individual monotheism was at the prehistoric root of religious sentiment, and that this was only gradually corrupted by a polytheism with attendant heirarchies and power structures.

However, that's ridiculously moot, obviously

Marc
Who has power over me?
GV

Bernard
Hello and welcome.

GV

Thanks GV, nice to see some REAL, interesting discussions on the web.
:)

Welcome Bernard

You say that the Universe is intelligible in principle, I wonder. Our minds have found evolutionary advantage in the perception of pattern - it is not surprising that we have arrived at an understanding of our existence and environment which fits the way we look at things. Just as earlier generations created gods in their own image who is to say we haven't 'discovered' laws of physics in the image of our current human thought-patterns?

I prefer to keep an open mind - I struggle (joyously) with what Wallace Stevens called 'the wrangling of two dreams'.

gveale, who has the power over you? Whomever you voluntarily give your time or money to in the expectation that you are buying your way into heaven....or staying out of hell.

I would have been especially interested in why Keith Ward became a believer. I've heard that there are no athiests in foxholes. I wonder if it was the fear of his own mortality syndrome, meaningless life followed by eternal death. Some people will rationalize anything to avoid coming to that conclusion, even believing in God.

Mark, there are plenty of atheists in foxholes. I agree - the central question is indeed whether there is a god or not. I regard it as highly probable that there is not - intelligibility does not require an intelligence behind the scenes.

Portwyne, we know that the "laws" of nature are not made up to suit us because we can try them out, and they WORK. That is what distinguishes science from all other "narratives". Sorry to pour water on that postmodern fantasy. We construct a conceptual model, and test how reality matches the model. It doesn't always do that - that indicates that the model is defective. If it were as you suggest, we would still think the universe was a few thousand years old and we were all descended from Captain Noah.

H

I may have missed it but I believe there is still no theory of everything - laws that work for the very big fail at the level of the very small. Science enables us to describe the physical world very well in our own terms but, of necessity, the limitation is in ourselves. We cannot know that the universe is intelligible, we cannot know the precise correlation, if any, of our perception of reality to reality. Just because a watch works does not mean that it tells the correct time. I accept science when it makes a plane fly or develops a drug for cancer or dates the fossils in a rock. When it tells me how the universe began I beg to reserve my judgement. Some of the ideas currently touted may be correct but I have no hesitation is saying 'Who knows?'

Mark

I know God though I would say that to speak of his existence is meaningless. I have no assurance or expectation of life after death and do not see any inherent purpose in life. Experience of the divine is not always arrived at by a process of ratiocination.

portwyne

I have not seen one single solitary shred of evidence in my life that would even suggest that god exists or that the universe was created by any conceivable kind of intelligence. I do not think it is ultimately beyond human uinderstanding. Humanity has only been studying it seriously for a few hundred years. Real knowledge is hard to come by. Religions have been their efforts now for thousands of years and just about every single thing they have said about the physical world has turned out to be wrong.

Heliopolitan

If you had read my postings some many many months ago, you would know that I do not believe in the concept of probability as a way to describe the physical universe. While it is a useful mathematical abstraction (I've studied myself), if you believe in cause and effect implicity as I do, then the only conclusion you can come to is that at the instant of creation, every event that will ever happen anywhere was predetermined. The notion of probability or uncertainty is strictly a human invention created to overcome humanity's inability to explain each and every individual element in a phenomenon. For example, every molecule in a container of gas follows a trajectory which is the result of its prior position and velocity and the way it interacts with whatever it collides with. The notion that they act randomly is not a valid physical principle. Therefore, the concept of freedom of moral choice or that we actually have choices open to us is an illusion and an error.

Marcus - I rather believe I said to speak of the existence or non-existence of God is meaningless. I do not believe in the creation of the universe - indeed the very idea is anathema to me. I can see no reason why the universe should be intelligible and even if it is why man should be equipped to understand it - we may be but there is no inherent reason why we should be.

I think, too, the idea of my having just had a blueberry yoghurt for supper being predetermined at the moment of Big Bang is codswallop - the world is utterly and occasionally wonderfully random - I could have had the lemon curd.

Marc
1) I don't think giving money to charity gets me into heaven. The bulk of my giving goes to charity.
So who owns me?
2) You can really just sit in your armchair and know there is no chance in nature? If so, it would raise serious questions about you attitude to evidence.
GV

H
How did the concept of Scientific laws originate? Have any scientific laws been replaced?

GV

gveale #20

1, Then why do you do it? Don't your taxes take care of people in need? Doesn't your government feed the starving, provide shelter for those who have none? Why is your further contribution necessary? Why do you feel compelled to give the fruits of your labor to others voluntarily? Because someone convinced you that it is "the right thing to do?" Why is it the right thing to do?

2. My attitude towards evidence is based on a lifetime of observing, reading what others have observed, listening to the arguments logical and illogical about how those observations are connected, and drawing my own logical conclusions as best as I can. When I see evidence that those conclusions are not valid, I will look for others which are more consistent with the evidence, all the evidence.

Portwyne, you only thnk you could have lemon curd. That is the delusion. You have no more control over what the atoms and molecules do in your brain than the earth has going around the sun. What gveale and others call "scientific laws" are merely observed consistencies. They are not legislated or issued by fiat. They simply are, they are the facts of our existence. It is clear you do not believe in cause and effect. You do not beieve in what is called a "rational universe." IMO there are only two alternatives; belief in god who can capriciously cause actions which do not conform to the consistent observations elsewhere, or existentialism where all of existance is only in one's imagination and no reality out of self exists.

Perhaps my use of the word "creation" of the universe was misinterpreted. The word origin would have been more appropriate. Even that was the result of cause and effect of what came before. The questions that are asked about ultimate origin are irrational at this stage of human development. We don't yet know enough to come up with a rational hypothesis. Perhaps in a few hundred or a few thousand years there will be sufficient knowledge to devise a plausible explanation but not yet.

Portwyne;

"We cannot know that the universe is intelligible, we cannot know the precise correlation, if any, of our perception of reality to reality."

It is this that I have a problem with. You are unneccessarily positing another reality other than that which is perceived. there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a reality which cannot in principle be perceived, understood, or grasped in some sense.

"Just because a watch works does not mean that it tells the correct time."

Yes, but we are talking about [i]universalities[/i], which cannot be analogised in such a way. Were there such a thing as a universal watch, which constituted "universal time", then it would be correct, because it would be all there was, with no frame of reference outside of it.


"I accept science when it makes a plane fly or develops a drug for cancer or dates the fossils in a rock. When it tells me how the universe began I beg to reserve my judgement."

I agree. At the root of the universe of intelligibilities to be grasped by science, there is a mystery. But it is a unique mystery, one of a kind, which, in a way, constitutes the intelligibility of everything else.

"Experience of the divine is not always arrived at by a process of ratiocination."

Absolutely true. However, rational thinking [i]can[/i] and [i]does[/i] surmount the intellectual barriers which prevent some people from allowing the mystery of the divine.

Marcus;

"I have not seen one single solitary shred of evidence in my life that would even suggest that god exists or that the universe was created by any conceivable kind of intelligence."

I would say the fact that the universe is intelligible, as you allow..

"I do not think it is ultimately beyond human uinderstanding."...

removes any reasons for vehemently denying an intelligent creator. If the universe is intelligible, you must surely allow the possibility that it has an intelligent source? It takes more than that, of course, to convince, but you must surely allow the possibility, with no real reason to disallow it.


portwyne wrote:
"I can see no reason why the universe should be intelligible and even if it is why man should be equipped to understand it - we may be but there is no inherent reason why we should be."


But man does understand a large part of it, and every day we learn more. There is no inherent reason in man why we should understand it...and yet we do, and those things that we don't understand, we strive to understand, as you yourself are now doing.

Why should that be, do you think?

Ah.

Can someone tell me how to make Italics?

or fire

As a child of 8 I found the whole God thing a bit hard to swallow.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciated most of the Christian morals that I was taught at school, and I understand that the majority of most other religious teaching is also in a similar vein.

I just didn't believe the underlying reasons behind it. At that age I thought it was one of those things you were told as a child to get you to do something, but once you were old enough to know better you'd be told the truth.

Theses days I tend not to get too wound up when I hear religious types spouting nonsense that I believe (so long as they're not shoving it down my throat or running my country). I do reserve the right to feel a little peeved when some people (as seems to be the case above) suggest that just because I don't yet fully understand the universe, then I must at least be in doubt on the God issue. I'm not.

In other words, you confess your ignorance and proclaim your knowledge at the same time?

I'm not suggesting that you live your life in doubt. I'm simply suggesting that, given the intelligibility of the universe, you must allow the tiniest smidgen of possibility that it has its source in an intelligence.

As you don't fully understand the universe, it can only be the greatest arrogance to completely rule that possibility out.

Marc
While you're polishing off your Theory of Everything you might reflect a little on your capitalist ethics, and ask who convinced you that they were true?

I'd still like to know the identity of the villain who forces me to give to the needy. Whoever it is, they must be stopped!

GV

H
I'm still reeling from the news that Scientists test theories. I mean, not a single critique of scientific realism takes that into account.
Which of course proves that Newton's understanding of mass was perfect.

GV

Marc
I'm afraid I need answers more quickly than expected. Christian Aid have asked for a regular donation.

I must know - who is responsible? The Freemasons? The Priory of Sion? A meme? It's a meme, isn't it? How do I get it out?

Curse those memes - invisible, intangible yet cunningly scientific!

GV

H

I theorise that a Flying Spinach Monster is bending light around the sun(an invisible, but tangible monster). I test my theory. Light bends near the sun. Wow! I wonder what else I can prove?

I theorise that all swans are white. I see a white swan. My theory is confirmed. Better still, my theory logically entails that all non-whites are non-swans. I see a black dog. My theory is confirmed again.

Of course when they tested Galileo's heliocentrism, they didn't find any stellar parallaxes. Of course metaphors are erased from science (like the metaphor of "Selfish Genes").

So three cheers for H's scientific method, which tests everything, and explains nothing.

GV

Those crazy bottom up thinkers! Aren't they great?

Bernard - I will return to your more substantive points when I have more time but in this little gap between appointments I may be able to help with the requests in your post # 24.

With regard to italic and bold emphases if you care to look at my post # 17 above where I have used both - you could high-light the text around the usage, right click it, select View Selection Source and you will see the HTML tags which should serve your purpose.

With regard to making fire the following site should prove useful:
"http:--web.ukonline.co.uk-scoutnotebook-fires-basic.html" - I have replaced the forward slashes throughout with hyphens.

"As a child of 8 I found the whole God thing a bit hard to swallow."

Well it sort of would be if you were given the impression that God was a way of getting things done, was a way exercising power over others, or was demanding money for an entrance to heaven, as has been suggested.

I'd be interested to read an argument against God which amounted to more than a stereo-typical caricature.

Bernard

I am not positing another reality I am questioning how good a model of ultimate reality (whatever that is) the human brain is capable of describing. I am questioning whether what we understand as reality is in fact real. I suggest that science does an excellent job in formulating and applying what Mark calls observed consistencies but the important word is 'observed' - it is human science from a human perspective perceiving patterns according to the workings of a mind which is the result of the evolutionary advantage of being able to see weather patterns in the sky and migratory patterns in the dust-tracks of animal herds on the African savannah.

As we learn more we find inconsistencies in the consistencies, we refine the model, but are we actually any closer to truth? Perhaps we are, but I just do not know and I find I can live this life very well without knowing.

My point about the watch was merely to make the point that just because science works in the sense of making a plane fly or predicting that a stone will fall rather than float when dropped from a tower, does not mean that science is always the only or even the best way of understanding every aspect of existence - that is something I simply do not accept.

One could apply science to music - one could describe it in terms of physics and physiology but one would fail utterly to capture its essence. The soul of music does not lie in atoms or subatomic (the very word is a contradiction of the omniscience of science) particles - it lies in that neglected part of our minds which has nothing to do with reason, where beauty and emotion dwell and where the determinant particles beloved of Mark have no sway.

Nothing has so far convinced ME that that reality - the reality of love, compassion, beauty, God is any less real than the perceived reality of this material world.

no26 Bernards_Insight, no! I confess my ignorance and at the same time, based on knowledge of previous human ignorance find no reason to believe that God is responsible for 'all this'.
I'll allow that because we don't fully understand this all yet I can't completely rule out your explanation. I can be very, very, very doubtful given that the God argument has been used for most other stuff that humans did not yet have a rational explanation for in our past. Even if that were not the case, it does not fit with our knowledge to date - it is not a rational extension of what we know.

I'm not saying that you are one of these people, but I find far greater arrogance in those people who tell me that because the human mind has not yet figured it all out, then religion is right. It seems to me like the people looking for a rational explanation find themselves in a marathon which the relgious types never bothered to start but just turn up at the finishing line proclaiming, "we were right!"

no33, petemorrow, I don't know if you've deliberately misunderstood me or it was an accident. What I said was I found the idea of God unbelieveable (along the lines of Father Christmas). I then went on to look for reasons why I might be told such lies/stories and came up with the possible explanation that it was a way of teaching good behaviour. I pretty quickly went on to discover that I was both right and wrong. Religion is used to instill behaviour in people (for good and bad) but most of the people doing this are believers.

I'd be interested to read an argument in favour of God. There's been some good points made about what we don't understand - I like the stuff about effects of music on people above - but no one's yet shown me anything yet where my logical response, is "oh, of course, God".

Hi Paul

I was not trying to deliberately misunderstand you, if that's how it came across, apologies.

Post 35 however still appears to indicate that the impression you have of religion is that it was/is for the purpose of teaching good behaviour. (Santa analogy) How did you arrive at this view? Do you think there are any other possible reasons for teaching religion and in what way do you think you were wrong about this conclusion? I'd also be interested to try to understand what led you to the prior conclusion that the idea of God was merely a story, worse still a lie?

I agree with you that the points raised about music and so on are good points, and that they don't necessarily mean that we need to respond, "oh, of course, God", however it is precisely, things like, our responses to music, art, people, danger, fear, love and so on which the story of God provides answers for. I think that makes the idea worth a look.

Hi Pete,
Maybe I'm not being clear (it wouldn't be the first time). What I'm saying is that step 1, right from the start I didn't find the idea of a God convincing - just in itself - probably as a result of being a rather cynical (or realistic) 8 year old I didn't believe in the miraculous happenings of the bible and I was already a geeky space loving child, so some of what I was being told was already conflicting with my scientific knowledge.
Step 2 was to try and justify why I was being told this. Initially I assumed the reason was for my own good (i.e teaching), but pretty soon after (step 3) I realised that a lot people really did believe this stuff. Step 3 doesen't stop step 2 working, though I guess it's kind of chicken-egg - if you're educated a Christian you're more likely to adopt those values AND beliefs.

Until I got a bit older I felt on my own WRT religion, being the only person not buying into it all, but I didn't see or hear anything that made me really doubt my own views.

My best guess (and to me a more rational one than a God) on the issues of music, fear, art etc are that they have resonance with our genetic past. There's seems to be bits and pieces of our physical body that no longer appear to have a function, why not our feelings and responses? That's not to say we shouldn't enjoy them, and maybe through our enjoyment these senses, skills etc will become more honed as the generations pass.

Thanks for answering some of the points i have raised folks. I'm going to attempt a rejoinder, if y'all don't mind.


" 34. At 9:08pm on 02 Sep 2008, portwyne wrote:
Bernard

I am not positing another reality I am questioning how good a model of ultimate reality (whatever that is) the human brain is capable of describing. I am questioning whether what we understand as reality is in fact real."

You compartmentalise "reality" into "what we understand" and "whatever else there may be, that we can't understand".

Try thinking about reality in a universal way...reality is anything that we ATTEMPT to understand, anything that raises a question.

concepts are real, as objects of understanding. Objects are real, as those perceptible things frowm which we abstract concepts. Quantum physics is real, as a pattern formation through which we can understand most observable phenomena. If there is a reality outside the sphere of possible understanding, by the very act of asking one brings it into the realm of possible understanding.

I think Kant always provides the best example of how such a view of the limits of understanding reality are erroneous. Kant says that there are Noumena, outside of all possible human categories. But in accounting for the Noumena, even in such a very basic way, he brings it into the categories of human understanding. One can then ask, as Schopenhauer did, of what does this Noumena consist?
Alternatively, one can say, as Hegel did, if it is beyond human understanding, how can you say anything about it, or that it exists.

If it exists, humans can attempt to understand it, in whatever way possible. It can be manipulated, and conceptualised, and brought within the realm of human consciousness. Whether human consciousness can grasp every essence of reality is irrelevant, the fact is that every aspect of reality can be brought within the sphere of human inquiry, even if, at any given time, we do not have all of the answers.

"As we learn more we find inconsistencies in the consistencies, we refine the model, but are we actually any closer to truth? Perhaps we are, but I just do not know".

You do not know because you attempt to set up a fixed point outside of reality from which to perceive reality, which you can't do.

We attempt to understand everything that impinges on our consciousness. As we, as you put it, refine the model, we understand more, and we continually return to the evidence to check.

Reality is coincidence of the observable pattern and the rational conceptualised pattern. It is grasped from within, and as the grasping looks out from all angles, it is continually open to further reality.

"...does not mean that science is always the only or even the best way of understanding every aspect of existence - that is something I simply do not accept."

On that score, I wholeheartedly agree.

"Nothing has so far convinced ME that that reality - the reality of love, compassion, beauty, God is any less real than the perceived reality of this material world."

I totally agree. But, in speaking of both aspects of reality, in conceivable and communicable terms, both aspects are brought into the sphere of reality.



35. At 11:03pm on 02 Sep 2008, paulcrossleyiii wrote:
"I can be very, very, very doubtful given that the God argument has been used for most other stuff that humans did not yet have a rational explanation for in our past. Even if that were not the case, it does not fit with our knowledge to date - it is not a rational extension of what we know."

I believe that a rational extension of the idea that the universe is intelligible is that it has its source in an active intelligence. To my mind, that is totally rational.

"I'm not saying that you are one of these people, but I find far greater arrogance in those people who tell me that because the human mind has not yet figured it all out, then religion is right. It seems to me like the people looking for a rational explanation find themselves in a marathon which the relgious types never bothered to start but just turn up at the finishing line proclaiming, "we were right!""

I can see how that rails against your rationality. it is not my experience of religious believers.

Conversely, I would argue that the religious believer is more like the person who turns up at the start of the race, but has been told by the rulebook in which direction he should run....I quite like that analogy.

I'm all for humanity striving to rationally explain the universe. However, rationally explaining that, in the end, nothing means anything, is no explanation at all.
Striving to explain, on the other hand, that the universe is rational, intelligible and good because it has a rational, intelligent and good source, seems to me to be a much more fruitful route to take.

"no one's yet shown me anything yet where my logical response, is "oh, of course, God"."

I don't wish to be presumptuous, but perhaps you're not altogether sure what people mean by God.

If, by God, one means a totally unique, universally transcendent source of intelligence, rationality and goodness, then i think that, being faced with an entire, contingent universe of intelligibles, rationales and goodness, the locial explanation IS "oh, of course, God"


apologies for the length of this post, i hope some of you can take the time to read.

B.

And, having just read my post, i hope you can all distinguish the quotations from the replys, it gets a bit messy.

Thanks.

GV,
No, you are quite wrong about the nature of science. Don't worry - lots of so-called "philosophers of science" are similarly confused.

The problem is this: we might propose that a god or pixie or some other cosmic thingy bends light near a star, but the theory will test *whether or not the bending occurs*, not what the mechanism is. That remains a black box. Occurrence of bending does NOT validate in itself whatever mechanism is proposed within that black box.

Similarly, the finding that the universe is intelligible (well, a bit, anyway) does NOT count as evidence for there being an "intelligence" behind it - that is crackpot logic.

Those who CAN become scientists. Those who CANNOT become philosophers of science. Science envy, in fact ;-)

-H

Hi H

I am more than appreciative of the outstanding successes brought to the world by the result of scientific study; as you say, so much works, and so much is to the benefit of humankind.

I can't help thinking though, that you have failed to realise that non-scientists like me accept the validity of science not simply because we have experience of it working, but also because we accept the testimony of scientists. So unless you're going to 're-prove' everything every time a vacillating old cynic like me pops up you're more reliant on the reports of others than you think.

You see Helio, I don't always need to see to believe, sometimes I'm happy to take your word for it.

BTW those who can, bake beans.

Bernard

Your argument seems to me to present a very anthropocentric view of reality which I could not even begin to accept. I can see no necessary reason why the universe should be intelligible to man and no reason why reality need relate to anything within our range of conceptualisation as the essence of things may not actually in any way impinge on our consciousness.

I do not attempt to perceive the reality I experience from a point without it but I suggest that it is impossible to discount the existence of such a point.

What interests me is that you posit the existence of God within the realm of reality - open to question and subject to the scrutiny of human reason, an object or concept which can potentially be understood.

The God I know does not exist just as he does not not exist. The concept of existence is meaningless as applied to him.

I have no explanation for the origin of the universe (nor do i need one) but I would be surprised (shocked and dismayed, too) to find that God had anything to do with it.

Hi PeterM,

Accepting testimony is a mug's game. I would adjure you to be sceptical of all things. Always test; always try to see how any assertion *works*. Always look for the exception to the rule. Always care about the truth. Never be content to let a "black box" sit unopened. You never need to "believe" anything. Everything is provisional.

The universe is a mad and crazy beautiful place. We're like children in the most amazing playground imaginable. We can play with quarks and black holes, brains and bones, continents and diatoms. When we answer one question, it always throws up more. That scares the 5h1t out of stupid people, but for scientists, it's the most exhilarating ride of all.

Come on in - the reason's lovely!

-H

Portwyne, I think you may be referring to Schroedinger's God ;-)

H

Maybe when I said in my earlier post that I struggled with the 'wrangling of two dreams' I should have substituted 'entanglement'.

no38, Bernards_insight, thanks for a really well-written explanation there (I'm not being sarcastic!) - I can see where you're coming from, but ultimately I still disagree.

I think the arguments in the comments below yours express rather better than I can why that is so.

I can't resist answering a couple of your points, plus there's nothing like over-extending a dumb metaphor! So with the marathon thing, it's actually more like that throughout history, religion has turned up at each drinks station beaten science around the head then got back in the car. Things have changed slightly in recent history (espceially in the west) but I still see most conventional religions as running scared from scientific discovery.

I appreciate that everyone has a different idea of God, and the people I'm talking about above are of the more conventional, litteral believers.

Overall though, I'd still have to disagree with even your idea of God. You say that a logical extension of the universe being exlpicable/intelligible is active intelligence at it's source. I don't agree with that.

Bernards insight #23

I don't know exactly what you mean by intelligable universe. What I meant by what I said was that there are observed consistancies which may ultimately allow humans to put the pieces together to figure it out. How you get from that to there being a god is beyond me. And it may turn out that in the end, the term creation or origin has no ultimate meaning in the sense we know and experience it. The universe my always have existed without a beginning. We just don't know because we don't have enough facts yet.

Think about how many thousands of years (or hundrededs of thousands if you believe in evolution) men thought the earth was flat. Even though some traveled thousands of miles on its surface, like Marco Polo did, wherever they went it looked flat so they assumed it was flat. But if they could have gone just say 100 miles above the surface, the truth would have been obvious. If they had watched the stars carefully, they would have observed that they appear to rotate around Polaris. Then they might have come to the conclusion that the earth revolves around its axis instead of believing that the sun and stars went around the earth thousands of years ago.

Beleive whatever you like, even if there is no basis in fact to support it.

H
Now that I've stopped laughing, I'll reply.
I've no doubt you can name, oh, at least three philosophers or historians of science, and that you've read possibly one. We'll ignore the fact that philosophers like David Chalmers have a background in Scientific Research, Elliott Sober's published work on cladistics, Grunbaums publictions in "Nature" and psychology, Ian Hackings work on Statistical Inference etc. etc. , and defer to your expertise. They are all just suffering from science envy.
Now let's get to your self-referential incoherence. I'm not to accept testimony. So the rest of the academic world should just take your word that what you say about science is true. After all you're a scientist, so I can accept your testimony. No need to test your statements against what scientists actually publish.
Scientists don't believe in Unobservable Entities. Einstein didn't really believe that there was no real distinction between past, present and future. He was just interested in test results, not their interpretation. That's why he wrote that letter to Michael Busso's wife. Galilieo didn't really believe in heliocentrism. He just liked it's predictive power. Which is why he disagreed with Bellarmine and Barberini, who believed that Astronomical theories should only be valued for their predictive power.
Which is well, because every scientific theory that makes the universe more intelligible would not confirm the theory that the universe is intelligible. That's exactly why scientists test theories. Not to confirm them - oh no, they test them because anything could be true.
We should care about the truth because we'll never find it. That was Francis Bacon's big idea - all that stuff about experimentation was just a cunning ruse.
I could go on, but there are some ducks in a barrel I have to go shoot.

See ya.

GV

Sorry folks, there are a few misunderstandings I must clear up, misunderstandings for which I blame myself, obviously.

Portwyne;

"Bernard

Your argument seems to me to present a very anthropocentric view of reality which I could not even begin to accept. I can see no necessary reason why the universe should be intelligible to man and no reason why reality need relate to anything within our range of conceptualisation as the essence of things may not actually in any way impinge on our consciousness."

It's not neccessarily an anthropocentric view.

Reality DOES relate to things within our range of conceptualisation.

Let me ask you, can we say that ANYTHING is true? If not, can we speak in probabilities, or say that one thing is LIKELY or LESS LIKELY to be true than another?

I like to attempt to begin from the fact that "things" do impinge on our consciousness. From that first encounter, we then attempt to work out what it is we are encountering. We begin to grasp observable patterns and form conceptual relations between the "things" that are encountered. I argue that this is an interminable process, which develops and comes to greater understanding.

Is the understanding of the table as a functional object any less real than the bunch of atoms in which it consists?

Both are real, the fact is that the conceptual and scientific world is constructed from a pure ENCOUNTER with something.

We are simply hit with reality, the ways in which we attempt to systemtaise it may well reflect our human cognition, but it also reflects the fact that such a basic encounter can be rationalised in this way. Reality is not precisely just what we make it. Rather it is our response to a basic encounter with EXISTENCE, in its myriad forms.

The fact remains that there is a primeval encounter with "things"; call them what you want, objects, perceptions, sense data, concrete causal agents - we still encounter them, or it, and every further inquiry is an attempt to unfold and understand the "encounter-able-ness" of what we encounter.

Again, Portwyne;

"I do not attempt to perceive the reality I experience from a point without it but I suggest that it is impossible to discount the existence of such a point."

I certainly don't discount the existence of such a viewpoint. It is not ours, however. I believe you may have taken me up as some kind of pure rationalist, believing that there is nothing outside rational reality. I think there has to be something outside of rational reality, but the only thing we have cause to posit is the source of rational reality. Thus the mystery of God is known in human cognition.

NOT that GOD's essence is known in human cognition...rather, the fact that God is ultimately mysterious and beyond human cognition is what is grasped. Thus God is known, not as an object of understanding, but as that which lies beyond the limits of udnerstanding, and indeed constitutes those very limits.

"What interests me is that you posit the existence of God within the realm of reality - open to question and subject to the scrutiny of human reason, an object or concept which can potentially be understood."

I absolutely do not...see above. i posit the mystery of the source of rationality as graspable by human cognition, in the way that a man in a dark box can feel his way around the edges of the box, but cannot see the box from outside.

"The God I know does not exist just as he does not not exist. The concept of existence is meaningless as applied to him."

I both agree and disagree, mainly because there is no CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE. A concept of existence does not apply to God, because there isn't one.

.

What does existence mean? what does it add to the concept of something that doesn't exist?

Rather I see existence as the ultimate ACT, from which all other conceptual considerations prescind. Existence is not a thing, it just is.

I believe that God is the source of existence. God doesn't exist as we exist...He is not "an existing thing". God is not limited to existing as...such and such, or being "such and such". He just IS.

God is sheer act, the act through which we have existence, but also the unlimited act in all spheres



Marcus;

"I don't know exactly what you mean by intelligable universe. What I meant by what I said was that there are observed consistancies which may ultimately allow humans to put the pieces together to figure it out."

and that's precisley what i mean by "an intelligible universe". A universe of observable consistencies, capable of being rationally and intellectually formed into patterns.

INTELLIGIBLE.



"The universe my always have existed without a beginning."

Which part of the universe? all of it? Like my body, for example? But that's not true, my body has only existed during my life time.

Some "prime matter" then, is that what has always existed? the basic stuff that everything is made of, and which can generate and disintegrate eternally?
But What is such a prime matter, without form? Aristotle would suggest that it is, in reality, no-thing, and I would agree.


Look forward to some nice replys folks.

Also, while we're on the "whether there's any reality outside of what can be understood" debate;

Schopenhauer famously reasoned that both the subject/object distinction, and the nature of any indivuation, material or spiritual, had their roots in the human subject. Therefore, any reality that exists outside what is known by the human subject must be ONE.

I kind of agree.

What lies outside all of our conceptual distinctions is not simply another set of distinctions which we haven't yet conceptualised, but a sheer act of eternal being.

Read that back, it's very important.

:)

Hi Bernard, nice response, it certainly reinforces your earlier points.

Problem is I still understand what you're saying (well most of it!) but I still disagree. Especially with your last paragraph. I'd say that what lies outside of our conceptual distinctions very possibly is a set of distinctions that we haven't yet conceptualised. If anything remains then it could conceivably be a sheer act of eternal being, but this is far from the only conclusion.

Cheers

This set of distinctions that we haven't yet conceptualised, are they conceptualisable?

The term "distinctions" suggests that they are.

Let's have a think about them, and try to ascertain what they are.

The point is that any attempt to posit a reality beyond human understanding neccessarily brings that within the limits of human understanding. If it exists as a set of distinctions, we are justified in asking what those distinctions are.

If it does not exist as a set of distinctions, what is it?

Beyond all distinctions and conceptions, what can possibly remain but the sheer being within which all of the distinctions inhere?

PS,

further to my earlier request, i still can't figure out italics and bold. someone suggested above that I highlight and right-click someones else text in italics and then choose "view selection source", but I was offered no such option???

For clarity, perhaps I can give a long winded quotation.

"If the real is intelligible, then God exists. The real is intelligible, therefore God exists.

The minor premise, that the real is intelligible, is established by the fact that the alternative is clearly a counterposition. If you say that the real is not being, is not intelligible, then you are using your intelligence and reasonablenessto present, as intelligent and reasonable, a judgment; from the very intention and nature of the utterance, you are presuming the validity and the significance of an intelligent and reasonable affirmation.

But if it is true that the real is not intelligible, your affirmations can have no significance whatever...It is only insofar as the real is intelligible that any intelligent and reasonable affirmation can be intelligent and reasonable.

Only if there is, at the root of all reality, an unrstricted act óf understanding that freely creates everything else that is, and in doing so acts intelligently and reasonably, can it be true that the real is intelligible. That is the only way in which it is possible that all further questions that arise about this world have an answer.

if you place nothing outside the world, there is no answer to those further questions. If you make something finite the ground of the world, then it is questionable...the solution raises further questions, just as this world does. Only insofar as you posit the formally unconditioned, as not only intelligible but also intelligent, can it be true that the real is intelligible."

Bernard Lonergan, paraphrased ever so slightly.

Bernard

Couldn't a person hold the intelligabilty as a practical postulate - and aren't there alternatives to Theism? Platonism, Aristotleianism, Stoicism, Hegelianism?

GV

In other words cpuldn't are person argue that there are a range of metaphysical options that would imply the intelligibility of nature, but that we are unlikely to discover which is true. They will therefore hold to the intelligibilty of nature as a practically useful postulate, until such times as it becomes untenable?

GV

I know there certainly are other theories which attempt to account for the intelligibility of the universe.

however, i think many of them are severely lacking. Aristotelianism, on his own account, didn't fully face up to the act/potential distinction, and the neccessity of sheer act.

Platonism hinted at, but never fully developed, a theism, with an uncategorisable One at the root of all reality. i think this grasped a fundamental point, but did not fully develop it, for a number of reasons about which many books have been written.

Hegelianism was a pure rationality, with no place for the act of existence. It faces many problems, most notable of which is the complete lack of an act/potential distinction, and the absolute inability to distinguish between a conceptualised object and a real, concrete, existing object. for hegel, existence meant nothing.

While for me, existence MEANS nothing, it IS everything.

In short, I of course recognise that many philosophers have grasped the intelligibility of the universe. It is my view that no philosophical, non-theistic system fully faces up to the sheer ACT of existence, and the universally creative ACT that accounts for all ACTUALITY.

In other words, yes, other people did accept that the universe is intelligible...they came to many different conclusions, none of which is wholly incompatible with a theistic one, (Hegel was a theist, Plato had strong theistic tendencies), but none of which faces up to the sheer BEING of existence, and instead attempts to categorise the single source of all categories...obviously failing in this endeavour.

Bernard
I take "exists" as meaning "exemplified". Presumably you mean much more than this. You also seem to hold that God's existence means more than other types of existence. Why is this?
Does your belief in a God of pure actuality commit you to a negative theology? Can such a God be reconciled with "I AM" - who is responsive to His creatures?

GV

Hmmm. I can't seem to post comments any more - I have no idea why the daft BBC blog software keeps rejecting my posts!

Hi Graham,

Glad you're having fun. Quack quack! ;-)

They are all just suffering from science envy.

You'll forgive me for tarring all with the one brush; I was being a little facetious, but there is a perception in the smug postmodern artsy classes that science is just another narrative invented by humans to describe the world, and is no more valid than the bottom-waggling of some shaman or the crazed jabbering of some priest or other. I addressed this because you seemed to imply that science takes the demonstration of a phenomenon as being equivalent to the demonstration of the reason *behind* a phenomenon. That is certainly not the case formally (although some people do make that error). Funny enough, this fallacy is precisely the one that Bernard is going on about above - the intelligibility of the universe implies an intelligence. That is a logical fallacy - I think you would agree with that?

I'm not to accept testimony. So the rest of the academic world should just take your word that what you say about science is true. After all you're a scientist, so I can accept your testimony. No need to test your statements against what scientists actually publish.

You haven't been remotely listening. If I tell you something, you would be a mug to take my word for it. It doesn't matter if I publish it in Nature, and it gets past peer review - if I put my ideas out there, they are to be challenged. Testimony is the *lowest* form of evidence. If you wish to place a counter-argument, that is your right. But you need to be able to stand up for your view.

Galilieo didn't really believe in heliocentrism. He just liked it's predictive power.

You don't need belief in order to accept something operationally. Belief fossilises the brain. It is an entirely redundant business.
Cheers,

-H

Well, you're confusing ultimate truth with proximate truth of course. Science involves creating models and testing those models against reality to see how well they perform. NOT testing the models against themselves. A scientist can look at a model of, say, creationism, and can show that the model fails (in this case it fails spectacularly). The advance of science lies in the death of bad ideas. Even good ideas, if they don't *work* get discarded. The picture incrementally comes more into focus.

Cheers,

-H

[Sorry - that was to GV - the software is a NIGHTMARE, and i was trying to work out what was causing it to reject my post. I found it was something in Graham's post, but then how did that get past the bots in the first place?
Will- get the boffins on to this - there are Problems]

gveale wrote:
"Bernard
I take "exists" as meaning "exemplified". Presumably you mean much more than this. You also seem to hold that God's existence means more than other types of existence. Why is this?"

"exists" doesn't "mean" anything. It is the sheer "given-ness" of what is there. All of our inquiring into the different ways in which things ARE presupposes a primal IS.

"Does your belief in a God of pure actuality commit you to a negative theology? Can such a God be reconciled with "I AM" - who is responsive to His creatures?"

It commits me to a negative theology insofar as we cannot KNOW God as He is in his own essence. God does not have an essence in the way that others things do, and is unknowable.

However, we can know God from His effects, and, from those, extrapolate analogies. God is good, because creation is good...however, God is not good in the way that creation is. Rather God is the source of goodness.

God is I AM, in that He simply IS. That that which simply IS is in some way the source of all good, we know from revelatory history.

H
We seem to be getting quite sober in our discussion. Can't be helped I suppose.

The intelligibility of the universe could be taken as a fact demanding explanation (with Theism taken as a good/the best explanation), or confirmation of an hypothesis (p (e/h) > e). Or it can be taken as a faith commitment, or something that needs to be placed in a coherent set of beliefs. I'd say all of the above, but I think Bernard wants to go further. He can explain himself.

We can't get knowledge of the ground at all without taking some people at their word - did you test EVERY scientific law you learned at school? Would you dismiss ALL historical knowledge? Of course, you need rules or habits that guide you towards good testimony.

I agree with you about Postmodernism. It seems odd, though, to condemn Postmodernism but to embrace operationalism. There are some important differences, granted. But if you were to state that you felt Barberini was right and Galileo wrong about realism and Astronomy, I would guess that most of your colleagues would lump you in with the Postmodernists.

Perhaps, like Hawking, you're getting Popper and operationalism mixed up. Or perhaps you're using operationalism loosely. In any case you do seem to believe that we move incrementally towards the truth, which doesn't seem to fit with some of your other statements about the truth. In any case given the potentially infinite list of models/theories humans can generate, even if we eliminate thousands, we have no guarantee we are asymptotically moving towards the truth. So proximate truth isn't much help for motivating science.

And in any case, most scientists tend towards some sort of realism. Are they wrong in making inferences to unobservable entities?

GV

Helio

"Accepting testimony is a mugs game"; and "testimony is the lowest form of evidence"

Helio I'm sorry about this, but didn't you just sort of go ahead and blasé assume your own existence as an observer, and a neutral observer at that. You're not biased, are you? I mean you, what was it you said, yes, you, a bunch of atoms, sorry no, I think it was an assemblance of atoms, are observing another assemblance of atoms and you claim to know, accurately, what you have observed because, what was it again, em, because it works, yes, that was it, because it works. Or at least it approximately works. mmmm. Hadn't you noticed that testimony 'works' too? Works for me. Somebody, say a scientist, tells me that a bridge will hold my weight because he tested it, and the DOE put up a big sign (more testimony) saying 10 tonne limit, and I know I'm not 10 tonne cos I weighted myself this morning on the scales corresponding to the metric system, and according to the chart published by the Health Service I was just a tad overweight for my height, (that’s alot of testimony) and I walk over it and it stays in place, yep it works. Or at least it didn't fail that time. The testimony is reliable, (hallelujah) at least in that it corresponds to my experience. But will it hold tomorrow? You know what, I want the tests done again. Better still, let's get a bunch of scientists, and other normal people, like me, together every Sunday morning to participate in a process of collective assurance that the bridge, on the basis of the word of science, is 'true', (Oh great bridge, may it stand forever); in fact, let's blow that bridge up just to see how strong it is, of course then we'd have no bridge. Good job I'm not a scientist; cause I'd only take the lab apart, and doubt the mathematics and that would only be after I'd got over accepting the reality of me; I'm a bunch of atoms, right?

I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. I'm sure you're a reliable chap, and I'm still pretty sure you rely a lot on testimony, even if it is only the testimony you give yourself.

And you're testing models against 'reality'. Help me out here, me, the poor little non-scientist; is that the 'reality' you're discovering by testing models that have been affirmed by testing models against, 'reality', and by people you've never met, but whose emmm reports you ......depend on?

Postmodernism may well have a few artsy classes, and it may make a few good movies, but you appear to have underestimated the reasons for the despair at it's heart, probably because you don't actually live with a practical daily belief that you are only a random, but reasonably lucky, gathering of a chemistry set. And maybe that's something to do with your observation of yourself, and others. We're kind of wonderful, aren't we? Just like the cosmic playground.

Of course I wouldn't be stupid enough to think that anything I'd said proved anything.

Bernard

While there are areas of apparent similarity in our world view there are huge and essential differences. I have no truck with any of the classic Theistic arguments or the classic Theistic God who, if he WERE, would be an abomination. Here then is the core of our disagreement: I would have to believe that if this world had a Creator he would be evil. I challenge anyone to deal, as I do, with human misery and despair and say with a straight face that creation is good.

The God of the Theists, like the God of traditional Christians, is perceived as being both omnipotent and morally perfect - and there's the rub - in this reality, this 'vale of tears', an omnipotent being could not possibly be regarded as morally perfect, just as one would have to argue that a morally perfect being could not conceivably be omnipotent. It is fortunate for me, that the God I know is gloriously impotent.

Bernard

Can you explain your comments on existence a little more? The word means something. I'm not sure how far we can analyse it's referent.
What do you mean by saying we need to presuppose a primal "is"? I'm guessing this is Lonergan's version of the cosmological argument - what is differnt about it?

And, to make the process a little easier on me, can we assume I'm a complete idiot who needs everything explained really slowly?

Thanks

GV

Portwyne
I follow a God who was crucified. Can't see the monstrousity in that.

GV

Hi GV,

I will certainly try to give you a fuller explanation, perhaps over lunch, if you can wait that long.

:)

Portwyne, I do not understand what is "glorious" about impotence. Indeed, if we are talking about a complete impotence, there can be no sense in which god is present, at all, to anything.

Is there any sense in speaking of such a thing, revering it, worshipping it, or indeed having any opinion or thought on it at all?

I have found an article that i wrote some time ago...in the absence of much time today, perhaps if I take some snippets from it it may explain some things.


"Having seen that all metaphysical pronouncements on “what we call The Real” are unified to the extent that they arise from the questioning tendency of rational beings, we were able to name such a tendency, a “Notion of Being”.


Aquinas tells us clearly, on a number of occasions, that being or ens, that which is, is what is first grasped by the intellect. For Thomas, there is no doubt that being lies at the root of all cognition, and it is true that he does speak as though being were a concept….as if we had first an understanding of what it is for a thing to be, and then from this foundation we grasped the many things that are. Numerous texts from St Thomas can be found to support this view, e.g., “it must be said that those things which are more universal according to simple apprehension are known first; for being is the first thing that comes into the intellect, as Avicenna says.”[64]...

Etienne Gilson held the view, that being is that which is known in judgment, McInerny, on the other hand, holds firmly to the contrary reading of Aquinas’ texts, for which there is admittedly more evidence, that being is a concept, which is known at the beginning of cognition, and which can be intelligibly added to other concepts to result in the concept of an actually existing thing.

“The concept which expresses an essence cannot be used as a complete expression of the corresponding being, because there is in the object of every concept something that escapes and transcends its essence.”[65]

Gilson.


In the concrete object, as opposed to the object of thought, there is a further consideration which is not included in its essence, which makes it actually “to be”.
The judgment of existence is not a mental composition of two terms, the essence of the thing, and the essence of esse, “to be”. In truth, there is no clear concept of the term “is”, it is rather an affirmation of actuality, and thus of being.

This is clear in the case of existential proposition, such as “Socrates is”, when the proposition appears not to assert the actuality of any composition of concepts, but the sheer actuality or being of a single concept.
It does not assert the composition of Socrates and some other essence, namely existence, but rather posits Socrates as actual. For Gilson, then, ens, taken strictly insofar as it has esse, is not, in the proper sense, a concept. Ens, or that which is, is what is known by the affirmation of actuality. it is a simple affirmation of the essence as being actual.

The question is whether or not, in affirming something as actual, we have a concept of that which makes it actual, of the meaning of the existential “is”; in other words, a concept of its esse.

Our affirmation of a thing does not explain, in conceptual terms, its actuality, but simply adverts to and affirms this actuality,

Even when the judgment takes the form of asserting the composition of two essences, still this is not the true function of the judgment. To make the judgment that “Socrates is musical”, for example, while the essences of “Socrates” and “musical” are brought together in the proposition, still the affirmation, and function of the copula concerns not just the relatedness of these two, but the actuality of their relation.

All compositional propositions use the copula in a secondary sense, not only in order to mentally compose a unity, but “In order that the unity thus formed may be affirmed as existing in reality and outside of our mind, it must be actuated by an act of existing. It is only then that our intellect uses the verb is with the existential significance, which is its proper signification, for just as the act of existing is the act of all acts (actualitas omnium actuum), the first signification of the verb is, is actual existence.”[66]
In other words, for Gilson, being is not an essence which is composed with another in order to affirm that concept as an actually existing essence; rather being is what is known when the verb “is” is used in its primary, existential sense.

The existence of an essence is an act of that essence, and it is grasped by the act of judgment, when the copula is used in the existential sense, not just to compose two essences, which are after all only objects of thought, but to assert the actuality of any essence, or composition of essences.

The grasping of existence is neither conceptual nor solely judgmental. It follows upon an unfolding of a spontaneous notion operative in the human mind, a notion which, beginning as a completely mysterious and inconceivable mental content, gradually comes to be fulfilled, and to be more known, as our knowledge develops.

In Insight, Lonergan tells us that our notion of being provides us with a definition of being, but that it is a definition of the second order.
We do not have a concept of being, but only a notion, because being is defined as “the object of the pure desire to know”.

The concept of being is not known, insofar as we have no complete conceptual knowledge of the content of “being”, of all that is. However, we can define being as that towards which we are striving, having recognized that our striving is unlimited, and thus must extend to all of being, both in general and in every concrete instantiation or particular being.

The notion of being could be named a concept, insofar as it is a heuristic notion. It has a content, and does, in a way, express what being is. It tells us that being is that which is known, whenever we give free reign to the natural drive of inquiry, and allow it to come to fruition in judgment.

The notion of being is not a concept, but an unlimited orientation towards the real.

When we say that “Socrates is” our notion of what “is” means is (perhaps implicitly) inferred from our advertence to the fact that we desire to know “what is”, and when this desire is fulfilled, we have reached “what is”. The statement “Socrates is” can only be affirmed when the rational unfolding of the desire reaches its fulfillment, so that all the inquiry into whether he is or not is satisfied.

A concept of existence would include a grasp, would it not, of what it is to be. Yet, as being is an analogous term, and can be instantiated in a multitude of forms and essences, a full concept of what it is to be would necessarily include the different ways in which a thing could be, and would essentially be an understanding what it is for everything to be.

Any notion of the real must arise from the intelligent inquiry of the rational subject, and thus, the real can properly be named the total, or complete, or absolutely fulfilled inquiry of the rational subject. That is, the real is that which would be known by the rational subject, were his intelligent inquiry completely fulfilled, so that all that he had inquired about had become actual knowledge. Were the rational subject able to understand and make correct judgments upon every possible inquiry, so that no questions remained, and all answers were known, the content of the known would be “the real”.

Any question that the real may extend beyond this is at once an admission that the very reality which may extend beyond rational questioning, is in fact open to questioning. It thus becomes clear that being, or “the real” is the sum of the answers to all possible questions, both theoretical and concrete. So that, even if one might argue that there are aspects of rude unintelligibility within being, such argumentation itself transfers such rude intelligibility into the wider arena of intelligibles, and, in doing so, constitutes it as intelligible."


That is very long-winded, and all over the place, and contains reference numbers with no reference, but if you can trawl through it it may be of some help.

GV, I'm not entirely sure what to make of your post; you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying.

There is a world of difference between an operational acceptance of the veracity of something and the "belief" that something is correct.

If I tell you that the bridge is fine, but it actually looks rather rickety, you might want to question my testimony, and perhaps seek some corroborative data of your own. The testimony itself is, as I have said before, a very poor type of evidence.

Back to testing models against reality - again, you haven't grasped the issue. I don't *have* to rely on the reports of people I've never met - in principle I can go and check for myself (indeed, that is what scientists DO - replicate. Many hypotheses have fallen because other researchers could not replicate the original work - cold fusion is just one example).

The other nice thing about science is that if you come up with a hypothesis, it may have multiple ramifications, which can be tested in lots of different ways. For example, evolution was proposed long before the genetic nature of inheritance was figured out. In recent years we have been able to do multiple cross-genome comparisons of genes, and thereby test evolutionary hypotheses in a very rigorous manner.

At the heart of the issue is critical thinking. Scientists (at least when we're practising what we preach!) are forever trying to *disprove* their theories (and other people's theories especially!). Why? Do we want to see our work go down the pan? No - because by understanding why reality deviates from the model, we gain a deeper understanding of what is *really* going on.

But back to the point of this thread - do we yet know why Keith Ward pressed the Eject button on his philosophical trajectory? I wonder what fallacies he had picked up that made him decide that there had to be a god. Certainly he didn't articulate them in the interview.

H
I'd a notion we were using the same words in different ways. I'll give your reply a proper read Monday morning, and get back to you.
Not as much fun as the putdowns, all this, but more interesting.

GV

Graham

Jesus Christ was crucified but he was not God. When someone like me calls on God we are unfortunately 'just visiting', Jesus, I think it might be said, inhabited God and was as one with what we experience as the burning love of the Divine; he was not, however, God.

I suspect that the origins of the universe are beyond our ken and have neither meaning nor design but, if there were an intelligence which shaped the cosmos, the best we could say of it is that it is so vast as to be unaware of our plight or else so impassive as to be utterly indifferent to the development of its creation.

If we posit a personal deity, omnipotent and omniscient (assuming those aren't contradictory attributes), who devised this world ("the only place of death - there's nothing perfect in it but extreme, extreme calamity") then that deity is a most malevolent devil, a being of quite monstrous evil.


Bernard

I am disappointed you seized on my comment on the impotence of God rather than addressing my main contention, more or less as outlined to Graham above, that, given the nature of 'creation', omnipotence and moral perfection could not possibly coincide in the creator.

Addressing God's impotence, however, I can understand why power is important to someone who equates being with action, I have an entirely different perspective. God is never present with us though we may occasionally be present with him. I do not conceive of him as being aware of our existence far less requiring or noticing our worship or reverence. When we worship God it is an exercise in changing our perspective on ourselves and a very instructive one. When we open ourselves to the Holy and know God the value systems of the world are subverted and the soul is refreshed and energised - sometimes the effect is calming, sometimes the anger one feels at the injustice of society is unimaginably intensified. I do not consider it a poor thing, quite the reverse: Christ himself embraced impotence to suffer death on the cross and the transformational energy of that abnegation of power still reverberates through time and for eternity.

Graham, it looks like we plain talkers are going to have to take our discussions down the pub ;-) I'll get the first round. What are you having?

Hi Helio

Quick post, I'll get back in more detail later. It was I who used the bridge analogy a few comments back, maybe Graham did too, it's hard to keep on top of all the comments.

Anyway, maybe we're actually getting somewhere now, at least in terms or realising that we (all)need to clarify the words we are using. It may be helpful then if you defined how you use the word *believe* or *belief*. I'm not sure we mean the same thing. At least it's a place to start.

Peter

John Wright I told you what is in the Koran. You prove it is not true or keep your immature opinions to yourself. Simply saying that you do not believe something is not an academic argument. State what you do not believe; have you read the Koran? I think not. A quote; "did we [god] not make the mountains as pegs) scientists working in the field of plate techtonics discovered that mountains have "roots" holding them to the earth's mantle. The combined result is that mountains look like pegs.

Public Sputnik

It's fascinating to learn that the Archangel Gabriel was a geologist - it must be a Christian thing imagining all those angels flying around up in the sky when really they're beavering away in the bowels of the earth. I suppose that would account for why he didn't quite grasp that the stars don't primarily function as an anti-demon shield around the earth or that the sun does not, in fact, set in a muddy pond...

Hi Sput - wow - mountains are like pegs! This Koran thingy is even less impressive when you spell it out for us. So, after getting embryology hopelessly wrong, it gets geology in a paste too. It's not looking good...

Archangel gabriel didnt write the koran god did. God invented geology. Demons (gin [although some gin are good]) are real and described as being made from the smokeless fire (this probably means hydrogen). Proof of aliens to those that think, gin were made after the angels and before human beings. Satan is a gin and not a fallen angel, angels dont have free will and therefor cannot disobey god, gin, like us, do have free will and can disobey god (by refusing to kneel to adam in paradise). People were not even aware that there was such a thing as an embryo 14 hundred years ago, so how could the koran possibly have got its description wrong? And please elaborate!

Well, they may not have had a baldy 1400 years ago, but they knew back before *4000* years ago - the copulation act was known to be the cause of pregnancy, and lots of ancient literature in Egyptian and Sumerian contexts confirm this (as does material in the bible of course). That the human fetus develops in the womb was pretty much a no-brainer, and much of the work had already been done hundreds of years before the Koran. The Koranic texts are sufficiently imprecise to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. And that is being kind. As *science*, this is worthless.

It is entirely possible that folk wisdom regarding the contents of natural miscarriages may have informed the Koranic view - hence "clots" and "leeches" and "chewed substances".

Nice try, but no cigar.

Portwyne

I'm not exactly sure what your objection to the Incarnation is. Perhaps you can spell it out for me.
I'm also not sure that the Problem of Evil is best weighed against simple Theism, as opposed to some version of Theism. So for example, in Christian Theism the Problem of Evil needs to be considered alongside Christian Eschatology, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the book of Job, Ecclesiastes, etc. etc.
A Muslim or a Hindu will give very different responses. The problem of Evil may prove fatal for one version, but not all.
In any case those using the Problem of Evil as a case against Theism need to avoid two dangers. (a) They need to retain a view of evil that sees evil as a horror and a scandal, and not an unfortunate happenstance. (b) They need to be careful that they do not embrace a world denying pessimism - that they do not affirm that evil so outweighs the good that it would have been better that the Earth had remained lifeless.
In other words, we need reason to hope.

Graham

Sputnik-

Conversely, my opinion that what is written in the Koran is not true is not immature; rather it's definingly mature. And I love the first part of that sentence of yours:

"You prove it is not true..."

Why should I have to prove it's NOT true? You prove it's true! You're the one making the claims, dude. How's about this: I assert that there is a huge, invisible, revolving penis in the sky, which is responsible for hurricanes and the Village People.

Prove it is not true.

JW

Graham

My objection to the incarnation is simple - (1) it did not happen and (2), given my idea of God, it could not happen.

With regard to Theism, give me a version of Theism which does not make the twin assertions in its definition of God that He is omnipotent and that He is morally perfect and I will look seriously at it.

In terms of Christian theism and the problem of evil I regard the redemption of man and renewal of creation through the sacrifice of Christ as essentially an emotionally satisfying myth.

I do regard the nature of the cosmos as 'an unfortunate happenstance' - evil is merely a word for the nature of things and, when applied to a man, implies only that he has been unable to transcend his natural mode of being.

The earth is not lifeless and I, for one, am glad that it is so - for all its attendant horrors life can be, and, in my own case, is good. A realistic apprehension of the world need not cause despair just as grasping at idealistic chimeras does not always insulate the mind from depression.

Portwyne

Although cynical of heart, I do not submit the following words lightly.

That God is at once just and merciful, all powerful and all knowing, and absolutely holy, can only be explained in terms of the cross. Furthermore, it requires that God is imminent in Jesus Christ, the god-man, real and alive, both now and in history. There is no need to look seriously at an alternative theism, for without this there is no alternative theism, and there is no Christianity.

Biblical christianity stands or falls on the reality of Jesus crucified, dead, buried, risen and ascended. Without this, it is a book of bedtime stories, worse, a delusion and a contemptuous one at that. Note too, that this atonement is not the crass visiting of a vengeful 'Father's' violence on an impotent 'son'; it is rather a demonstration of harmony of desire and intent incomparable in any other narrative. The 'us' in whose image we are made are at one from beginning to end.

I do not need this to satisfy some emotional penury, I am perfectly capable of inspiring me to live for me tomorrow, rather I need it to, as you put it, "transcend (my) natural mode of being." Without it I am incapable of rising above my own evil, I am incapable of rising above my caustic desire for revenge, even for the most innocuous of 'crimes' against me. I agree with Chesterton, I am one of the world's problems.

I argee too with Lewis who, in The Silver Chair wrote, of the lion, speaking to Jill Poll,

" 'I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms,' said the lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry, it just said it.

'I daren't come and drink,' said Jill

'Then you will die of thirst,' said the lion.

'Oh dear!' said Jill, coming another step nearer. 'I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.'

'There is no other stream,' said the lion. "

or

"Love's as hard as nails,
Love is nails:
Blunt, thick, hammered through
The medial nerves of One
Who, having made us, knew
The thing He had done,
seeing (with all that is)
Our cross, and His."


It is this, it is the often intolerable appraisal of me, rather the machinations of the Christian sub-culture, which means that I continue to 'believe'.

Hi PM,

Biblical christianity stands or falls on the reality of Jesus crucified, dead, buried, risen and ascended. Without this, it is a book of bedtime stories, worse, a delusion and a contemptuous one at that.

Precisely. It never happened. So why do Christians get all shirty when Dawkins et al accuse them of actually *being* delusional (only in a very kind and sensitive way)?

Actually, the bible is not *all* cr4p, although there is plenty of cr4p in it (same could be said for the Koran of course). Some of the stories are excellent - the tale of Joseph is pure brilliance; the Song of Songs is actually fairly raunchy if you mentally transport yourself into pre-exilic Jerusalem. Esther, though purely fictional, and borrowed/nicked from a Persian original, is a great political thriller.

But the "word of god" it ain't.

Hi Helio

I can understand the full stop after the word precisely. To go further you're going to have to do better than you have done.

Why do Christians get all shirty with Dick Dawk? No idea, I don't; anyway if you watched the repeat of William and Dick tonight you'll notice that he backed off the word delusion. And even if he hadn't, read carefully and you'll see that my accusation of contemptuous delusion has a different emphasis.

The Song of Songs is supposed to be raunchy. Raunchy was God's idea. Not so much preserving your 'jeans' as ripping them off. I once had a 'Christian lady' tell me that all the dripping and dropping business had something to do with a nagging, unnecessarily talkative wife. Aye, right!

I suppose if you'd starred in the SofS you'd have been called Heli-ooooooooooooooh.

Actually I'm not sure Song of Songs is raunchy at all. It certainly attempts to be, in that literary kind of way, but I'm fairly doubtful that the naming of body parts and comparing them to arbitrary parts of the local landscape would have aroused even slightly the most libidinous of Israelites.

Portwyne

Simpy repeating that the incarnation did not and could not happen doesn't really get me inside your chain of reasoning. And of course if it did happen, your objection to Theism loses a lot of it's power.
The problem of evil accuses Christian theology of having an incoherent set of beliefs. We cannot have a morally perfect maximally powerful God, and affirm the reality of evil. (Not every worldview affirms the reality of evil, or even suffering).
The horrendous nature of evil, and the vast scale of suffering in the world would seem to be inconsistent with God who wills the good.
Of course God could have some reason for allowing evil -some Greater Good. Now some individual lives seem to be overwhelmed with evil -they have suffered so much they would prefer non-existence (as Job and Jeremiah preferred) So even if the human race achieves some greater good through suffering (say moral maturity, or free-will)there remains ground to doubt that God wills the good for every individual human.
Does Christianity have the resources to defeat the Problem of Evil? Not if a defeat means a compelling explanation for all the suffering we ecnounter. But I do not think that the Problem of Evil falsifies Christian belief.
Remember the charge is one of incoherence. We need to see if the set of Christian beliefs coheres with the horror of evil. And that mean sthe wholel set of belief, not simply beliefs that God is all good and all powerful.
(However, if God is all-good and all-powerful he can create goods that we cannot yet conceive. Those goods would be capable of "drowning out" any amount of suffering. Furthermore, if God is all powerful, he may have reasons for permitting suffering that we do not understand. So even on simple Theism, their is no logically compelling reason for abandoning Theism.)
If the Easter story is true, we have reason to trust God, even if we do not understand him.
If God has suffered, and in a way both that is both commensurate with and surpasses human suffering, then the charge that God is a monster seems empty. The Resurrection points to a New Heaven and a New Earth. A downpayment on a new world in which evil will be defeated.
Furthermore, the Resurrection confirms that even the deepest suffering need not have the last word. Furthermore it shows that suffering can actually lead to a greater good that overwhelms the evil. This is important as it means belief in the world to come need not mean that we reject the world that is. This life has importance.
We are in the position of the Disciples on Good Friday - it seems as if evil is triumphant, suffering pointless and that God would leaveus without hope, forsaken. That need not mean that we are at the end of the story.
Of course H, Brian and co. may find all these Christian doctrines to be untenable and credulous. But that is beside the point. The Problem of Evil only has intellectual force if I hold a set of incoherent beliefs. And, as regards God and Evil, I don't.

GV

H
Posted on this yesterday, but the bally system was ignoring me again.

If it is probable that Dark Matter exists, isn't a belief in DM warranted? And surely we can avoid the dangers that concern you simply by admitting that all our beliefs are fallible. That is to say, we don't have a God's eye view of the universe. So even when we do our homework right, we may be mistaken.
This doesn't even rule out tenacity in belief. I can be fully and irreversibly committed to a political ideal or a research program, yet concede that I don't have a proof that can compel every rational person. I could be wrong.

GV

Hi Graham,

If it is probable that Dark Matter exists, isn't a belief in DM warranted?

No - but an operational acceptance is. Why do you need to upgrade that to "belief"? I'm perfectly happy to keep a soupcon of "doubt" in anything. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we believe something or not - it is all about how we integrate it into our decision-making. As it is, "belief" is a very negative thing, and can lead us to make *really stupid* decisions.

And surely we can avoid the dangers that concern you simply by admitting that all our beliefs are fallible.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. but we can attach different degrees of confidence to them. My concern here is that the word "belief" carries a lot of unnecessary and smelly baggage.

That is to say, we don't have a God's eye view of the universe.

Of course. But neither has god ;-)

-H

John

I think Helio could be right on the Song of Songs thing. The writer and readers were rural people, saturated in the surrounding countryside, drawing many metaphors and analogies from it. I doubt therefore that it was arbitrary. Indeed some consider the setting to be a 'country estate' owned by Solomon and the basic narrative to be the account of a love story between the king and a local girl which ends with their marriage.

What it isn't is a text with a hidden meaning which we are meant to spiritualise in the way I recollected above.


Helio

I'm still interested in what you mean by 'belief'. How are you using the word?

Oh and, wouldn't you sort of expect Esther to have a Persian parallel?

Hi Peter,

The genre of love poems is well attested in the ANE; this text has nothing to do with Solomon himself; that was only tagged on later.

As for Esther, yes, you'd expect it to be Persian. It is Persian, but has been superficially "Judeified". Esther and Mordecai are theophoric names relating to Ishtar and Marduk, of course. Similarly, the story of Joseph appears to have been co-opted from an ancient Egyptian original - they did not originally involve Hebrews, but stories like that are too good to let slip!

-H

Helio, hi.

So what you seem to be saying, if I'm not reading too much into a number of your comments on this and other threads, is that the bible as we have it is, ultimately, something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue!

The Hebrews have, whether, intentionally or otherwise, begged, borrowed and stolen a history from other cultures. Their 'heroes' are the heroes of other people and other kingdoms and they have managed to do this in a collection of myths gathered over a couple of thousand years, by a wide variety of authors, writing in a range of genre. This 'history' then was seized upon by a few credulous fishermen and an ego centric ex-Pharisee who embellished the Jesus story for his own (possibly unknown ends) and it has all sort of 'stuck'. There is no continuity, no theme and no direction. Maybe it simply caught the zeitgeist, maybe it was used in order to keep the peasants (pagans) in their place, or maybe, like Disney, it's just good entertainment. In any event it's more myth than fact, more 'gentile' than 'Jewish' and most certainly not divine. It's all more 'disneyanity' than christianity and I'm 'Goofy' for considering it to be plausible in any way.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but isn't the above understanding of a few thousand years of a nation's history just a bit too convenient?

Of course another way of looking at it is that the exile 'Esther' (Hadassah), like the exile 'Daniel' had a Babylonian name. I would expect that too.

Hi Peter,
It's a mixture of the above. Remember that these books were on a bunch of scrolls - they were not a unified corpus - bits came in and out, and there was heavy editing and redaction over the years (viz the Dead Sea Scrolls for prima facie evidence of this). Because of this, the principle of selection is massively important - bits that deviated sufficiently from the pattern simply did not get preserved into the next generation.

The bible quite literally evolved.

You're right about Esther having another name (Hadassah). The disconnect however is with both she and Mordecai having explicitly *theophoric* names relating to different gods.

Most scholars accept that it is purely fictional - fiction was a well-established genre at the time, but I think this is an especially good example.

The bible perhaps contains insights into Great Human Truths, but these are things that operate inside societies and human brains; they have nothing to do with the nature of the universe or whether there actually is a god. We know that scenarios that you describe do occur. We know that people read all sorts of nutty things into events that are outside their control.

Christianity is no different. It's a myth.

I aim to get back to this thread shortly but have been so busy between work and arguing with Brian about the really important things in life (Shakespeare) that I simply have not had time.

However, in this fleeting respite and in the light of H's comment about the story of Joseph I would like to commend Thomas Mann's treatment of the story in Joseph and his Brothers. It was in reading that book that I finally came to understand myself.

Hi Helio

I'm not sure I get the point you are driving at with the names Esther/Isthar, Mordecai/Marduku and their relationship to Babylonian gods. The same was true of Belteshazzar, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. (Mind you ask a christian who Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were and you'll probably get a few blank looks!)

Hebrew people (anyone), living in exile, and especially people who were closely connected with the ruling class, might be expected to adopt or be given names related to their new culture. And in the same way that their original names were related to the hebrew God, with the 'el' 'ah' endings, one would expect the new names to reflect the religious system of their new world. There's no big deal here. People do it today. I know those who have adopted the English spelling of English sounding 'foreign' names a few months or years after taking up residence here. If you are finding any more significance in the usage than this then you're going to have to spell it out for me.

The other query I have is this. You seem to suggest that the Egyptians have a history, the Persians have a history and so on, but the Hebrews have kind of borrowed one. This emphasis appears to be quite strong. Why should their history count for less?

And on the scrolls and the selecting and so on. Christians aren't saying that there weren't other stories, or other interpretations of or expectations of Israel's history (myth if you prefer), what they are saying is that a man called Jesus stepped into history and made it his own. Whether any of us like it or not, it still is Jesus who is the crux of the problem, if you'll pardon the pun.

Peter / Graham

Peter's post #83 is extremely powerful and consideration of an appropriate response has occupied mindspace for some time. Its explanation of the unity of purpose lying behind atonement theology is thought provoking. My answer will not satisfy you but I can say that, on a certain level, I agree with you.

I hope the following will give Graham, too, a fuller picture of my thought processes. My post #82 needs to be read in the context of the Theistic arguments which precede it. For me, Theism falls on the question of evil - if you reason an omnipotent god into existence you have reasoned a monster. Apologies for the arrogance but I have come across no explanation for an omnipotent and good God permitting or causing the world we experience which even begin to satisfy my reason.

However, I would say that I know God and that the God is know is not a monster. This knowledge is not of the reason and this God is wholly other: he bears no relationship to existence, he is incapable of exercising any power in existence, he is quite possibly unaware of material existence and us within it. Incarnation of such an entity is therefore completely conceptually impossible.

Reason gives us one way of looking at the world - but not the only one. The power of emotional apprehension is often unconsidered; the truth of a myth is in its resonance not its grounding. I consider a lot of what you say, Peter, as the expression of a myth but that does not make it untrue - rather it makes it profoundly true.

We can know God at a deeply satisfying emotional level, that knowledge is not illusory - it is transformational. I would say that my Christianity actually shapes my life in all its important aspects.

Portwyne

You criticise Theism on an intellectual and an emotional level - I'll let Peter deal with the emotional critique. However, I would like to remind you that (a) my defence of Theism did not depend on us understanding God's reasons for permitting suffering (b) you use your reason to infer what this wholly other, unknowable God is not capable of and (c) an account that is both emotionally resonant and rationally consistent avoids dissecting the human into parts. As I have mentioned before, I find such division dehumanising. We are simply not constituted this way.
I certainly believe in the limits of reason, and in the importance of imagination and experience. The difficulty that I find in the Theology you outline is at least fourfold. (a) No limits are placed on imagination, so we can find ourselves committed to a variety of contradictory and absurd belief systems, so long as the end result is emotionally satisfying. (b) Keep in mind that the mythology of the Nazi's proved compelling to many.I cannot see that you can give any reason to prefer the "God of Love" to the "Will to Power". (c) There is no moral challenge - you generate your values autonomously, and in isolation. (d) Your wholly other God sounds surprisingly personal. "Non-personal love" belongs in the same category as "square triangles".
The critique I offer is rather dry - but Peter has filled in the emotional and imaginative blanks.

GV