Jump to content

Mike

Senior Members
  • Posts

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Mike last won the day on October 26 2020

Mike had the most liked content!

About Mike

  • Birthday 09/22/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://childofemptiness.blogspot.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Religion, both theory and praxis. Theology, Buddhism, phenomenology, music, writing.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,089 profile views

Mike's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (7/9)

114

Reputation

  1. I think there is a sense in which we have to look at Christianity as a whole if we are to answer 'Does Christianity have meaning?' The Judeo-Christian tradition emphasises a strong sense of history, linear time, and teleology, as well as an interplay of divine and human meaning, where neither are wholly separate from nor wholly identified with one another. These aspects I think have a lot of meaning and influence regardless of who Jesus really was or wasn't.
  2. Hi Norm, I'm not sure where I did this. I think what counts as 'natural' or 'supernatural' depends entirely on one's presuppositions. They are empty categories to be filled by one's expectations. Thus, reality is neither natural nor supernatural. But you did write, "The anti-theist does not accept supernatural explanations for every day phenomenon, and trusts that things not known or understood now will eventually yield a naturalistic reasoning." "There was a time when I would allow for supernatural explanations for things I don't currently understand, but I no longer do. I assume that we just don't know the answer yet, and that eventually, science or experience / observation will reveal the truth of the matter." "I'm not anti anything. I just don't see the point of believing in things I can't see, and for which there is scant evidence, particularly since belief in supernatural events, magic and such does not add anything to the message." To my mind this seems to presuppose the dichotomy, and moreover seems to assume that there is a universal definition or standard by which to judge what 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural' even means. But as I tried to argue, I don't think there is any such standard, as I attempted to illustrate with a few examples, although I was probably unclear... For many philosophers of mind, subjectivity is a natural starting place -- a given. But there are those who think that the very concept of subjectivity/mind is nothing but 'magic' -- and magic, of course, does not exist. So, what is perfectly natural to the first group is a magical explanation to the second group. Let me be clear that this second group does not actually believe in magic, they disbelieve in magic, and since the notion of mind/subjectivity strikes them as magic, their project is to eliminate mind/subjectivity from one's picture of reality. Incidentally, it is this latter group that most of the new atheists fall into (especially Dan Dennett, Michael Shermer). Plainly, one person's notion of 'nature' is another's notion of 'magic'. These are startling differences on the nature of existence for two people who both profess a 'natural' world. Assuming that 'natural' has any one meaning cannot justify the diversity found in actual philosophical discourse. This isn't a matter of 'growing up' intellectually. These are real, contemporary topics that have no sign of being 'outgrown'. Yet, depending on how one answers the questions these issues present, one's notion of 'reality' will take drastically different shape -- to the extent that what is 'natural' to one is supernatural to another. I look forward to you thoughts. Peace, Mike
  3. Hi Norm, The dichotomy is presupposed. The predicate ‘natural’ is utterly superfluous without ‘supernatural.’ Set against ‘supernatural,’ the meaning of natural is determined, and vice-versa. Without ‘supernatural,’ there would be no ‘natural world,’ there would only be a ‘world,’ neither natural nor supernatural. Furthermore, what is termed ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ is contextually loaded, dependent upon one’s expectations of the way things are. In other words, it is biased. What might be 'natural' according to one person may strike another as 'supernatural'. For those cosmologists who in the first part of the 20th century believed in the steady-state theory, 'big-bang' cosmology smacked of supernatural creation. For many philosophers of mind, subjectivity is taken as a naturally given starting point, while for others "mind" is magic, supernatural, and needs to be eliminated from our picture of the world. I think various scientific explanations of phenomena are not 'naturalistic' as opposed to 'supernaturalistic', but just one explanation in contrast to other explanations of how phenomena relate one to another. Like you I’m not too interested in imagined, alternate realities, either. I didn’t appeal to any. I find it interesting that you say, ‘If I see something, and it has a name.’ Not to digress -- but I wonder why you add, ‘and it has a name’? If something exists and is unnamed, does it not really exist, or is it supernatural? Or is a form of idealism suggested, wherein we suppose that things only exist that are defined by an immaterial essence (Platonism). What if things exist but have no essence, that is, they are unintelligible and ineffable mysteries? I'm not trying to twist your words. These are indeed deeper questions than most people notice. If all that we mean by ‘nature’ is that which we generalize about through induction, then ‘nature’ simply amounts to that method of generalization, and nature doesn’t exist outside of the scientific method itself. What I’m trying to say is that ‘nature’ adds nothing to the content of the scientific method. We simply have the method and its results. What does referring to this as ‘nature’ add? The results will be what they will regardless. As for truth, is it really the case that any truth can be found to be 'faulty'? What about the truth of that assertion? What of Descartes’ method: ‘I think, therefore I exist.’ To doubt my own existence is to prove it. Is all 'truth' on the same level -- all knowledge of the same degree, everything without exception merely an indirect, distant, objectified construction of guess-work? Perhaps the more we objectify reality, the less certain we become. Perhaps knowledge and being are intimately linked, so that the farther removed from being, the less stable our knowledge becomes. What is pre-objective cannot be doubted because it cannot be made an object of speculation. The more abstract (I.e. detached, disembodied, ‘lifted-out-of-context’) our questioning becomes, the more room for doubt. Conversely, if there is literally nothing which cannot be falsified, then there is literally nothing which can truly be affirmed. All truth must rest in reality. Truth and knowledge are not a matter of proposition only; it is the very face of being itself. What is it to know in the most general sense of the word? What is 'knowledge' that a subject may attain it? How does knowledge cross from the subjective world to the objective world, if these two 'worlds' are really divided as is commonly believed? Best of luck if you wish to resolve these questions -- or even frame them -- through hard science. By induction we can infer what will happen. But it does not explain why it will happen or what, in a deep sense, it is that happens. We do not gain a substantive vision of reality by means of it. I think there are aspects of reality intrinsically beyond our means to objectively give an account of. Consider that to date there is not one shred of scientific evidence, strictly speaking, that any of us has any subjective experience at all. Peace, Mike
  4. I think the natural/supernatural dichotomy is artificial. Neither concept adds anything to empirical reality; and through neither concept can we deduce the existence of anything at all. More often than not I think what people mean by 'natural' is that which we have come to generalize about through induction (repeated observation). This however has obvious limitations and does not furnish us with an ontology. Peace, Mike
  5. In my experience, the greatest obstacle is not merely in that someone doesn't believe there's enough evidence for the existence of God. 'New atheism' tends to be anchored in something much deeper: a consensus view of reality that pervades our entire culture, both among the religious and the non-religious. This consensus view is very hard to break, and without that breakthrough, making any honest and critical spiritual affirmation about the nature of our existence is exceedingly difficult. The consensus view is that which has implicitly and explicitly coloured our perception to the extent that we don't even notice our presuppositions and biases, and this is none other than scientific materialism. Without transcending the strictures of scientific materialism, a person may not even be able to imagine how religious things might be true. For me it took studying ontology and epistemology (the studies of being and knowledge) to discover that the consensus view was inadequate to deal with the empirical weight of subjectivity and other questions, and it came as a surprise to me that I was not alone: there are plenty of intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists who feel the same -- powerful appeals are still being made to the continued validity of classical philosophy (just because something is out of fashion does not make it wrong) -- and also to post-modern philosophies like process philosophy and phenomenology (non-materialistic ways of investigating mind, body, and reality). The real task is to challenge 'new atheists' -- the vast majority of which are secularists committed to the metaphysical vision of scientific materialism, to think beyond those categories. If that can be accomplished, I think there we be a natural opening for they themselves to explore other avenues of realizing their existence, other ways of knowing. There is no need to force anything on anyone. If one's thinking is freed, the mind will go where it naturally is moved. Peace, Mike ps. Just to be clear, I don't think 'atheism' per se is even a problem. I don't mind whether people believe in God or not. I have concerns however about more general methods and views regarding reality. You might say the 'new atheism' of Dawkins and Dennett et. al., is the logical end of where modernist philosophical presuppositions have taken us.
  6. Thanks for all the thoughts so far. I agree that chapter 3 contains a message that is by now very familiar to us. In any case, I continue to enjoy Tillich's existential approach, never dividing the divine realm from the lived realm. "God's abiding in us, making us His dwelling place, is the same thing as our abiding in love, as our having love as the sphere of our habitation." One other thing of interest I found was at the end of the sermon where he writes: "It is more than justice and it is greater than faith and hope. It is the presence of God himself." This turns my mind to Job. The voice from the whirlwind. Does it transcend justice? At that apocalypse, the unveiling of the presence of God, does faith and hope find its end/consummation? And with that I suppose we can move on to chapter 4 unless anyone else has anything to add. Thanks, Mike
  7. I don't read fiction really, so I'm probably not the best person to question. But one book I really enjoyed was 'The Gods of Pegana', a modern mythology authored by Lord Dunsany. Written early 20th century, quite brief, Dunsany's prose is superb.
  8. I think I was 11 when I was baptized. I think you're correct that around that age a person usually begins to open up to the larger meanings of life. However, it wasn't until I was around 14 or 15 that I really began to question things. I think 15 is more or less the typical age when a person starts to inquire critically about her or his worldview, beliefs, etc.
  9. I enjoyed this second chapter. It's been a while since I've read/heard any sermonizing on the Apostle Paul. I must admit that the rhetorical use of "circumcision" seems more and more strange to my sensibilities, but I understand well enough the signification. Karen, I'd be glad it indeed applied only to males. But in all seriousness I see your point. The idea "new creation" going beyond religion as such, I think, is a good paradigm. It is freeing and yet challenging; it finds unity among various religions but doesn't lessen the demands of realizing religious truth. I also continually enjoy the way Tillich ties theological ideas with very existential ones. God's acceptance is not other-to a deep acceptance of life within us. There's no clear distinction between God and Life itself. Christ is the resurrection and the life, the wellspring of living water. Tillich develops a view that it is not by our effort that we are reconciled to God. We do not transition from "old being" to "new being" by being reconciled; in the new being we simply are reconciled. Peace, Mike
  10. Thanks everyone for the contributions. I also liked the phrase "law of our own being". To me it is just as true to say that I implicate ultimate truth as ultimate truth implicates me. Therefore, "God's love is the the law of our own being." I agree with Dutch that the chapter as a whole reads a bit dated. I'm still trying to interpret what I feel about Tillich's overall message about righteousness and sin. These aren't terms we tend to use much on this board. I felt that this passage touches an oft overlooked gospel theme that dates right back to the New Testament, that God in Christ -- the New Being -- the new Creation -- has already reconciled the world to himself. It is we who need to "be reconciled to God." We need only act on that acceptance. Peace, Mike
  11. I suppose we can start, then, probably immediately, since this book is readily viewable via the Internet. What say everyone? Perhaps this Friday we'll 'officially' start the discussion? Or would a later date work for everyone? Shall we set a week per chapter? Peace, Mike
  12. Well I think we have enough people interested now. How would we like to organize this? We could either keep it all in the same thread or break it up -- though since these are small chapters I think we could simply keep them in one thread and set a time frame response and discussion for each chapter (again, which is 23 total). Peace, Mike
  13. It seems thus far we have 5 people interested in the discussion. Perhaps this is enough to get started? Yvonne, I wouldn't worry about it being over your head, as this book is a collection of sermons and meditations, not one of his overtly philosophical works. Peace, Mike
  14. I think there are some undeniable similarities in the contemplative traditions within religion -- many teachings concerning compassion, non-attachment, union, etc., are interchangeable. This is because they are experiential/phenomenological paths, and human experience is their common wellspring of truth. And again, as far as differences go, this is an avenue for constructive dialogue. I've been very interested in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, which has shaped my Christianity irrevocably. Even no less a Christian theologian than John Cobb has displayed his interest in Buddhist metaphysics, devoting a couple of volumes to the subject. A few essay examples of such Buddhist-Christian engagement: The Incomprehensibility of God: A Buddhist Reading of Aquinas (this essay is a PDF file directly downloadable from this link). John Keenan's essay, The Emptiness of Christ: A Mahayana Christology. Robert Aitken's essay, Formal practice, Buddhist or Christian Of course, one could also find comparative, interfaith studies going on between Christianity and any number of other faiths (Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.) Peace, Mike
  15. Hello Matt, I'm a bit perplexed about your words here; I'm not sure what you're implying. Doesn't every religion, including Christianity, "fail" people? If by fail you mean "does not communicate its purest values" to the person, or simply does not speak to the person as much as another religion might. Individual religions are themselves not monolithic. Even within the Christian tradition there are ideas that differ greatly. I agree with you that syncretism just-so isn't very realistic, and might even be seen as disrespectful. But if there is truth in all religions, why is it that only the differences matter? If it is dangerous to say all religions are one, it could be construed as more dangerous to suppose that they have nothing in common. Is this not the root of sectarian violence? I agree that differences are meaningful and should be respected. Fruitful dialogue comes from differences. But without commonality, no dialogue can take place, and there is merely opposition. Peace, Mike
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service