Mike

As others have similarly expressed, Progressive Christianity to me is a path that embraces pluralism and gets away from systematized, exclusive absolutes, and where intellectual honesty is much more likely to be valued. This is, of course, a risky endeavor, because it opens us to uncharted terrain. There is much potential for tenderness, love, and meaning to be creatively discovered. That word, 'creative', is essential. Creativity - in practice, social realization, philosophy, theology, metaphysics, art, etc., - I think can truly develop into a unique hallmark feature of PC, because of PC's inclusiveness. Without that creativity, I think we risk superficiality, again, because of its inclusiveness -- it might become somewhat amorphous and ambiguous, lacking bite.

Hello Paul, Welcome and thanks for the meaningful question. With the wide variety of beliefs and theologies represented here on the board, I hope others chime in as well. I've been a doubting individual too, and it seems that in our current cultural climate, it is an uphill battle to make virtually any spiritual -- or even positive -- claim about our existence. But despite this I think it's attainable to come to an affirmation of mind and meaning. I see these as fundamental categories, by which I reason about the nature of existence. Therefore, I approach the universe as 'enminded' and 'enmeaninged', not necessarily in the sense of 'mind' or 'meaning' being imposed from the outside, but of emanating and being realized intimately from the inside-out. I suppose I found my entrance into spirituality and religion through studying some forms of contemplative practice, basically surrounding the themes of non-duality. I don't look for God as something outside or external to my existence or the meaning of my existence; God, to me, is not an object among objects. I see the idea of "object" as a conceptual construct or category, not subtle enough to do justice to the true nature of our existence. The difference between the 'gross' and the 'subtle' can perhaps be better expressed by Father Merton, Lord God, the whole world tonight seems made out of paper. The most substantial things are ready to crumble apart and blow away. How much more so this monastery which everybody believes in and which has perhaps ceased to exist? O God, my God, the night has values that the day has never dreamed of. Peace, Mike

I rather like this from 'Finding God in a Tangled World'. The two lines have to be taken inseparably. No one is worthy of Jesus' holiness. No one is unworthy of Jesus' holiness.

Certainly doesn't have to be. But life tends to be what we make of it. Peace, Mike

Hi Norm, Thank you for your thoughts. I agree, that much is undeniable. Scientific objectivity is a methodology. As such it involves distancing oneself from reality through abstraction in order to fit reality into a preconceived category. No methodology can claim to explain reality-in-itself, by definition it cannot make that sort of claim. Let me put it this way, Is the scientific method itself reality? If not (I hope you would answer in the negative), then reality lies beyond the scientific method. Reality is quite fine as what it is whether we want to analyze it or not. Objectivity is a method, but this doesn't mean that reality is an object or must conform to that conceptual expectation. In fact, it doesn't. Approaching reality as if it were an object that one can stand outside of and manipulate is what I mean by 'confusing methodology for ontology'. Even though science must abstract reality in terms of the concept of object, it does not mean that that is a true ontological category. Actually I don’t see any real meaning in the term supernatural. Nor ‘natural’, ultimately. They are just names, not reality, though I think 'natural' probably has more content. Science may explain to some arbitrary degree perceived reality, but it cannot replace perceived reality, reality will always be too immediate and unruly for our abstractions. Science (or any type of method) is incapable of speaking to purely objective state of affairs (which is its ideal). Because no such state of affairs exists, and if it somehow does, there can be no bridge between us and it. I am not a realist when it comes to the world people tend to presuppose science describes. I think naturalism goes beyond the scientific method as a metaphysical stance. In fact, the belief that “that there are no statements of truth aside from scientific objectivity. Reality itself must conform to the ideals of that method,” is a statement about science and therefore lies without the scientific method - and therefore is a contradiction. I disagree; I never made such a sweeping generalization. And as for Shermer and Dennett, I would only suggest that you may not be aware of what they’re up to. I see things very differently. And that’s ok. Peace to you, Mike

Just want to interject one more thing for the sake of clarity. To elaborate more on this... 3) The humanities (literature, art, philosophy), then, also do not enjoy any autonomy, and must be reduced scientific objectification. In other words, the eliminative materialists like Dennett believe that once a more 'complete scientific picture' comes in (presupposing that such is the role of science), there will be no need to refer to subjectivity, experience, or humanity, there will only and exclusively be objective material states devoid of any life, qualia, experience, meaning, and value. I hope that anyone can see, whether holding to materialism or not, that this is a radical view. Peace, Mike

NeonGenesis, I am sorry that you took offense in what I wrote. This was not my intention - I think we are consistently talking past each other here and you are misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. I’ve tried to be clear that I’m not talking about atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism, religion vs. non-religion. I’m talking about something more basic here, what it means to be real, to exist. I agree that all ideas should be open to criticism. But I question the motives of those who want to deny people any sense of humanity - any subjectivity and private experience - through endless (and senseless) objectification. It seems downright cynical to me. I take it this is what most offended you. I’m sorry I worded it this way, I didn’t mean it in the way you’re taking it. But this is no doubt my fault because I did not provide enough context. I find that we’re living in a very cynical intellectual climate, very broadly speaking. Eliminative materialism seems to be the logical end of this cynicism. I do question what motivates some people to believe the things they do - what do they believe about reality?, is there something intrinsically cynical about their worldview? This is not an unfair question and it’s not bigoted, it is something that has been written about extensively in the history of ideas in the modern West, by various philosophers. The eliminative materialism of Daniel Dennett et. al. does in fact deny any reality to 'humanity'. This is not a slur against them but simply what they aim to do. Both Dennett and Shermer believe that the idea of 'experience' is itself profoundly wrong and that subjectivity has nothing to do with anything real. This effectively denies people any reality and meaning to their private experiences and subjectivity. Again, this is simply the project of Dennett, it is not an insult toward him. But I can't lie in the fact that I see this cynicism in this project. Please look up the eliminative materialism of Daniel Dennett. I have tried to point out that not all materialisms are the same. I think we can both agree that it is immoral to objectify another human being. Any blatant denial of the value of subjectivity lies at the heart of many abuses, whether religious or non-religious. A society could not function in which everyone believed everyone to be objects and not subjects. Denying subjectivity is not trivial. Perhaps I should just stop here for now. Again I apologize for offending you. Peace to you, Mike

Hi NeonGenesis, I feel that we are probably talking past each other on some of the more fundamental points here. These issues tend to run deeper than theism vs. atheism or naturalism vs. supernaturalism. At base this is about the limitations of objectivity and whether there is any meaning and value (or reality) to subjective experience (or mind). At this level, what counts as “natural” or “supernatural” is probably too subjective to be meaningful. To Michael Shermer, for instance, mental phenomena literally cannot have any reality/existence. If they did, it would be “magic.” What “natural” is to him means what exists when fully reduced to the concept of externalized material objects. Therefore, what I take to be entirely natural -- phenomenal experience -- Shermer takes to be “magic.” So, I do wonder if you really see no problem with scientism as I have defined it. Let me try to elaborate on what it means more. It means... 1) Everything that exists can be reduced to the concept of “object.” Effectively you and I don’t exist as subjects; all that exists is what can be externally defined, objectively, by the scientific method. You don’t have private experiences, there is no real subjectivity, everything that exists can be fully explained in terms of object-ivity; or in other words, what exists does not exist subjectively but only objectively. 2) The scientific method can in principle explain everything it means to exist AND/OR science explains existence itself AND/OR science makes the only valid and meaningful statements about existence AND/OR only what is accessible to the scientific method exists (again, subjective existence and/or "existence beyond objectivity" does not exist and/or it is meaningless to speak of it, only what science speaks of exists and/or is meaningful to speak of). 3) The humanities (literature, art, philosophy), then, also do not enjoy any autonomy, and must be reduced scientific objectification. It is these presuppositions that constitute the "poor philosophy" of scientism. I did not try to imply that all non-believers or all believers are decided on this issue. I targeted eliminative materialism. There are other types of materialism that aren’t eliminative, I could cite Galen Strawson, who is a philosopher and physicalist and a robust realist when it comes to mental reality. For him, physicalism/materialism must affirm the reality of subjectivity and the experiential in order to be coherent. In other words, physicalism strongly implies that mental reality is physical reality and physical reality is mental reality: panpsychism. One of my main points here would be that invoking the metaphysical concept of matter does nothing toward solving any scientific problems. It is not an empirical or scientific concept but a metaphysical expectation. Science has never proven the materiality of anything. A doctrine could scarcely be worse ethically than denying that subjects exist. Again, this goes beyond ‘religion’ per se and goes into sound philosophy versus scientism. Shermer was being very generous in that respect, then, I must confess. This does not mean Shermer necessarily finds any value in progressive faith, however, it might only mean something like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Shermer clearly is not an advocate of any kind of religious teachings. I agree that all ideas should be open to criticism. But I question the motives of those who want to deny people any sense of humanity - any subjectivity and private experience - through endless (and senseless) objectification. It seems downright cynical to me. Shermer and Dennett are two examples. Peace, Mike

Hi Norm, Thanks for your observations. Something that has impressed me is how well some religious philosophies have weathered the test of time. I'm not saying that modernity hasn't posed its challenges to them and refined and re-defined them in important ways. But recurring themes keep surfacing with each new generation. I'm not aware of any fundamental question in ontology that has ever been settled by the scientific method, even though we've obtained more information than we could ever know what to do with. There is an important sense in which we tend to take the scientific method to do what, by definition of its method, it cannot. We consistently mistake methodology for ontology in the West. I'm not saying science has nothing to do with ontology, since I do believe it is the same reality they speak to. I'm not saying there are no casualties with regard to older, outmoded beliefs. But I am saying that there are limitations to science, even though it is virtually limitless in its applications. If it weren't limited, it couldn't have anything meaningful to say. As far as Shermer and Dennett go...as I see it, they are not mere commentators; they are exerting their energy in their respective fields to advance their personal metaphysical commitments. Their personal view is that there are no statements of truth aside from scientific objectivity. Reality itself must conform to the ideals of that method. Nothing is sacred, nothing is private, they will not be satisfied until everything and everyone are reduced to the category of object. I don't see how such a project could succeed in principle, since it is already on the shakiest of grounds (please see the post above for a little more elaboration). If it rests on a mistake - an absurdity even -, then in this respect I think 'time has already told'. This goes well beyond religion and to what it means to even exist. Peace, Mike

Hi Neongenesis, Thanks for your thoughts, I do appreciate your concerns here. I did note that my initial post here was quite aggressive against Shermer and Dennett, which isn't usually very constructive. Getting to the heart of the matter, I don't see the issue here as fundamentally about any particular scientific theory; it is about one's general worldview and basic philosophical presuppositions. It is about one's life-stance, and as such, is very important. You quote Daniel Dennett here, I have tried to define scientism as something specific here so as to give it teeth, that is, real meaning, and to avoid such vagaries as Dennett alludes to: therefore I don't see this criticism as applicable. Dennett's materialism isn't even a scientific theory; therefore, his point is moot here (though his criticism may in general be very applicable to many who oppose him simply on religious grounds). My criticism of Shermer and Dennett is not that they are godless; it's not even that they are materialists (as there are many forms materialism can take, including ones that affirm the reality of phenomenal experience), rather, my criticism is that, in my view, they advance a radical point of view based on a metaphysical commitment that is indistinguishable from familiar types of religious faith. Just to be clear, I define scientism as the implicit or explicit belief (1) that there is no meaningful statement about reality, or, (2) there is nothing about reality, that goes beyond scientific objectification. Though such scientism rests on poor philosophy and is not true to the actual scientific method, it is at least a tacit assumption among many materialists today (at least the most outspoken ones, which, perhaps, is not a coincidence). Their version of materialism, a form of eliminative materialism, involves the outright denial that subjectivity even exists; there are no experiences, only material brain states that we theorize and reify as 'experiences'. I could offer several ontological arguments against such a perspective, and even more ethical ones, as the view they advance is intrinsically demeaning. I contend that their kind of materialism would be exceptionally damaging to society if society as a whole were to adopt it. I have nothing against Shermer, et. al., personally. I agree that we should love them and I would not exclude them from the community - though I highly doubt the progressive faith community is something they're looking to get into. Thanks, Mike

Hi Joseph, Thanks for asking. The meaning I have in mind with that statement is that 'matter' is a concept. When Descartes formulated his mind/matter dualism, he defined matter as a substance which is defined only by quantity, geometry, and extension in space, totally inert and devoid of life. For Descartes, the 'stuff of mind' was a totally different substance. As you can imagine, that idea of materiality was a perfect fit for the aims of science, which is first and foremost the art of quantities and measurement. What cannot be quantified is beyond science. What Descartes did basically was abstract quantity and geometry from quality and experience. He arbitrarily divided reality and called one set of properties 'matter' and one set of properties 'mind'. Historically, we in the West have continued to work with that Cartesian dichotomy of "mind versus matter". I personally do not hold to substance dualism, and see this division as conceptual and abstract rather than real. Materialists aren't substance dualists either -- at least, they're not supposed to be. But it seems as that they still tend to be very much taken in with the Cartesian idea of matter...of course, almost by definition. In fact, their project has been to try and fit everything into the concept of matter and deny the reality of whatever escapes that concept. Fortunately, I would say, the most direct and intimate realities of life have consistently escaped the grasp of such a project since its very beginning. I think this is because the project is intrinsically flawed. Peace, Mike

Hi Jenell, Thanks for the response. I think you’re very much right that insofar as the question is framed this way, science does have a means speak to different problems relating to mind and body. Science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the brain is very much involved with cognition and experience. The reason why I say that the mind/matter problem is metaphysical rather than scientific is because both matter and mind are metaphysical terms. There's a lot of presuppositions that go into the very framing of the question as 'mind vs matter'. Before getting to the point where we are positing that mind exists as something over-against the brain, we still have to sort out why we actually believe in some stuff called matter as opposed to mind. In other words - even though this may sound very strange - prove to me the ‘brain’ exists, if you catch my meaning. No one has ever experienced matter, it is not an empirical or scientific concept at all but a metaphysical one. Matter is what you get when you subtract all properties from reality except for quantity, geometry, and extension through space. In other words, it is a reification of reality. I think when we speak of mind, we’re necessarily speaking to something intrinsically deeper than what is described by such objectification. Thanks, Mike

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. BTW please forgive me if my initial post here seemed overtly aggressive or hostile toward Shermer et. al. I do think it is important to acknowledge the limitations of method. A method is by definition a limitation, a way of excluding some reality/truth in order to isolate a particular reality/truth. If such were not the case, it couldn't have anything meaningful to say about reality. This means that whatever 'reality' is, it is intrinsically beyond any particular method. But it also means that there are indeed different ways of approaching the question of reality. This is something that scientism does not acknowledge. I think the matter/mind issue is at base not a scientific one. It is really a meta-physical question. You see, we've inherited a very specific idea of 'matter' historically from such influential philosophers as Descartes, who was a father of the scientific method. 'The material' is a metaphysical concept with specific denotations, not an empirical or scientific one. It is a matter of metaphysical presupposition that something called 'mind' and something called 'matter' are reified into independent categories in the first place. Therefore many materialists will insist on the concept of the material in contrast to mind, even in the face of not being able to account for how mind supposedly arises from purely material constituents. Or in the case of philosopher Dan Dennett, the easiest way to explain something is to deny it exists. I can't help but see a definite religious commitment in such a point of view. It is then no wonder to me that Dennett (and Shermer) are also very outspoken against religion, since their epistemological principles are so skewed. Therefore, science in itself does not favor materialism over any other ontology. The fact that we tend to think science presupposes materialism is itself a symptom of some unaccounted for metaphysical presuppositions, in my view. Science is a rigorous, objective methodology. But it cannot be an omni-explanation. Thanks, Mike

Hi George, I'm not sure there is any stark distinction between 'material' and 'immaterial'. What 'matter' tends to connote to us is itself a construct, after all. I do not doubt that science will eventually be able to explain a lot about how our brain organizes experience, but I think it firmly oversteps the bounds of the scientific method to think that it can in principle provide any kind of complete knowledge of the mind (or more broadly, reality). I did not mean to imply that materialism is itself scientism, because there are several forms of materialism. 'Scientism', as I have come to understand or define it, is the explicit or implicit belief that science provides the only genuine/valid type of knowledge, or offers the only genuine/valid level of discourse, and that eventually all things should be fully reducible to those terms (that is, in terms of the concept of material objects). Such a stance basically negates all other types of discourse as either secondary or illusory. Peace, Mike

I was watching a lecture/presentation on YouTube by Michael Shermer, an outspoken skeptic and well-known in those circles. I have no problem with skepticism in and of itself, but I see some definite metaphysical commitments being expressed by those who claim to be freethinkers. For instance, Shermer quite confidently states "There is no mind, there's only brain." When someone inquired of him about the status of experiences and qualia, Shermer denied it was a meaningful question, stating that such subjective statements are "useless" and "fuzzy". To Shermer, for mental events to have any reality would be "magic", therefore there can't be any mind or any reality to the mental. When asked what such phenomena actually are, Shermer couldn't say, but he was confident that science would somehow, someday find a way to reduce the mind entirely to materialistic terms (which, by the way, he presumes to be the only meaningful terms. At this point Shermer's confidence becomes literally indistinguishable from some types of religious faith, resting on poor argument and special pleading.) Just to be clear what all this means, it means that experience/subjectivity/mind should one day be able to be understood purely in terms of a description of material objects and their objective, geometric/quantitative relation to one another, making the material objects the true reality while mind is just an outmoded theory and fiction. (More broadly speaking, it also means that scientific materialism is the only real and valid level of discourse.) To me this agenda is plainly absurd and indefensible, not to mention demeaning. But I also see something very ironic happening. The religious impulse has re-manifested itself in the thinking of such 'skeptics' and 'free-thinkers'. That religion is scientism, or perhaps 'scientistic materialism'. As such I contend that Shermer and Dennett really don't have any right to the claim of being rationalists in opposition to religious folk. I expect that people will one day look upon Dennett and Shermer as we look upon some ancient philosophers who we take to be profoundly wrong in their metaphysics, perhaps laughing a bit at the silliness of their agenda. "Science is our religion in the very important sense that we think science tells us what reality is." - Hubert Dreyfus (writing on Heidegger) Denying the reality of quality (and hence, mind) is nothing less than denying reality itself. Yet it is only with the Western obsession with the concept of material objects,which, I emphasize, is certainly and merely a concept, that this problem arises. We are fixated on the ideal of objective knowledge (and therefore with objects). I suggest that objective knowledge is a myth, because there is no such objective reality corresponding to it. Objectivity is a method, not an ontological truth. Even so, I do this this quote has a lot of truth, even though I wouldn't phrase it with the terms of objectivity: "Quality is objective fact; it is ultimate reality...it is energy, but energy is quality to human experience." - Weiman What do you think of scientism? Is my assessment of it valid? Peace, Mike

I couldn't figure it out either, but skimming through some of the comments I came upon "theoretically possible", and that seems to hit the mark. BTW I am enjoying this thread and I hope to contribute more to it soon. Peace, Mike

I'm just thinking today that it's good to be active on this board again. I've been around several internet boards and haven't found one even close to this one, the quality of dialogue, the community - the people - here, are something to write home about. Peace, Mike

My pleasure. It's really good thing grace covers that end. Thanks for your ever relevant thoughts here. Even though these verses are very emphatic about self-mastery, I suppose that's the way of self-power...though its ultimate aim true to that of other-power. Self-mastery depends on selfless grace just the same... If a man is disturbed He will never be filled with knowledge. ...like an unsettled pond cannot find the clarity that reflects the moon. 'Be filled' is passive. "Be ye filled with the holy spirit". Thanks, Mike

Hi Derek, This is a great thread, thanks for starting it. And many thanks for moderating this forum. I love the last lines here, "Live in the way and the light will grow in you" - Could have come from John or any Christian contemplative. As for the theme of the whole passage, Paul's words come to mind, “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” (Eph 5:14 "The master is awake and he lives forever." To me this conjures the image of the Taoist immortal. However, it also seems to perhaps touch a way of seeing the resurrection. Jesus, the spiritual master, was awakened to his life in the divine. He is awake, therefore he lives forever, not even death has the final say. Peace, Mike

I just remembered, too, that there is a good series of commentaries from the Anglican Church entitled 'Conversations With Scripture'. The series only covers a handful of texts, taken from both testaments; and each book in the series is sold separately. However, I think they are very readable and enlightening, and pretty close to a 'progressive' theology (I have books on Mark and Revelation, and the one on Mark was written by Marcus Borg). Peace, Mike

I don't know about commentaries from a specifically progressive point of view, but the Oxford Bible Commentary and Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible strike me as being of use for a critical, non-sectarian understanding of the texts.

Thanks! Here's another one: Everyday is a new spiritual adventure.

Seeing thru the dramas of life.

Hi ParSal, I understand your sentiments - it is hard to bear the possibility that this one life is it, especially when it comes to our loved ones. But short of actually experiencing a life-after-death scenario or a state of being out of the body, one is left with only one option, in my view, that faces the issue squarely and yet hopefully. And perhaps it is about something more fundamental than any particular experience. I think we have to explore what it means to be a self. That is, after all, our main concern, isn't it? We worry about an afterlife because we worry about the self. All religions seem to point to the transformation of identity as an integral aspect of faith. Christianity no less. What is it that truly endows life with ultimate meaning? God's self. Sure, there is the belief that God has planned an afterlife in heaven, but fundamentally heaven is about God too. So if you can't stand God, it wouldn't be much of a heaven (might it then be a hell?). Somehow identifying with God 'redeems' our lives and 'overcomes the world'. Dying to the old self, rising with Christ. Reincarnation is an interesting view of things. And while, of course, it is not the Christian idea of becoming 'born again', I think there may be parallels between the two were we to get creative. I always liked something I read from Alan Watts: How would we know we are alive if we weren't once dead? A semantic trick, or perhaps something more? In his book Cloud Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown he writes, "Most people...shrug their shoulders and say, 'We come from nothing and we return to nothing--and that's the end of it.' But I demur. For it strikes me as utterly amazing that I did in fact come from this nothing. If I came from it once, I see no reason why I could not come from it again; for if, as is indeed the case, I did come from it once, this nothingness is, to say the least, unexplainably frisky." Perhaps even more elegant is something Marcus Borg wrote. It has stayed with me ever since one of our members here quoted it. Something like, 'When we die, we aren't dying into nothingness, but into God'. It is, after all, in him that we 'live, move, and have our being'. Peace, Mike