steve wrote:

galanter wrote:
As I noted somewhere else, most people have no problem understanding that science, as a methodology, cannot in itself provide answers to value questions. Nor can it reply to ethical questions.

In the same sense I would say science can't reply to questions about God.

Are you suggesting that this God is an intellectual construction and not an extant thing? Like ethics and value?

In that case, fine. I can't prove that such an intellectual construct doesn't exist, and in fact, you could cause it to come into "existence" just by thinking about it.

That reading of your argument makes your point trivial. I think you are allowing for a supernatural "existence" which can directly (not indirectly as ethics or values) intervene in our natural world.


Here we go again: Why should I even ponder the existence of such a realm? Why should I not dismiss it entirely as superstition and nonsense?

M_a_x wrote:

galanter wrote:Who made that rule? Are mathematicians therefore irrational?

The rule is self-evident. Something cannot be "is" if it is not (by sensory perception), or if it cannot be deduced from existing proven precepts. Mathematics are deduced (yes! Even transcendental numbers!) from concrete perceptions abstracted (remember all that); God is deduced from nothing save the imagination. Hence - irrational.

M_a_x wrote:

galanter wrote:
The answer to the question "if we can't know God by science, how can we know God at all?" is not one you are going to like, but it is one which is rational within the internal logic of theology. It is that God, as the ground of all being, has the power and grace to grant you the ability to know him. (There are other possible modes, but this is the one that is the least controversial in terms of theology).

Like I said, science and theology are bounded disciplines...internally consistent but each ultimately unable to critique the other...

This is almost nonsense.
Theism is the simple "God exists". It is not theology; nor is reason science (science NEEDS reason, reason just needs itself). Because then we get to ask you "Who made this rule that God grants us the ability to know him?" - and that's not very self-evident, is it.... Maybe it's a mean God. Are you equally open to the idea God may be a mean old Bukowski figure using his powers to look up girls' skirts, and who won't grant you jack shit?

galanter wrote:

M_a_x wrote:

galanter wrote:Who made that rule? Are mathematicians therefore irrational?

The rule is self-evident. Something cannot be "is" if it is not (by sensory perception), or if it cannot be deduced from existing proven precepts. Mathematics are deduced (yes! Even transcendental numbers!) from concrete perceptions abstracted (remember all that); God is deduced from nothing save the imagination. Hence - irrational.

There is all manner of mathematics which is deduced from nothing save the imagination. Hence - irrational. Which will come as quite a shock to many.

galanter wrote:The only claim I am making is that theology, starting from the simple "God exists", is an internally consistent system. i.e. Taken as a given that God exists with infinite power, one could easily conclude he could confer on individuals the ability to know him.

The almost nonsense part is in the starting point, that an infinite God exists, not the further deductions. So we are back where we started. Again.

galanter wrote:There is a long history of quite lucid philosophy that takes as a point of departure the notion of God I've been using, and then deduces aspects of his nature. The possibility that God means us harm has been dealt with there, but given your response I doubt you would find such discussion helpful..

vilna43 wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:



But to deny God or religion isn't to deny wonder, imminence (not to be confused with immanence), beauty, awe, love, etc.

You don't need no stinky Jesus to be haunted.

Though I might once have feared that to deny God is to deny meaning it was only because I had adopted a fear without thought. It isn't about a need to counter atheism. Experientially I have found a correlation between the humans I intuitively trust and would sacrifice for and their expression of themselves as atheists. Neither do I accept that their expressions are any measure of their distance from what I intuit as meaning truth wonder and above all good. If this personish quality I accuse the universe of having turns out to be substantial and not just a silly primate trick I am certain that they (these lovely atheist others) will turn out to have been living with this personishness in a way just as intimate as any self expressed honest "believer" but just differently. Maybe like a species difference. The honest haunted primate species and the honest unhaunted primate species, with no hierarchy implied or tolerated on my part. I suspect if we don't really talk this back and forth for a few posts one might at this point patronizingly write me off from the sounds of this mess. I would here like to underline that I think distinctions and reason and undying examination of all narratives should never be surrendered in some sort of modern tolerant mind melting pot. It all matters.
As far as wonder and meaning without Jesus talk... Of course but what if one is honestly haunted by the wild and free language of this Jesus (prechristendom and first century hardening into a power lever) and finds something of this executed Jew's person getting at him despite the encryptions and expected distortions. Must my language and expressions be cleansed of all this to avoid the understandable, maybe even just association with all manners of disappointing and bloodless christianities.
I am rambling here and without blood and guts presence to repel the charge of strange flakelike person. Anything coming thru to make continuing this talk worthwhile?
the point of the whole bit for me is "as this republic quickens into empire" more and more we may find ourselves either backed against the wall or seeing other against the wall. Action against what comes from any of the forces of certainty be it islamic fascism or our own more smiley style might require a common ground between the honest haunted and unhaunted species. And a history of dialogue.

Steve usually rolls his eyes at this point and says at the core the differences between the species are negligible. Merry christmas from 55 degree athens rocker.

Action against what comes from any of the forces of certainty be it islamic fascism or our own more smiley style might require a common ground between the honest haunted and unhaunted species. And a history of dialogue.

galanter wrote:
All I'm trying to say is that science has limits...

matthew wrote:
.......and too little common sense. Stop overthinking all this shit! Mercy! You'll drive yourself crazy!