From "The Beginning of the Universe"

quote:

We are left with the rather chilling impression that we are not simply renewing Christian spirituality, but well on the way to replacing it, and this impression is reinforced, on occasion, by Thomas Berry, himself. We are in need of a new story, he tells us, and the universe is the primary revelation, or primary expression of that story. But then, are we to conclude but that Christian revelation is somehow a secondary revelation? "I sometimes think that we worry too much about Jesus Christ... We have a great literature on the Scriptures, we have a great literature on Jesus, but we have no literature on the natural work and the Christ-universe equation... I suggest we might give up the Bible for awhile, put it on the shelf for perhaps twenty years. Then we might have a more adequate approach to it. We need to experience the divine revelation presented to us in the natural world. Excessive concern with the historical Christ is presently just not that helpful." 41 Am I reading too much into these kinds of statements? I certainly hope so. But the language used is a bit too intemperate, and so it makes dialogue with Christian spirituality more difficult.

As you've probably have guessed by now, I have no desire to undercut, bash, smear or disprove religion or Christianity. That's partly because there are so many willing accomplices right now and they need no assistance from me nor would our motivations be the same. I don't quite see eye-to-eye with that crowd on 99% of political and social issues. It would hardly make sense to become bedfellows because of one issue. Nor do I feel superior for not having immersed myself in any particular religion, being a bit like Joseph Campbell, picking and choosing concepts from the wider world (as you all seem to be doing as well). Is it better to remain functionally illiterate in many languages or to speak one fluently? I don't know, but I do know that I can't come easily to rest in any one.

The idea of experiencing the divine revelation presented to us in the natural world appeals to me. Since I've never picked up Christianity, I have nothing to put down for twenty years. But I do think I�m somewhat in a position to see both sides - however unclearly. Obviously Jim is quite adept at this too as he intricately describes science, religion and philosophical cosmology and the different assumptions each holds. Both the scientific-centered view of the world and the religious-centered one have various presuppositions (or matters of faith). It's inevitable that some of these beliefs - on both sides - are excess baggage when trying to reconcile the two; or they are simply revealed as faiths when you wedge the philosophical cosmology between the two as a sort of contrast or middle ground. That's what I find so fascinating about this article. To say that Jim "debunks" religion would be to mischaracterize what he's doing, but I can hardly cheer him for debunking some of the bias in science without noting that bringing up this whole line of inquiry also puts some pressure on the religious side of the equation. Of course, included in the article is a discussion of creation science which definitely does a bit of that debunking.

Long story short, if one looks at how religion has been changed because of science it's easy to mischaracterize this change and say that because science is infusing religion with some truths that therefore science is somehow preeminent when it comes to revealing truths. I don't think that's the case but I do think that it means that there is an aspect to science that must infuse religion and that the end product is, and probably should be, something that comes out the other end as something quite new (renewed?). I'm not saying this means that Christ's message is any different, but that it can be seen in a larger context and perhaps new insights and a better understanding can be obtained. Certainly I would think any philosophical cosmology needs to reconcile the many different religions, beliefs and faiths in this world. To do that, I think, means that the apron strings needn't necessarily be tied to tightly to any one religion � unless, like a hologram, they are all seen as different parts of the whole. I guess the choice is to see, if that's possible, a more crystal-clear vision of the universe, if only a part of it, by delving deeply into any one religion, or by getting a sort of indistinct "blur" of a larger picture by delving into sort of an overview of the many parts.

We need to experience the divine revelation presented to us in the natural world. Excessive concern with the historical Christ is presently just not that helpful.

Brad, Jim wasn't endorsing this position by Thomas Berry, but criticizing the implication that "concern for the historical Christ" is somehow an obstacle to appreciating cosmic mystery. There's no either-or about this; appreciating one need not lead to devaluing the other. I don't know if you listened to the Real Audio presentations for this thread, but the whole point is that there's just nothing that science has discovered which undercuts or negates belief in a Creator, and nothing about belief in a Creator which invalidates the contributions of science.

. . . I do think that it means that there is an aspect to science that must infuse religion and that the end product is, and probably should be, something that comes out the other end as something quite new (renewed?). I'm not saying this means that Christ's message is any different, but that it can be seen in a larger context and perhaps new insights and a better understanding can be obtained.

That's a very good description of one of the major tasks of Christian theology--to continue to translate the Gospel message to each generation in the light of its cultural and scientific perspectives.

Certainly I would think any philosophical cosmology needs to reconcile the many different religions, beliefs and faiths in this world. To do that, I think, means that the apron strings needn't necessarily be tied to tightly to any one religion � unless, like a hologram, they are all seen as different parts of the whole.

That's a real possibility with philosophy--that it articulates a perspective that can connect science, religion and other disciplines. This can make for a fairly generic position, but filling in the color and landscape is not necessarily its task.

On reconciling the different religions:

The inference that the great traditions share a mystical core is becoming increasingly compelling as interideological and interreligious dialogue has advanced in recent decades. Prior to these dialogic efforts, our religious diversity had been a scandal. Thanks to these dialogic efforts, the recognition of our common mystical core has become a testimony, a witness.

As we drill down to the Earth's mystical core, from different hermeneutical locations on the globe, in search of that sweet spiritual crude oil from which we can distill truth, beauty and goodness into creed, cult and code, we inevitably will encounter the hard layers of institutional fossilization and the pockets of sociocultural impurities that will ultimately and inevitably interfere with our refinement processes, which is to suggest that there will be different grades of hermeneutical octane that we will utilize in the fueling of our spiritual engines.

I believe that we can eventually define, together, what the optimal engine performance of human spirituality might look like. I believe that we will eventually discover the highest grade interpretive fuel to run that human
spiritual machine, which is to say that we will eventually discover the most nearly perfect articulation of the truth, celebration of the beauty and preservation of the good, interreligiously and transculturally.

Until then, pluralism does not mean that we can syncretistically interchange fuels with
no regard to where and how our diverse spiritual engines were manufactured. It does mean that we must acknowledge that there are significant
differences, both in our spiritual engine product designs and in our mystical core drilling activities.

Devising a uniform code of specifications for these enterprises will require extensive interreligious dialogue. Even once such specifications are devised, we might suspect a rich diversity of cultic makes and models will perdure, celebrating the beauty of our cultural
diversity, even as the underlying unity of our interpretive stances continues to grow. Until then, each tradition must endeavor to separate its
own institutional fossils and sociocultural impurities from the life-enhancing petro.

This self-critiquing separation process can be greatly aided by the self-illumination that can come from looking at our own traditions in light of those of our dialogue partners. Until then, our
mileage may vary and caveat emptor: Most are advised not to convert to alternative spiritual fuels without paying very close attention to the
Manufacturer's sociocultural specifications for their specific spiritual engine. (And proselytizing could harm innocents.)

re: preminence of science

From Catholic Encyclopedia:

Some philosophers and theologians have held that the objective data on which the Catholic religion is based are incapable of proof from speculative reason, but are demonstrable from practical reason, will, sentiment, or vital action. That this position is, however, dangerous, is proved by recent events. The Immanentist movement, the Vitalism of Blondel, the anti-Scholasticism of the "Annales de philosophie chretienne", and other recent tendencies towards a non-intellectual apologetic of the Faith, have their roots in Kantism, and the condemnation they have received from ecclesiastical authority shows plainly that they have no clear title to be considered a substitute for the intellectualistic apologetic which has for its ground the realism of the Scholastics.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:

Modern psychology has become genetic. Its interest centres in tracing the growth and development of cognition from the simplest and most elementary sensations of infancy. Analysis of the perceptive processes of a later age, e.g. apprehension of size, shape, solidity, distance, and other qualities of remote objects, proves that operations seemingly instantaneous and immediate may involve the activity of memory, imagination, judgment, reasoning, and subconscious contributions from the past experience of other senses. There is thus much that is indirect and inferential in nearly all the percipient acts of mature life.

+++ +++ +++

Although I pretty much affirm that the classical proofs of God's existence can not logically coerce or empirically demonstrate God's existence, and

Although I acknowledge the question begging nature of positing an Unmoved Mover, and

Although I affirm that we cannot access our metaframework and can only model the rules of our system but not explain them, our explanations failing as a function of our system, itself, and its godelian boundaries ...

We are still left with the choices of irrationally denying a metaframework, nonrationally proceeding w/o the hypothesis of same (nonfoundationally), or metarationally proceeding with such an hypothesis (foundationally) or as Kung says so well

We can proceed with a justified fundamental trust in uncertain reality or a nowhere anchored paradoxical trust in uncertain reality, and, even if our anchor is metaphorical, still, our approach can be metarational (not logically coercive to be sure) ...

Given the choice, when wagering w/ Pascal, I'm going with metarational over nonrational and irrational. Even if none of the choices is essentially rational, super-reasonableness and metarational are more compelling, to me.

Why?

So what if we don't have direct evidence or empirical proof? MOST of what I KNOW in life comes from indirect and inferential knowledge! and NOT from the application of the scientific method. Humankind's epistemic capacities are much broader than the narrowly conceived disciplines that rely on empirical proof.

There is a lot of high level critical thinking that gets scotched when tainted by logical fallacies or false premises. This is ill advised. For instance, the fallacy of consensus gentium, if everybody believes something then it must be true. Well, that's not logicaly coercive but I say, if everybody believes something, take note, proceed with caution. The same thing with reductio ad absurdum, the fallacy of trying to demonstrate that something is untrue because, taken to logical extremes, its premises yield some absurd conclusions. Still, I say, take note.

What we "know" through inference and intuition and indirect evidence is overly disparaged, only to our own peril. There is such a thing as overinvesting in an analysis of our conclusions based strictly on logical fallacies; we mustn't toss out all of the high level critical thinking baby with the flawed premises bathwater.

Another big critique is the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, the caveat that we must not reify our ideas, take our thoughts and symbols and mistake them as real entities in reality. This is overplayed. Just because I reify you doesn't mean you are a reification!

We can't prove the truths of Christianity through such a speculative reasoning as is based on empirically demonstrable proofs, alone, but they are not only provable vis a vis practical reason, they are demonstrable through a more broadly conceived speculative reasoning capacity of humankind that includes all of our epistemic capacities, including a) indirect evidence, b)immediate, noninferential awareness &
intuition; c) inference; d) the proofs of natural theology; e)numinous/mystical experiences and f) the encyclical Fides et
Ratio herein incorporated by reference. They are provable via Common Sense.

Sorry for the length and lack of rigor. My top of head thoughts w/o proof-reading is probably closer to my true position anyway.

pax,
jb

As we drill down to the Earth's mystical core, from different hermeneutical locations on the globe, in search of that sweet spiritual crude oil from which we can distill truth, beauty and goodness into creed, cult and code, we inevitably will encounter the hard layers of institutional fossilization and the pockets of sociocultural impurities that will ultimately and inevitably interfere with our refinement processes, which is to suggest that there will be different grades of hermeneutical octane that we will utilize in the fueling of our spiritual engines.

I think that's an extraordinary analogy, JB.

So what if we don't have direct evidence or empirical proof? MOST of what I KNOW in life comes from indirect and inferential knowledge! and NOT from the application of the scientific method. Humankind's epistemic capacities are much broader than the narrowly conceived disciplines that rely on empirical proof.

Which sort of suggests that we will forever be in the dark (or in the light) by virtue of the nature of our existence. We can make some pretty good inferences but absolute proofs are going to be hard to come by. It's interesting to stick "beliefs" into this mix, especially considering how our beliefs seem to change (some might say "reveal") reality, as in the power of positive thinking. What we believe in our minds can make such a huge difference in not only how we perceive the world but how we experience it and thus how that world "really is".

Some may be interested in the series of exchanges I have had with my nontheistic and pluralistic friends by following this link: http://exit3.i-55.com/~marytanner/irasrn.htm and those at the bottom of that page. I relate these discussions to this forum as an attempt to construct a modern reformulation of the timeless preambula fidei, which is to say as a setting forth of such preambles to the Christian Mysteries as reveals both the reasonableness of those mysteries and the compelling nature of their inferences and claims.

pax,
jb

That's some deep thinking, JB. Thanks for sending it to me via email today.

At the risk of over-simplifying, here, doesn't it just come down to saying that nothing that can be demonstrated as truth in any mode is injured by believing in a Creator--even if the need for such cannot be irrefutably demonstrated? And, once such a belief is accepted, doesn't this, in fact, add more "modeling power" to a large number of issues?

Again, I know that's over-simplifying what you have been so careful to explain in much more depth and precision, but that's how it comes out for me. I might also add that this matter of belief, here, is not entirely an exercise in reason, as you have noted as well. Something in us accepts the reality of a Creator--surely a consent to a grace--then things are seen through this context and make more sense in that light, which reinforces the belief. No one can talk you out of it once you see it, and I'm not sure anyone can build unassailable bridges to lead others across the chasm of disbelief. Goodness knows I tried at one time in life, and came away convinced that skepticism is a deeply committed position for many--almost a kind of religion and spirituality, really. I'm not saying it's an immoral stance, but it certainly does insulate one from the act of self-surrender to the transcendent . . . and maybe that's the point, n'est pas?

In asking he question "why is there something rather than nothing," not all nonbelievers are equating nothingness with a quantum vaccuum fluctuation, rather, they are claiming that there is no such thing as nothingness, that no-thing is a mental construction that we reify such as in any other fallacious attempt at misplaced concreteness. As such, then, some-thing is now and always has been, even if that something did not have the characteristics of our present space-time plenum. As such, then, no-thing is not now, never was and never will be. Thus the hypotheses of collapsing and expanding multiverses, an infinite universe, etc. Thus the materialist monist position that stands in rather stark contrast to any schema that differentiates between received and unreceived, limited and unlimited, existence. To the monist, then, all existence is unreceived. It just simply exists as a given, the same way a hypothetical God is said to exist. They claim it is an Occam's Razor maneuver, a move of parsimony.

pax,
jb

At the risk of over-simplifying, here, doesn't it just come down to saying that nothing that can be demonstrated as truth in any mode is injured by believing in a Creator--even if the need for such cannot be irrefutably demonstrated?

That is a good sort of a defense, negatively constructed.

And, once such a belief is accepted, doesn't this, in fact, add more "modeling power" to a large number of issues?

That is a good sort of argument, positively constructed. It would be a useful exercise to list those issues for which we have thus gained modeling power. Jim makes a good start in his Mystery of Matter. Jack Haught makes a good attempt in his Cosmic Adventure. Billy Grassie and the MetaNexus.org / Templeton Foundation contribute here as well. It is important work.

I might also add that this matter of belief, here, is not entirely an exercise in reason, as you have noted as well. Something in us accepts the reality of a Creator--surely a consent to a grace--then things are seen through this context and make more sense in that light, which reinforces the belief.

Right. There is both speculative and practical reason, also a hermeneutic lived out existentially in response to our ultimate concerns and gifting us with assurance in what we hope for.

No one can talk you out of it once you see it, and I'm not sure anyone can build unassailable bridges to lead others across the chasm of disbelief.

The presentation and representation of the preambles/reasonableness of faith are important, not just as an apologetic to committed skeptics but to reinforce believers who might otherwise bolt the faith for such superficial reasons as are often provided by their college professors and peers, for instance. Sometimes people lose their faith because they are rejecting a caricature of their belief system and buying into attacks against strawmen versions. There must be a renewed emphasis in catechesis, if there ever was one in the first place, on such metaphysical presuppositions and preambles of the faith. Hence, I affirm your and Jim & Tyra's approach to the Christian Mysteries, starting truly in the Beginning.

Goodness knows I tried at one time in life, and came away convinced that skepticism is a deeply committed position for many--almost a kind of religion and spirituality, really. I'm not saying it's an immoral stance, but it certainly does insulate one from the act of self-surrender to the transcendent . . . and maybe that's the point, n'est pas?

Skepticism, I have found through deep dialogue, comes in many forms and I hesitate to too facilely describe those. Some of the nonmilitant agnostics are nontheists in the best sense of the word as might be compared with some Buddhist sects. There may not be an explicit act of surrender or an essentialistic framing of transcendence, but I often sense an implicit surrender and an existential giving of oneself over to the cosmos in a very sacred sense. Much of the common exploration of our story in the epic of evolution and much of our common engagement of metaethics and morality have great import aside from any proselytizing agenda. Interreligious and interideological dialogue are important for world peace and for overcoming the insidious forces of fundamentalism.

pax,
jb

JB, that's just really their opinion, just what they believe, that's all. If it makes sense to them that effects exist without causes and creation without a Creator, universes just come into being for no reason, etc., then so be it. I fail to see the logic, nor the attraction of such a position.

- - -

Oops, I see we cross-posted. Good response to my previous post, and yes, such dialogue is important. Nice work you're doing!

. . . There may not be an explicit act of surrender or an essentialistic framing of transcendence, but I often sense an implicit surrender and an existential giving of oneself over to the cosmos in a very sacred sense.

Fine. They still don't get to claim Occam's Razor for their positions, however. The simplest and most obvious/universal explanation for the existence of creation is that it is the work of a Creator. Other hypotheses seem somewhat strained and are no more persuasive, imo.

I think the reason the cosmological argument is so compelling is because most folks simply confuse the concept of eternity with beginninglessness and endless temporal duration, whereas eternity is actually timelessness. Once properly conceived as atemporal, nonspatial and immaterial, then acausal follows and necessary being results. Notice, we didn't say nonenergetic though. Hmmmmmmmm Some Buddhist and Hindus get around these issues re: temporality by viewing time (hence causation) as cyclical.

All the above aside, the modern day formulations of cosmological arguments are getting even more compelling, sometimes by using a strategy of utilizing weaker, hence more defensible, premises, in some highly refined argumentation. Also, it seems that the only rational way to hold a position, either for or against, regarding the cosmological argument is to hold it tentatively.

For those interested in further reading:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

They still don't get to claim Occam's Razor

One would hope not. Occam was a Franciscan.

Personally, I don't think anyone can reasonably apply the law of parsimony to problems that are empirically indemonstrable in principle! because one of the requirements in the use of that razor is that what is left, hypothetically, is sufficient to get the job done, which is to say that it has explanatory adequacy in a non-question-begging way.

BTW, I think we have cross-posted about 3X now. Why don't we just use telepathy?

That's quite a reference . . . looks very good.

I guess if the only thing Christianity or any other religion had going for it was the affirmation of a Creator and, hence, the grounding of design and natural morality in a transcendent Being, I could understand the attraction to other perspectives. This is but one part of our faith perspective (there are 14 more slides! ). One has to ignore a whole lot of very credible evidence in favor of the supernatural to discount it in favor of a non-theistic universe and the moral/spiritual imperatives which flow from such (which are far from self-evident, imo).
- Things like:
1. Bona fide miracles of all kinds.
2. The historical existence of Jesus.
3. The rationale for the birth of Christianity . . . the lack of evidence to discount its amazing claims.
4. Religious experience; especially, the testimony of the mystics.

We might also consider that:
a. There really isn't any hard-core evidence that the universe has been expanding and contracting; maybe it is, but maybe this is the only one or first one that has ever existed. Therefore, it seems a very weak premise upon which to base a philosophy--certainly nothing that would qualify as an Occam's Razor position.
b. Same goes for other models of the beginning of the universe. They are more in the line of brainstorms rather than hypotheses suggested by the data at hand.
c. As you noted, JB, many of the proponents of these alternative, non-theistic universes lack an understanding of basic concepts like eternity. Their treatment of Christian theology and philosophy is sometimes so straw-mannish as to warrant no serious consideration. Same goes for other areas like evolution, the creation of human beings, the fall, etc.

You wrote: Interreligious and interideological dialogue are important for world peace and for overcoming the insidious forces of fundamentalism.

Yes, I agree! But the forces of scientific materialism and secular humanism are equally insidious and destructive of human community. These are the twin pillars of the negative kind of liberalism that we denounce so much on this forum, and it seems to me that materialist monism tends in that direction. I'm no more interested in living in their world than I am in the fundamentalist theocracies of any religious group. Those are not the only alternatives, which proponents of both extremes seem to be unable to conceive.

One has to ignore a whole lot of very credible evidence in favor of the supernatural to discount it in favor of a non-theistic universe

Yes, even if this or that piece of circumstantial evidence has alternate explanations, as the lawyers like to say, taken as a whole ...

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal does a real bang-up job debunking certain claims but when debunking some claims, which are clearly more problematical, they often get sloppy, slip-shod, superficial, revealing that they are not a priori open to alternate explanations but rather have an ax to grind. It is this ax to grind that causes problems. Humanists that don't carry such an ax, even as de facto scientific materialists, aren't the insidious force that militant atheists are. They are more like our Buddhist brethren.

pax,
jb

JB, do the materialist monists not realize that their position is merely a matter of faith or belief? Do they think that they are doing to the teaching on creation something analagous to what the evolutionists have done to "creation scientists"? If so (to my second point), they are badly mistaken. The evidence for evolution is quite substantive, while the evidence for an infinitely expanding and contracting universe or one that "just-appears-out-of-nowhere" is really nil.

Just wondering about this. I mean, their whole approach seems to be built upon assumptions that are only hypothetical in nature, and that in defiance of a basic, universal intuition of a Creator. If social anthropology is considered a science (and I think it should be), then this intuition cannot be lightly discounted, especially since there is nothing in science to refute it.

JB, do the materialist monists not realize that their position is merely a matter of faith or belief?

In my experience, there ain't no THE materialist monists. Some clearly maintain that naturalism does not address pre-Big Bang existence and remain a respectful silence. Others understand that their ontological convictions are built on inference and they hold same w/o belief in their apodicticity. Then, as in every group, we have the sophomores ... gotta love 'em