These are extraordinary exchanges between you two. Please keep it up and know that you have an audience. This sophomore will raise his hand when he can think of a stupid question.

quote:

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?

First of all, I think that�s an extraordinary post by Phil.

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

As you�ll no doubt believe, I�ve re-created most of the skeptical arguments from scratch at one time or another. They�re very comforting arguments, for just like religion they help to make sense of the world, and in particular, one�s own world. Crap happens, and for some people it comes in particularly big piles, and to say that this crap is evidence of a benevolent Creator just doesn�t make sense. It�s an insult to the intellect. One would clearly have to be a fool to believe this. And a belief in a Creator would leave one potentially feeling even more isolated and insignificant. I mean, if there is such a benevolent being then when is he or she going to get around to fixing my life? Am I so bad that I go unnoticed and I�m not deserving of any help? That�s stage one, I guess.

Stage two (probably where I am now) is knocking yourself down a peg on the surety scale of things. When one has inhaled enough information then one is left knowing how much one doesn�t know. Most importantly, one knows there are things one can never know by the nature of the things and by the nature of our limited senses. It�s very easy to stop at this place, take a look around, and then go back to stage one where at least things made better sense.

Stage Three of religious beliefs isn�t necessarily the final step. It�s not necessarily where the other steps are leading. In fact I�m sure one could go right to Stage Three, and if they do, have a whole new perspective on the other stages as they encounter them and be better equipped to handle them, as JB said:

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.

JB also said: 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.

And Phil said, to reiterate: Something in us accepts the reality of a Creator--surely a consent to a grace

Bingo! Surrender. That�s the word � or consent. That�s not a concept that has the sweet smell of success to it. That�s not how we usually think. We�re more used to ideas such as: When things get tough, the tough get going. No pain, no gain. Fight your way through things. Don�t give up. And by all means, never surrender. Never!

That makes sense to me. During a normal day there are at least a thousand and one things trying to bring us down, trying to distract us (maybe even trying to kill us), and getting in the way of what we want. That�s life. Oh, you can bet your sweet asp that the other guy is not going to surrender. To do so yourself would give others an unfair advantage when most of all what you need *is* some kind of advantage. The best we can seem to do on any give day is just parity. To think about giving that up is just�well�crazy!

To see deeper connections, to see anything other than the primacy of our own egos is enormously difficult, particularly when you can�t prove that any deeper connection exists.

So all that was a little defense, if you will, of the non-religious people, the atheists and the annoying militant materialists. Many of them are battling (if only in their own minds) religious people such as some of you here. Giving up or surrendering to anything is not an option. It would, in fact, undercut their whole world view. Nothing can be accepted unless you can puh-rooove it.

Spending some time at Shalom Place I�ve learned more than a little about what actually constitutes a proof. So, finally, when we talk about �In the beginning�� I am willing to surrender to the idea of a Creator on the basis of intellect. Anything deeper still eludes me. I still hear ol� Winston Churchill inside my head saying �We will never suhrenduh.�

Brad keyed in on Jim's take: The other fundamental option is to develop a philosophical cosmology in which effects have causes, and something is not nothing, and the universe had an absolute beginning. It came from something. This something, however, cannot be a something like the things around us with their fragile hold on existence. It must be conceived as the source or foundation or fountain of existence. If we go in this direction, a very different view of the universe begins to emerge. We begin to see the universe as a beautiful iridescent film floating on the sea of existence. The limited existence, as manifested in the things around us, rests on unlimited existence. The universe as a specific kind of universe is a reflection of the fullness of existence. By way of analogy we can liken it to the vacuum of the quantum theorists from which particles appear and disappear. This vacuum, instead of being empty, is supremely full.
+++ +++ +++

So, we must keep before us the idea of analogy .

There are three levels - physical, metaphysical and meta-metaphysical - that often get spoken of interchangeably.

For instance, at the physical level, we can speak of efficient, material, formal, final and instrumental causation. These causations are intrinsic to the way things are and there is nothing "spooky" about formal and final causation when conceived, respectively, as structure and function. For instance, in biosemiotics, a sign might be characterized as a formal cause or structure and an interpreter might be thought of as a final cause or function/process. A landscape might be thought of as a formal cause, as a tacit dimension, as it influences the flow of a mountain stream.

At the metaphysical level, we can speak of efficient, material, formal, final and instrumental causation as conceived outside of the laws of thermodynamics, as extraneous causes that are analogous to and not identical with the intrinsic causes in the physical dimension. An example would be the hylomorphic view of the soul. Immaterial as the soul is, its formative causal influence is only analogous to any formal causes spoken of in biology. The same distinction can be made as we distinguish between the intrinsic telos of Baldwinian evolution or of epigenetics and the extraneous telos invoked by the Design Inference, the Anthropic Principle, etc

quote:

From material things we can rise to some kind of knowledge of immaterial things, but not to the perfect knowledge thereof; for there is no proper and adequate proportion between material and immaterial things, and the likenesses drawn from material things for the understanding of immaterial things are very dissimilar therefrom, as Dionysius says

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/108802.htm

At the meta-metaphysical level, when speaking of causation, we are even further removed and confounded, for, at least with respect to the material and immaterial, there was a shared logical genus even if not a shared natural genus, allowing our analogies to hold:

quote:

Created immaterial substances are not in the same natural genus as material substances, for they do not agree in power or in matter; but they belong to the same logical genus, because even immaterial substances are in the predicament of substance, as their essence is distinct from their existence.

At the meta-metaphysical level, we are no longer merely at the ontological divide between material and immaterial, between the spatial and nonspatial, the temporal and nontemporal, the energetic and nonenergetic, where the analogies take but a tentative hold, we are in the realm of the aspatial, atemporal, etc God is, in this sense, transcategorical, transcendent in a manner that far exceeds many people's take on the situation.

To insert God into a system of formal logic in an attempt to demonstrate a conclusive cosmological argument seems, to me, to be a major category error. The analogies we draw between realities that share both natural and logical genus are problematical enough. The analogies we draw between realities that share logical but not natural genus are even more problematical. The analogies we attempt to draw between realities that share neither logical nor natural genus, insofar as they address a specific nature, do not give us any information whatsoever.

Problem? Well, not so much if we realize that there is something more to be known about realities other than their specific natures.

quote:

St. Thomas, in particular, emphasizes the absoluteness of God by, showing that he cannot be classed under any genus or species, and that His essence is identical with His existence. Aquinas also anticipates the difficulties which arise from the use of the term Absolute in the sense of unrelated being, and which are brought out quite clearly in modern discussions ...It was urged that the Absolute could not consistently be thought of or spoken of as First Cause, for the reason that causation implies relation, and the Absolute is outside of all relation; it cannot, therefore, be conceived as producing effects. St. Thomas, however, offered a solution. He holds that God and created things are related, but that the relation is real in the effects only.

So effects clearly imply causes, but when we use the terms primary cause and secondary cause, with respect to God, primary cause describes Pure Act (no analogy available here?). However, what if God's immanent presence took on the nature of efficient causation vis a vis process theology? Might we not place some of our theological analogies on more firm ontological footings?

Bottomline, I think that other than God's specific nature, we do gain knowledge of what s/he is like through nature. His transcendence may "act" through pure act and Her immanence just might act through both metaphysical and physical analogues of efficient causation.

OK --- that is getting over the top.

re: faith of the materialist monist

When it comes to the problem of consciousness, an openly emergent system, the invocation of supervenience and emergentism is FAITH, at least vis a vis our current meager knowledge of mental states as brain states. My correspondents know that, even as they speculate.

pax,
jb

re: if we realize that there is something more to be known about realities other than their specific natures.

Phil, perhaps you could use your creative writing skills to translate this.

One example that occurs to me is that this above assertion means that, when we speak of God as Person, we don't at all mean as a person among other persons, like us, but we very much mean to imply, for instance, that we are called into relationship. Other examples could be given for the divine attributes, truth, beauty, goodness and love. We cannot be accused of anthropomorphic projections because we acknowledge, up front, that reason affirms that every positive perfection of created being has its transcendental analogue in the first cause.

Below is an interesting take on what appears to be that Dionysian-like triad of the analogical, anagogical and mystagogical, or the kataphatic, apophatic and eminentist. You really need only look at the bold statements to get this drift.

quote:

III. INDUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTRIBUTES

The elaboration of the idea of God is carried out along three converging lines.

(1) The positive way of causality

In virtue of the principle that whatever excellence is contained in an effect is represented in the efficiency of the cause, reason affirms that every positive perfection of created being has its transcendental analogue in the first cause. Hence, from the existence of an intelligent being, man, in the cosmos, we rightly infer that God is intelligent , that is to say, His infinite perfection is superabundantly adequate to all the operations of intellect.

(2) The negative way

If we fix our attention precisely on the Infinity of God, then, focusing the negation not upon the positive content of any created perfection but upon the fact that, because it is finite it is determined in kind and limited in degree, we may affirm that it is not found in God. We may say, e.g., that He is not intelligent. The meaning of the statement is not that God lacks intelligence but that in Him there is no intelligence exactly as we know it. Again, since there is no imperfection in God, every concept of defect, privation, and limitation must be negated of God. Many negative names, it is true, are applied to God; as when, for instance, He is said to be immutable, uncaused, infinite. It should, however, be carefully observed that some attributes, which, from the etymological point of view are negative, convey, nevertheless, a positive meaning. Failure to perceive this obvious truth has been responsible for much empty dogmatism on the impossibility of forming any concept of the Infinite. The basic note in the idea of the Infinite is existence, actuality, perfection; the negative note is subordinate. Furthermore, since the force of the latter note is to deny any and all limitations to the actuality represented by the former, its real import is positive, like the cancellation of a minus sign in an algebraic formula; or, it discharges the function of an exponent and raises actuality to the nth power.

(3) Way of eminence

The concept of a perfection derived from created things and freed of all defects, is, in its application to God, expanded without limit. God not only possesses every excellence discoverable in creation, but He also possesses it infinitely. To emphasize the transcendence of the Divine perfection, in some cases an abstract noun is substituted for the corresponding adjective; as, God is Intelligence ; or, again, some word of intensive, or exclusive, force is joined to the attribute; as, God alone is good, God is goodness itself, God is all-powerful, or supremely powerful.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm

And so it happens that, speaking of the charge of anthropomorphizing: Criticism of this kind indicates that its authors have never taken the trouble to understand the nature of analogical predication , or to consider fairly the rigorous logical process of refining to which terms are subjected before being predicated of God.

Hang in there, Brad. And as you investigate going deeper or not, do give a nod to any system that is rigorous in its analogical predications as you seek after ever more compelling inferences

Your comments were much appreciated and right on the mark, especially as they characterized, in part, some of my beloved dialogue partners.

pax et bonum,
jb

I have recast my take on the predicates of physical, metaphysical and meta-metaphysical reality here: predicates

For those so inclined, I think it flows better.

pax,
jb

I have recast my take on the predicates of physical, metaphysical and meta-metaphysical reality here: predicates

I follow only part of what you�re saying, JB (through no fault of your own). What occurs to me, though, in struggling with these difficult concepts, is that God, if He exists, would certainly (one would think) not leave the discovery of His existence to the need for such difficult reasoning and logic. All this logic, of course, comes as after-the-fact material in response to a more intuitive or felt connection with the supernatural. I doubt there would be a single religion in the world if God was something that was only an intellectual discovery. That�s not a critique or rebuke of the intellectual discovery process but more of a looking-into-the-nature-of-God sort of comment. I do suppose that if He exists that some logical path would lead to this fact and would not invoke irreconcilable logical difficulties.

And although I think we can speak of the aspatial and atemporal as things that are not analogous to the highly speculative ponderings and theories of scientists in regards to the beginning of the universe, I wonder if they are not. When one looks at how extremely efficient and Occam Razor-like the universe is, and we assume the designer is highly intelligent and skillful, then I wonder sometimes if this divide between materialists and others is really so necessary. What if material itself is NOT as completely understood as we think it is? I�m not talking about adding extra laws of physics; I�m talking, perhaps, about why these laws can�t all be unified in a GUT. Is it because we�re like bakers trying to unify donuts and cupcakes without understanding the existence of flour? Is that flour God, spirit or something else?

. . .if we realize that there is something more to be known about realities other than their specific natures.

Phil, perhaps you could use your creative writing skills to translate this.

Well, JB, the rest of that post was most clarifying. I was referring to what could be deduced about God and moral imperatives from a close observation of nature. Obviously, divine revelation goes beyond such a parameter.

- - -

From Brad: So, finally, when we talk about �In the beginning�� I am willing to surrender to the idea of a Creator on the basis of intellect.

Ahh . . . Should I try my luck and move into discussion of the merits of OS X?

Seriously, is that a new development for you? I can understand your points about life dealing out frustrations which raise questions about the Creator being good, caring, benevolent, etc., but it doesn't follow (to me) that such negate the existence of a Creator. What would be logical would be to imply that the Creator is unjust, or else removed and uncaring. The deists have this view of the Creator as just kind of starting things up, imbuing the universe with lawfulness, then leaving it alone to work things out accordingly. A lot of these questions (how to reconcile belief in a good God with an unjust world) belong to the branch of theology called theodicy, about which JB is an articulate explorer. I'm sure we'll come across such themes in other threads, most notably C and D. Stay tuned!

- - -

More from Brad: I follow only part of what you�re saying, JB (through no fault of your own). What occurs to me, though, in struggling with these difficult concepts, is that God, if He exists, would certainly (one would think) not leave the discovery of His existence to the need for such difficult reasoning and logic.

(We all keep cross-posting) That's a point I replied to earlier. Belief in a Creator seems to be the most natural and effortless of intuitions, found around the world. The more one gets "in one's head" looking for proofs and what not, especially empirical evidence of the sort that science seeks, the more complicated it gets. It's really quite simple: creation exists because it was created in the beginning by the Creator. That's it! (the intuition) Discovering the precise manner in which this all works itself out is the task of science, and so there is a boundary beyond which science cannot go. Once one goes beyond the realm of empiricism, we enter the worlds of philosphy and theology, which have to contend with science, but not on scientific terms. This seems to be a hard pill for empiricists to follow, but I'm afraid they have no choice in the matter.

Ahh . . . Should I try my luck and move into discussion of the merits of OS X?

Only if you can prove that it was divinely inspired, Phil.

The deists have this view of the Creator as just kind of starting things up, imbuing the universe with lawfulness, then leaving it alone to work things out accordingly.

I think it�s more along the lines of what you believe, Phil, with some caveats. You point out, I think rather successfully, that religion is a two-way street. One needs to reach out in order to be reached as would logically be the case if we are truly independent beings and not puppets. This reaching, in a simplified way, is in accord with some views of quantum physics where the observer plays an important part in the creation of reality. That�s not to say that you create God by belief, but that you activate God by believing. This implies to me a God who can be both active and passive and that our relationship to God is much less of the master/servant or creator/created variety. That�s also not to imply that WE are all Gods but it does, at least to me, imply that we are not less, not equal, but just different than God. And I also hold that God, if He does exist, (and perhaps this is hardly different from what you all or saying, but is perhaps different from the public or even some religions� perception of God) that He is better thought of as a what than a who or a Him or a Her. That is to say, a truly personal God goes against too many of the things I observe, intuit and reason. But �personal� only applies to a person, and a view of God as something greater than or outside of a normal �person� (which is hardly in conflict, I believe, with Catholicism) still leaves room for this seeming quandary.

Thus I am as confused as ever but now have much better language to talk about that confusing, thanks to you and JB.

That's a point I replied to earlier. Belief in a Creator seems to be the most natural and effortless of intuitions, found around the world.

That is a good point and I remember you making it earlier. That�s something to think about.

More from Brad: I follow only part of what you�re saying, JB (through no fault of your own). What occurs to me, though, in struggling with these difficult concepts, is that God, if He exists, would certainly (one would think) not leave the discovery of His existence to the need for such difficult reasoning and logic.

Phil wrote:

(We all keep cross-posting) That's a point I replied to earlier. Belief in a Creator seems to be the most natural and effortless of intuitions, found around the world. The more one gets "in one's head" looking for proofs and what not, especially empirical evidence of the sort that science seeks, the more complicated it gets. It's really quite simple: creation exists because it was created in the beginning by the Creator. That's it! (the intuition) Discovering the precise manner in which this all works itself out is the task of science, and so there is a boundary beyond which science cannot go. Once one goes beyond the realm of empiricism, we enter the worlds of philosphy and theology, which have to contend with science, but not on scientific terms. This seems to be a hard pill for empiricists to follow, but I'm afraid they have no choice in the matter.

JB:

YES! YES! YES! INTUITION and common sense !!!

One way to look at the exercises in speculative natural theology is that we are busy answering a very compelling post-modern critique. Folks like me, with the patience of Job mind ya, hold the postmodernist's hand and allow them to take me, step by frustratingly tedious step, toward a total deconstuction of Reality. Then, I try to take them, kicking and screaming, back to a reconstruction of Reality, using their own inductive and deductive methodology mind ya.

All that has thus been accomplished is that the postmodern critique gets revealed as no different in substance than what Dionysius and Aquinas had anticipated in the premodern and medieval ages. Ergo, the more I interacted with nontheists, the more I needed to tighten up my theology in order to take them, step by step, consistently and coherently. It is ironic, perhaps to some, that all of my gains in consistency and coherence were accompanied by an increase in my Catholic orthodoxy. I have been a lab experiment of sorts, in proving the reasonableness of my faith's metaphysics. Superficial and heterodox approaches don't compete well with the craftily constructed deconstructions. Aquinas, though, is a killer metaphysician.

BUT why oh why is this dynamic not true when it comes to proving the reasonableness of the hierarchy's moral teachings on sex and gender issues? Well, because I am more in alignment, in my coupling of teleological and deontological approaches to ethics, with Aquinas than they are?

And I also hold that God, if He does exist, (and perhaps this is hardly different from what you all or saying, but is perhaps different from the public or even some religions� perception of God) that He is better thought of as a what than a who or a Him or a Her. That is to say, a truly personal God goes against too many of the things I observe, intuit and reason. But �personal� only applies to a person, and a view of God as something greater than or outside of a normal �person� (which is hardly in conflict, I believe, with Catholicism) still leaves room for this seeming quandary.

A+ 100 on your Catholic Catechism, though most folks don't grasp this

1)It is the old God is a person. That's true.
2)God is not a person. That's true.
3)God is neither a person nor not a person. That's true.

Where:
1)Kataphatic/analogical/affirmation
2)Apophatic/anagogical/negation
3)Eminent/mystagogical/unitive

1) Yeah, He's a person but 2) not like you or me. Rather, 3) She is __________ , the Name we mustn't name. So, you are in relationship. That's the important message. Some try to prove this via consciousness; others another way. But ... there we go again! Intuition and compelling inference being deconstructed. Trust me. A rigorous deconstruction and reconstruction will bring you back to your intuition on this one, as well as the other Divine Attributes: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Intelligence ...

Now really, I have found that the best way to understand this relationship, and hence overcome many theodicy issues, is not to do what Feuerbach has accused us of: anthropomorphizing. I don't think Feuerbach recognized that that injunctive slices in two directions. Hence, atheists asking how God could allow suffering is, in its essence, an anthropomorphic projection! This was never driven home to me more than when reading a JPII encyclical one day and the following words jumped off the page at me: God doesn't have to justify Himself to man. Interestingly, though, although there is no place in the Old Testament or New, where God/Jesus does away with the theodicy issue, leaving it, rather, immersed in mystery ... ... S/he took the approach, like a good friend or parent, who loves us much, of choosing to suffer with us --- so they say. That is a compelling event and claim, moreso, perhaps than any sterile johnboysian metaphysic? This is not to say that we have not penetrated into the theodicy issue and haven't discovered manifold efficacies in suffering, it is only to say that I think we have a credible Witness to the Father's love. If you search the archives for suffering and/or theodicy, I'm sure I have an exhaustive treatment there.

To infinity and beyond! Buzz LightYear

All we are saying is don't think just infinity re: God. Think BEYOND!

pax,
jb

This implies to me a God who can be both active and passive and that our relationship to God is much less of the master/servant or creator/created variety. That�s also not to imply that WE are all Gods but it does, at least to me, imply that we are not less, not equal, but just different than God.

This might be a tad heterodox vis a vis Catholicism but is not far off from what some of the greatest process philosophers and process theologians have put forth, a God that, in fact, suffers with the Universe, in one great act of cosmic birthing! This certainly comports, in another respect, to the claim that Jesus made -- that we were not servants but friends, brothers and sisters even. Isn't it curious how your conceptions of how things should be regarding the Divine so happen to comport, to some extent, with Catholicism's claims as to how they are?

pax,
jb

Ahh . . . Should I try my luck and move into discussion of the merits of OS X?

Only if you can prove that it was divinely inspired, Phil.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brad, Phil: I trust that my co-authorship of PxOS is dispositive of the issue that IT was divinely inspired, even if not exhaustive of same.

All: I'm taking about a week's cyberbreak. Look forward to moving beyond the beginning

Phil: Sam Jacob has now been installed in Houma-Thibodaux

pax,
jb

reconstructionist

An Few Relevant Oldies from jb

below is an excerpt from one of my old essays that, i pray, may further add to the graces of your Holy Week:

suffering, some efficacies which can be realized:

recognize our FINITUDE and reach out to the INFINITE whom we may otherwise ignored.

an UNAMBIGUOUS SIGN OF AN INDUBITABLE LOVE... who can doubt the depth or the character of our love when we even in the midst of pain?

the winds of suffering an extinguish the flickering flame of a faith, so too, they can fan the flames of a steadfast faith the RAGING INFERNO OF AN ALL CONSUMING FIRE OF LOVE !

manner in which we choose to confront our suffering can reveal us our own CAPACITY FOR ENDURANCE, CAN TEACH US THE OF THAT SPIRIT BREATHED WITHIN THESE FRAGILE BUT RESILIENT HUMAN VESSELS and can thus affirm us in our self esteem .

can then minister with that consolation we have received to in need of comfort, giving them hope that they may the same healing we have received for the same seemingly pain and sorrow.

allows us to enter into PASCHAL MYSTERY of continuous and rebirth in all matters of our earthly existence and discerned the paschal rhythm in our lives we are no longer by the cross, neither His nor ours, and thus the problem becomes the theodicy mystery.

teaches COMPASSION AND EMPATHY.

reinforces ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE as we realize that what we at the present time can not even be weighed on the same with the weight of that eternal glory yet to be revealed to ; it reminds us that we have an earthly tent to dwell in but will be clothed in a robe of resplendent glory for what no eye has , no ear heard, nor the heart of man even conceived... such are things prepared for those who love the Lord.

is the manner that we all attain SAINTHOOD...and thus can be REDEMPTIVE for those of us who suffer and for who observe us in our suffering, for again, in the manner in we choose to confront our suffering we can either squander the opportunity or we can be a PROPHETIC WITNESS, revealing the purpose of our existence and the fitting and proper orientation of the creature toward the Creator.

Posted by juanito on June 23, 1999 at 07:46:01:

it is instructive to note Jesus' joyful times?

for surely He was always aware, at some level, of the immense human suffering that surrounded Him?

even as He turned water into wine?

even as He alluded constantly to the beauties of nature and life?

our hearts, transformed, are they big enough to contain it all?

the tears and the laughter? and to know that there is a season, turn, turn, turn ...for everything under the sun ... and, in the final analysis, it's all going to be okay!

isn't it?

ultimately, "it is well with my soul" must contain the sentiment and assertion that "it will be well with all souls" and our hearts must be willing to bear all sorrows and sufferings of the world even as they bear all of its hopes and joys

if one's prayer life does not yield the fruit of solidarity and compassion, does not carve out a space in one's heart big enough for sorrow and joy, does not move our every concern from the realm of i, me, mine to we, us, our ... it has nothing to do with contemplation and everything to do with an insidious, sterile, narcissistic, introspective navel-gazing

Lord, deliver us, US
jboy

Pascal's Wager redux

Posted by johnboy on April 16, 1999 at 12:39:02:

i would to unqualifiedly embrace Christianity
for i have heard of no greater love than the love expressed in its story of the Christ
for i have heard of no greater justice than the mercy contained in its description of the Father
for i have neither seen nor heard nor have been able to conceive of a greater beauty than that evoked by its Spirit

[Update 2003: for i have encountered no metaphysics as consistent, coherent and congruent as that of thomism]

and if in my unconditional trust and surrender to the divine providence expressed in Christian teaching
i should somehow discover that i have missed the mark and if in missing the mark reality reveals a truth which is higher and nobler than the love and justice and beauty contained in the myth of Christianity
then i shall still be safe

for if the beauty and justice and love of Christianity is in any way exceeded by yet a Higher Truth
then we are safer beyond our feeble ability to comprehend

and so this leap of faith is entirely reasonable

and if i miss the mark and if in missing the mark reality reveals the truth that the universe is ultimately unfriendly, that beauty is an illusion and mercy is not to be had ...
then i shall defy the universe and i shall love no differently and cling to my people no more tightly (as if that were possible) and i shall be more noble than that universe which slay me
and that is Pascal's Wager and as safe a bet as one could ever take for what could one do to fight the unfriendly universe?

and so faith is no leap, it is the only choice in answer to our infinite need for truth, beauty, justice and love

and these needs can not be denied even if their ultimate fulfillment is suspect

and besides,

and once we unreservedly and unconditionally surrender to this path, the mystics testify to a confident assurance in what we hope for and to a conviction of things unseen ... what am i waiting for? ;>

Finally, see this:
http://www.shalomplace.com/res/kgambit.html

Be back soon. No exam, Brad.

pax, amor et tibi,
jb

One way to look at the exercises in speculative natural theology is that we are busy answering a very compelling post-modern critique. Folks like me, with the patience of Job mind ya, hold the postmodernist's hand and allow them to take me, step by frustratingly tedious step, toward a total deconstuction of Reality.

Oh, JB, that gave me a good laugh.

It is ironic, perhaps to some, that all of my gains in consistency and coherence were accompanied by an increase in my Catholic orthodoxy. I have been a lab experiment of sorts, in proving the reasonableness of my faith's metaphysics.

No, no�I understand that completely.

As we go through the intellectual (and spiritual) exercises, such as these online discussions, and wade out way through the logic, we may never reveal God but we always reveal our own biases, prejudices, assumptions, proclivities, etc. And since we can only see the world through our own eyes (discounting, for the moment, any commonality infused by God or Christ or any other supernatural force or our common sense organs) we're always going to have different perspectives, to a certain degree, due to the subjectivity of it all. And that means there's a certain validity to personal experience that transcends, somewhat, nitty gritty proofs and hard evidence. Hard evidence is, after all, what remains when we throw out everything but the few things we can agree upon because the nature of these things is that they can be agreed on. The rest of the stuff, like sawdust on the workshop floor, is still there though.

What's interesting is that for JB, the closer he gets to Catholic orthodoxy the closer he gets to answers that resonate with him and bring clarity. For me it's a case of, for now, needing to be outside the box, while willingly acknowledging that getting inside the box scares the hell out of me.

I'm allowed to ramble, aren't I?

1) Yeah, He's a person but 2) not like you or me. Rather, 3) She is __________ , the Name we mustn't name. So, you are in relationship. That's the important message. Some try to prove this via consciousness; others another way. But ... there we go again! Intuition and compelling inference being deconstructed. Trust me. A rigorous deconstruction and reconstruction will bring you back to your intuition on this one, as well as the other Divine Attributes: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Intelligence ...

Yeah, that's it, JB. Totally! Can you imagine people doing the same with human relationships: So you say you love me, eh? Well, let's examine the evidence. What happens to your endorphins when I'm around? Look at all the bad thoughts and deeds I'm still doing even though you say you love me. That shouldn't be. Shouldn't your love--if it really is love, that is--have healed me of everything that is wrong with me? I mean, we have a good time together, but is that love? What is love? Blah blah blah. You'll never get it if you do that.

I don't think the Hebrew insight, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," is the outcome of philosophical speculation. Rather, it's a graced insight into the ultimate nature of things, including our human nature. The affirmation of a Creator implies that what is most human about us is not our intellectual intelligence, but our capacity for loving relationship. We do this not simply as gorillas and chimps do, but as an intelligent, awake, offering of self to one another for the others' good--i.e., we do it spiritually. This kind of relationship is just not possible with the inanimate universe, nor even with other animals. Read the creation story about the creation of woman (somewhere in Gen. 1-3); this was what made the man happy: loving companionship/relationship. And the Hebrews recognized, too, that this was possible with God--that this was, indeed, our deepest hunger: to belong to God, to find one's happiness in God, to live in relationship with God. This was what was lost through the Fall, and restored in Christ, who brings a new depth of intimacy/relationship with God by enabling us to experience HIS OWN RELATIONSHIP with the Creator through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Requiring belief in a Creator to conform to the norms of a scientific theory like evolution only indicates a gross misunderstanding of the nature of philosophy, theology, myth, and spirituality. In many ways, it's an example of what Jack Haught called the "epistomology of control."
It is essentially our obsession with power that leads us to think that whatever is real must somehow be subject in principle to mastery by our own intellects. The epistemology of control is simply the carry-over of the will to power into the realm of the mind. It is a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that there are fields of reality that lie off limits, even in principle, to the control of rational consciousness. To open ourselves to such a possibility would require a renunciation of our impulse to control. And this is too high a price for many of us to pay.

I'm aware that the "impulse to control" comes from all kinds of sad situations, so I'm not hearing this as a moral judgment by Haught, only as his analysis of what's going on. I agree with him. To really understand what the Hebrew writers are saying about the beginning and the Creator, we have to listen with more than our heads and with a desire to discover what the heart's response might be. Generally, here, there are two directions of response: "I will belong," and "I won't belong," the latter being the fruit of the epistemology of control. Our culture is sick with this stuff, which ultimately spawns scientific materialism and its moral bedfellow, which is secular humanism.

------------

BTW, gang. Can I expect such rich discussion/exploration on all the other threads? That would be great!

I'm pretty much done with my input on this one, unless there are follow-up questions or comments. You all carry on, however. It's good to have this going on here, including the rambling.