The little rubric of mine that I tried linking to unsuccessfully a week or so ago:

Metaphysics X Epistemology = Philosophical System



� Metaphysics = Ontology + Cosmology



� Epistemology = +/- Phenomenology +/- Metaphysics +/- Science +/-Theology



� Phenomenology = This? Here?



� Metaphysics = That? There?



� Science = Where? When? What? How?



� Theology = Who?



� Philosophy = Why?



� Philosophical System = Truth +Beauty +Goodness



� Truth = +/-rationalism +/- empricism +/- constructivism



� Truth = +/- correspondence +/- verificationist +/- coherence +/- Popperian +/- Lakatosian



� Beauty = +/- mimesis +/- catharsis +/- taste/judgement



� Goodness = +/- virtue ethics +/- teleological +/- deontological



� Ontology = +/- realism +/- Cartesian dualism +/- idealism



� Science = +/- minimalist Lakatosian +/- maximalist Popperian



� Metaphysics = +/- maximalist Lakatosian



� Lakatosian = logical consistency + internal coherence + external congruence + interdisciplinary consilience + hypothetical consonance + cognitive/affective consonance





Metaphysics X Epistemology = Philosophical System





� Idealism X Rationalism = Kantian Philosophical System where Truth + Beauty + Goodness = Coherence + Imagination/Judgement + Deontological





� Idealism X Empiricism = Humean Philosophical System where Truth + Beauty + Goodness = Coherence + Imitation/Taste + Subjectivism & Feeling/Teleological





� Realism X Rationalism = Platonic Philosophical System where Truth + Beauty +Goodness = Correspondence + Mimesis +Virtue Ethics/Character





� Realism X Empiricism = Aristotelian Philosophical System where Truth + Beauty +Goodness = Correspondence + Catharsis/Poiesis + Teleological





� Critical Realism X Critical Rationalism = Scientific Materialism = Science with emphasis where Truth + Beauty + Goodness = Verificationist/Popperian + Subjective/Reductionistic + Teleological/Consequentialistic





� Critical Realism X [Phenomenology + Metaphysics + Science + Theology] = Thomism With a maximalist Lakatosian phenomenology/metaphysics + maximalist Popperian science + natural theology + revealed theology where Truth + Beauty + Goodness = Lakatosian/Popperian + Objective + Deontological/Teleological



� Materialist Monism Nondualism (realism) X [Phenomenology + Science] = Advaitist Hinduism and Zen Buddhism where Truth + Beauty + Goodness = Encratistic and quietistic, apophatic speculative/affective with emphasis on practical and existentialistic and a deemphasis on the speculative and essentialistic



� Critical Realism as Materialist Monism Nondualism &/or Pantheism &/or Putatve Dualism (Occulted as pre-Big Bang) X Critical Rationalism as [Phenomenology + Science] = Religious Naturalism = [Phenomenology emphasized as mythos, affirming a natural mysticism and natural theology + with an emphasis on Science as logos + Metaphysics as deemphasized or invalidated + Revealed Theology as deemphasized or invalidated)] where Truth + Beauty +Goodness = Popperian verification/falsification + Emergentistic Beauty + Emergentistic Ethics/Teleological with a deemphasized Deontological Ethics



� Critical Realism X [Science + Theology +Phenomenology + Metaphysics with invalidated mysticism + invalidated natural theology/dialectical imagination] = Protestantism where Truth + Beauty + Goodness are derived primarily, if not exclusively, through Revealed Theology.



� Theistic Hinduism = pluralistic metaphysics and epistemologies



� There is a movement through ancient, medieval and modern systems from a priori metaphysical and ontological presuppositions to the hypothetical and from both excessive epistemological hubris and/or humility (radically deconstructive postmodernism) to an epistemological pluralism/holism, which can employ both inductive and deductive reasoning, using a maximalist Lakatosian approach to phenomenology and metaphysics and a maximalist Popperian approach to science, both critiquing any naturalistic claims of any natural and revealed theologies. This is not to deny such theologies of nature which seem to employ a minimalist science via a Lakatosian approach or philosophies of nature which exclusively employ a Popperian approach of (falsification and verification, however assymetrical) to all knowledge.

Hope you all are enjoying a nice weekend. This thought just popped into my head and I thought I'd post it before losing it. Don't know if it relates to the thread or not but it's bound to be closer than previous attempts.

JB: Is atheism sort of an anger at God or anger because God, in their view, doesn't exist? In either case I would root that anger to a sort of righteous indignation at the injustices of the world. I just can't help noticing that atheists always seem so angry and bitter.

JB: Is atheism sort of an anger at God or anger because God, in their view, doesn't exist? In either case I would root that anger to a sort of righteous indignation at the injustices of the world. I just can't help noticing that atheists always seem so angry and bitter.

I will address your question more directly at the end of this post.

It is funny you should raise this issue at this time. On my stroll through the woods and fields yesterday, I was meditating on the God of metaphysics, you know, the Unknown God of the Greeks.

Especially when immersed in natural surroundings, this is a type of prayer for me. I was thinking of how Aristotle's God was more fully developed by Aquinas' natural theology, how if one stopped with Aristotle's methods one could not get past such a conception of God as is held by the pantheists or maybe the deists; How even using a stripped down Thomistic version of natural theology, although improving on pantheistic and deistic conceptualizations and taking us to the threshold of understanding of possibilities for an immanent-transcendent Creator, still does not gift us with such knowledge as has putatively been granted through revealed theologies, especially the incarnational types, like Jesus and Hindu avatars.

I thought of my little equation:
metaphysics x epistemology = truth + beauty + goodness

I thought of its elements:
[ontology +cosmology] x [phenomenology +science +metaphysics + theology] and mused about why I had place "metaphysics" on both sides of the equation. I concluded that the metaphysics on the left side of the equation dealt with "systems" and could be distinguished from that on the right side, which dealt with "methods", specifically epistemological methods, ways of knowing.

I thought of how, in choosing a metaphysical system on the left side of the equation, it pretty much predetermined which epistemological approaches on the right side of the equation a person would validate or invalidate, emphasize or deemphasize. This is revealed by the various permutations of this equation that I posted earlier and labeled as different philosophical systems.

At the same time, there is no denying that most approach reality both objectively and subjectively, at the same time, admitting evidence both a priori and a posteriori. For instance, materialists drew their ontological and cosmological conclusions from experience in the world and not mecessarily from a purely a priori conclusion. Same for those, like Ayn Rand's objectivists or the theistic traditions, who have drawn upon their life experience to affirm immateriality of one sort or another.

I thought of how phenomenology dealt with a posteriori experience of subjective realities and humankind's collective objective reports on same. I thought of how science dealt so much with a posteriori experiences of objective material realities. I thought of how metaphysics dealt with a posteriori experiences of objective immaterial realities. I thought of how theology dealt with all of these experiences of reality, blending the objective and subjective, the a priori and a posteriori.

I asked myself, for the bazillionth time, just what sets these epistemological approaches apart. Why would I label the Lakatosian approach of coherence, congruence, consilience, consistency and consonance as a minimalist science and the Popperian approach of falsification and verification as maximalist science? I thought of how these various approaches, both critical realist views, were necessary because reality itself does not consistently yield up answers to all of our questions in a manner that gifts us with the same degree of confidence and reliability.

Not every type of question asked of reality can yield an empirical proof via direct evidence, though some may yield up some very compelling inferences via indirect evidence. These compelling inferences can comprise some very practical proofs .

I thought of how, since we are systematically thwarted from obtaining direct evidence, empirical proof and conclusive facts about the fundamental nature of reality as expressed on the left side of the equation vis a vis ontology (the nature of being) and cosmology (other than the Big Bang inference), we might refrain from dogmatic and a priori assertions regarding same, notwithstanding some of the a posteriori evidence that informed our metaphysical perspectives. We would therefore, necessarily then, positively eschew any epistemological hubris that privileges one approach to reality while invalidating all others (whether of science or of theology, whether scientistic or fideistic) or any excessive epistemological humility (whether of the radically deconstructive postmodernists or nihilists), which invalidates all approaches to reality (or attempts to sans coherence).

I thought of how the situation we find ourselves in calls for a hypothetical approach to both ontology and cosmology or systematic metaphysics, which in turn calls for an epistemological holism that validates all of the methodological approaches to reality I have categorized as phenomenology, science, metaphysics and theology, though not at all uncritically and ever-mindful of both systematic and methodological constraints that inhere, differently, in the objects of our discovery attempts.

It then all came down to this. It seemed to me that the chief distinction between worldviews all boiled down to what level of evidence each individual requires before acting on this or that conclusion, whether inductive or deductive, a priori or a posteriori, whether through empirical or practical proof, through demonstration or inference, etc

It therefore seemed to me that some folks approach questions of reality with the civil law standard of a preponderance of the evidence and others approach epistemology with the criminal law standard of establishing conclusions that are beyond a reasonable doubt . To some extent, that is all that is really going on as people evaluate the manifold worldviews: theisms, nontheisms, atheisms, agnosticisms, deisms and all other types of philosophical systems.

The light bulb that then went off in my head and which now ties in more directly to your original question about atheists was this: Some people are approaching the God question with the reasonable doubt standard of criminal law. No small wonder, then, that they may appear to have God on trial! For so many, the theodicy issue of how an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God could allow so much suffering, could be the Designer of this tooth and claw brute existence, plays prominently in their choice of worldview. Ironically, they do not take the counsel of their own Feuerbach who cautioned believers against their anthropomorphic projections. The way JPII put it: God doesn't have to justify Himself to humankind (or something like that).

This, then, is related to the anger you speak of in the righteous indignation at the injustices of the world. The theodicy issue is important and is intractable, to be sure. It is not the surest way to rationally cast aside all of the metaphysical issues re: God that remain, however. That's much too superficial and casual an approach.

God has been on trial before. Dostoevski well articulated humankind's remonstrations. So did Nietzsche. So did the zealots and Sanhedrin. I have met the angry and bitter people of whom you speak but they aren't all atheists. Our psalms (of the Old Testament)are generally divided into the glad, sad and mad. The mad psalms (not always directed at God but often) and the story of Job are revealing of much anger toward God. The mystery of suffering, in even modern theology, remains a mystery although some efficacies have been identified and even some new cosmologies have been elaborated, such as process theologies that prominently incorporate the Christian leit motif of kenosis .

Returning now to this preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt distinction, it does all boil down to what one individual versus another finds compelling, at least insofar as deciding whether or not the life of faith can be a reasonable approach to reality.

Because our various metaphysics and epistemologies and philosophical systems are on trial, in a sense, we can have a meaningful discussion about what is or is not reasonable in the way of human expectations regarding whether or not there is a preponderance of the evidence in favor of God's existence. There is no question that, in principle and by definition, God's existence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This fact, alone, however, is not sufficient to toss out the consideration of this question altogether, at least not for most people. This fact merely recognizes the built-in systematic and methodological constraints with which we are all confronted.

It seems fair enough to recognize that, in so very very many life circumstances, all people rely, for all practical purposes, far far more on indirect evidence and depend way way more on inferences than they do on direct evidence and empirical proof. Practical proof is how we get along in the world in large measure. Practical proof of God is what the natural theologians offer as the preambles of faith and those preambles do rely on a preponderance of the evidence. There is no empirical proof that can establish theism beyond a reasonable doubt and so there is a leap of faith required; we do move from the merely rational to the metarational, from the reasonable to the super-reasonable.

This is not such a leap as should be denigrated, however. It is such a leap that humans take over and over and over in many areas of their everyday lives. What separates the leap of faith in God from the other more mundane leaps of faith is not reason vs unreason. Rather, what separates them is the existential import of faith in God, which is entirely reasonable, quite compelling and has been proven, practically, though not empirically.

Now, why would anyone claim that only that which can be proven empirically is worthy of belief? If you buy into that, you'd best stay in bed tomorrow morning because you won't get around very well with your radical skpeticism.

pax,
jb

quote:

In speaking of philosophical proofs of the existence of God, it is well first to exorcise the assumption that agnosticism or atheism is the natural default position of the human mind, and that only the cunning of culture or craven fears of the unknown have led some, alas many, from this pristine recognition that the world just happens to be there, just happens to function as it does, that we and our species have against all statististical probability arrived on the scene, but in the end, none of it makes sense, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

See The Existence of God in Ralph McInerny's Intro to Metaphysics

That's a good quote, JB. You've been digging up some good stuff and espousing some of your own. That walk in the woods (or was it the beer?) has done you good.

Yes, the default position of agnosticism or atheism seems like doing what others have faulted religious people for doing: trying too readily to explain the unexplained with a bit of mumbo jumbo. I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that living not just with uncertainty but IN uncertainty is somewhat what we're all fated to do.

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that living not just with uncertainty but IN uncertainty is somewhat what we're all fated to do.

As the title to Alan Watts' book reads: The Wisdom of Uncertainty !

Faith, then, is necessitated merely by the way things are. It is not some latent defect or inherent flaw in us as observers. Rather, reality is shrouded in certain ineradicable mysteries that no observer, however acute or intelligent, can fathom or comprehend. Godel's Theorem captures these implications. So does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. They point, by analogy, to the Mystery of Mysteries.

Faith, then, is the confident assurance in things hoped for, not at all unreasonable as we have explored. No one will thus fault you for buying canned vegetables at the grocer's rather than fresh vegetables, based merely on the claim that the former purchase relied moreso on faith and the latter moreso on reason. You have a confident assurance that green beans will come out of that can rather than white beans. At least that's what you hope .

And that is why, when all is said and done, metaphysically, ontologically, cosmologically, epistemologically, phenomenologically, scientifically, theologically, noetically, aesthetically and ethically, based on my reasoned approach to both the direct and indirect evidence, using both inductive and deductive reason to evaluate both objective and subjective data both a priori and a posteriori, that due to the logical consistency, internal coherence, external congruence, interdisciplinary consilience and hypothetical and cognitive consonance ... wait, I forget ...

that is why, due to all of the above, I draw such compelling inferences from the preponderance of the evidence set forth by ...

by ... oh, I know ....

Phil and his friends.

catholically and Catholically,
jb

For those interested, visit:
International Catholic University and review some of their course materials:

Introduction to Thomas Aquinas - Ralph McInerny

Metaphysics - Ralph McInerny

Philosophy for Theologians - Rev. Benedict Ashley, O.P.

Philosophy of Nature - Rev. William A. Wallace, O.P.

Science and Belief - Peter Hodgson

Galileo: Science and Religion - William Carroll and Peter Hodgson

Biology and the Faith - Martinez Hewlett

Ancient and Medieval Philosophy - Ralph McInerny

Modern Philosophy - John Hittinger

So, with our preambles to faith, in the equation of metaphysics x epistemology = truth + beauty +goodness, we have taken philosophy and natural theology as far as they can go without some help from above.

Divine Revelation fits into this equation thusly:
truth + beauty +goodness = faith + hope +love

It is our belief that there can be no conflict between the autonomous domains of philosophy and science and phenomenology and the domain of theology.

Those domains can, in fact, provide some compelling inferences from real evidence, however indirect, to bolster one's faith.

pax,
jb

Systematic and Fundamental Theology use revealed truth to amplify what we know from philosophy and natural theology, including what we can know from a philosophy of nature, from metaphysics, from cosmology, from ontology and epistemology.

Dogmatic Theology amplifies what we know about truth and will address any specific topics such as Ecclesiology (what is church?) and Christology (who was Jesus?).

Sacramental Theology explicates liturgy and ritual in our celebration of beauty, a celebration of Christian Mysteries that effects change in us. Sacraments by Marcellino D'Ambrosio

Moral and Spiritual Theology deal with our approach to goodness. Spiritual Life by Joseph Koterski, S.J.
see Yuri Koszarycz on Christian Ethics

Spiritual Theology includes Mystical Theology and Ascetical Theology.

Pastoral Theology integrates all of these disciplines and puts them into practice in the care of souls .

Many folks are quite unfamiliar with spiritual theology, mystical theology and ascetical theology, which might be conceived as dealing with what we embrace on our approach to Goodness. This is because Moral Theology has for too long been preoccupied with what we are to avoid on our approach to Goodness. So, really, Moral Theology might better be conceived as a discipline within Spiritual Theology, as far as I am concerned. [This honors the good old approach and avoidance paradigm of behaviorism ]

Final Exam: What branches of theology does Shalomplace mostly deal with?