Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The Beginning of the UniverseGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Beginning of the Universe | Login/Join |
I'm still stuck on . . . Proof: 1. q � q [Axiom 2] 2. �q � �q [Contrapositive of Axiom 2] 3. (�q � �q) [Necessitation axiom] 4. �q � �q [Distribution axiom] 5. �q � �q [Modal axiom S5] 6. �q � �q [4, 5, Hypothetical syllogism] 7. q v �q [Excluded middle] 8. q v �q [6, 7, Substitution] 9. ��q [Axiom 1] 10. q [8, 9, Disjunctive syllogism] 11. q [Modal axiom M] . . . not knowing whether to laugh or to cry.  ------- There is so much good stuff that has been written, and I haven't finished the article either. Way behind, as usual. Jim Arraj is such a kind and respectful scholar, even when dealing with material he obviously finds repugnant. Yet every now and then, in somewhat restrained manner, his true judgments come out, like his evaluation of some of Guth's writings: Enough said, but I will add just for the sake of icing on the cake, that this idea strikes me as, well, stupid! Then there's his evaluation of Witt and Deuthsch's "many universes" theory. Nice to know that that one's settled, at least! | ||||
|
Well, actually, that was a quote from Phil and, to that extent, you've got him pegged! Sorry for the misattribution. It gets confusing at times. Howard Stern you shall be! (I hope you have some sort of seven second delay built into all your posts.)  | ||||
|
Then there's his evaluation of Witt and Deuthsch's "many universes" theory. Well, it is good that scientists freely engage in thought experiments to see what their theories are saying � what they allow. It can lead to perhaps astonishing new lines of inquiry or it can perhaps show fundamental flaws in existing theories. Ockham's razor can�t have much love for the many universes theory � nor do I. Still, it�s nice to think there is a place that exists where I am a millionaire, happily married, driving a Mercedes and all because at one time I decided to put jelly on my toast rather than butter. | ||||
|
I very much agree with that, Brad. The part that seemed to bother Jim (and bothers me as well is) "I don't think there are any interpretations of quantum theory other than many world . . . The others deny reality." I could give a short explanation of why the "many world" hypothesis doesn't seem to fly (it's a common science fiction preoccupation, as I'm sure you all know), but, then, I'd be denying reality so I'll pass!  | ||||
|
re: I have to admit that I�ve read some of Hawking�s work and can just about wrap my mind around the idea that the universe needn�t have had a �beginning� because time itself at some point (oh, the language and concepts are so contradictory!) did not apply. But I do not see this whole scenario precluding a larger context of existence (even a God). Well, consider this. In the case of superluminality and nonlocality, where time might could be set aside as a consideration, for a moment --- even then, we still have the concept of causality, in and of itself, remaining to be dealt with, physically and metaphysically. The infinite regression problem, as regarding efficient causes, still presents itself and begs for Primal Causation via an Unmoved Mover. That there would be nothing for a Creator to do as per Hawking and Sagan misses St. Augustine's point that Creation was not made in time but rather [i]with time.[/i] Again, the confusion comes about because scientism collapses the distinction between the phenomenological and ontological, the physical and the metaphysical.To the extent that Robert Russell's thesis that Creatio ex nihilo means ontological dependence , and to the extent that Big Bang cosmology from astrophysical data, the general theory of relativity and other factors point to a t = 0 , initial singularity, then notwithstanding that this singularity may have a quantum life of its own, then one has at least a partial confirmation of ontological dependence, by drawing a distinction between finitude and boundedness. Ted Peters writes: Truly yours, Howard | ||||
|
re: Sorry for the misattribution. It gets confusing at times. Howard Stern you shall be! (I hope you have some sort of seven second delay built into all your posts.) Well, actually, not. But what I do have is the ability to make certain imagery rather blurry  Yours, Howard | ||||
|
Well, I must say that it is way too early to predict where this thread may be headed in Shalomplace bandwidth history, that is to say in competition with the K-Pax and Verge of War threads, but it does appear to have set one new record and that is how fast it came out of the blocks. Its initial thrust seemed powered by several rocket boosters and this is good because its got quite a heavy payload to get off the ground. But maybe it would help if we got a little more personal in our sharing so this thread won't be too sterile due to overintellectualization? Perhaps a few of our participants wish to share some personal encounters with such pheneomena as gravity? acceleration? superluminality (and let's not neglect synchronicity, telepathy and serendipity)? And here is a universal experience: How about some stories about running out of time ? Just trying to be a good facilitator Your host, Howard | ||||
|
By the way, that�s an excellent post on Bulverism. That explains the Clintons.  But maybe it would help if we got a little more personal in our sharing so this thread won't be too sterile due to overintellectualization? Perhaps a few of our participants wish to share some personal encounters with such pheneomena as gravity? acceleration? superluminality (and let's not neglect synchronicity, telepathy and serendipity)? And here is a universal experience: How about some stories about running out of time ? Just trying to be a good facilitator I�m never quite sure when to take you at face value, JB. But that�s a good idea. To deal only in the intellectual areas would be simply to measure the apple and not to eat it. I find science and religion to be almost equally baffling. Neither completely fills my need for certainty or for being able to affect needed change by showing the absolutely fool-proof method to do so. And it�s really amusing to see people (not the ones here) approach both science and religion in much the same ways. They both seem to be equally willing depositories for our ideas, beliefs, prejudices, misconceptions, etc. And yet, perhaps because of this, they are equal partners in this whole human enterprise of existence. They are often at odds with each other but it seems more like a family fight between two brothers rather than between two opposites. Thoughts on superluminality: I assume that�s replacing a 60 watt bulb with a 100 watt one. Acceleration: my brain is accelerated by all the thoughts expressed here � often to the point of sheering the driveshaft. I often feel like Tim Allen of �Home Improvement� who, after speaking with his backyard neighbor over the fence, will regurgitate (incorrectly and amusingly) the knowledge he has obtained. Hey � it�s a start. Serendipity: having the chance to discuss things with you people. I have NO idea what y�all get from me but what I get from you is an idea, better than vague, of how it is to live a life filled with a religiosity and/or a quietness of being � things that are totally foreign to my nature. I�ve examined the apple. I just haven�t tasted it. Perhaps I have no taste buds. Okay...who�s next? | ||||
|
There was a special issue of the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly , on Thomas Reid , with John Haldane as Guest Editor --- VOL LXXIV, Summer 2000, which included articles: John Haldane Thomas Reid: Life and Work Ralph McInerny Thomas Reid and Common Sense Keith Lehrer & Bradley Warner Reid, God and Epistemology Philip de Bary Thomas Reid's Metaprinciple Alexander Broadie The Scotist Thomas Reid Roger D. Gallie Reid, Kant and the Doctrine of the Two Standpoints John Haldane Thomas Reid and the History of Ideas Ronald E. Beanblossom James and Reid: Meliorism vs. Metaphysics Nicholas Wolterstorff Reid on Common Sense, with Wittgenstein's Assistance C. A. J. Coady Contract, Justice and Self Interest I haven't had a look at any of the articles yet but one can get a glimpse at McInerny's take in this book review of Characters in Search of Their Author: The Gifford Lectures, Glasgow, 1999-2000 . In a nutshell, what McInerny, following Reid, insists on is Common Sense . So, with all kidding aside, let me suggest that everyone can do philosophy and that it is not just a sterile academic exercise. Very few people spend a whole lot of time dwelling on Big Bang cosmology, the initial singularity, ontology or epistemology. My thesis is that, as regards these pressing existential issues - most people are fundamentally trusting reality; are fundamentally trusting their senses, perception and cognitive capacities, though not uncritically; are very much in resonance with the idea that one cannot simply go backward in an infinite regression of cause after cause and explain existence. When it comes to metaphysics, to a large extent, most of us are unconsciously competent, which is to say that we already know what these philosophers are articulating and debating even if we never burdened ourselves with the philosophical lingo or bothered to learn the arcane metaphysical vocabulary. My challenge to those who are not really turned on by or who do not really understand the specific issues under consideration here is to ask: Can you testify to the presence of a deep, deep intuition within you which says that, maybe, this discussion seems at times to be, literally, Much Ado About Nothing? Is anyone telling themselves that, I get what these folks are driving at, in general, but, seriously, does not everybody know that ? Are we not talking just old fashioned Common Sense? Are we not just waxing poetic on a grasp of the obvious? Now, to the extent that those questions might represent too facile an approach or too much of a grand oversimplification, lacking the high nuancing of the arguments --- well, I did that on purpose but I don't offer this perspective as hyperbole. It really does say something about intuition because, in my own personal experience, having no training whatsoever in the arts and humanities (other than a bunch of psychology and Russian), once I did take up philosophy, metaphysics and theology, in earnest, even against the backdrop of my rather intensive immersion in science, again and again and again, I encountered ideas that, if I had not already thought them then, I had already felt them and intuited them - even if I could still not completely articulate them. Does anyone who has not participated in this thread yet resonate with some of what I am suggesting here about Common Sense and Intuition? We are all competent in this existentialy even if we don't do the academic articulation part or the teasing out of nuances reegarding angels dancing on pinheads That's what a visitor from K-Pax can gift us with: good, old-fashioned common sense. That's what Reid was all about. If you haven't read him, then do a little Googling and you'll be much rewarded. Okay? Pax K? Pax jb howard | ||||
|
JB said: That there would be nothing for a Creator to do as per Hawking and Sagan misses St. Augustine's point that Creation was not made in time but rather with time. Yes � perhaps that fills in the gaps in my reasoning (kindly calling it such) that were only intuited before. But at some point (and I probably speak for some of the lurkers here) this all becomes too much to wrap one�s mind around - first causes, no causes, no time, quantum vacuums, etc. One reaches one�s own intellectual capacity and/or the very limits of the knowable itself. Determining the limits of each and the difference between the two is such a hard thing. I can imagine there to be exactly the universe that Hawking describes and I can equally imagine the universe that is a refutation of this. And still there is wood to chop and water to carry. As a wise man once said (on page 2): We kinda all believe that our sneaking suspicions are right, ontologically and epistemologically, but admit that we may one day be proven wrong. My counter is that, they may be proven wrong but, if they are correct, I will never be proven wrong Pausing in the gap for the moment, between stimulus and response, in the silence between the notes, waiting for the master to speak again. | ||||
|
Pausing in the gap for the moment, between stimulus and response, in the silence between the notes, waiting for the master to speak again. Ah�I see we cross-posted. The master has already spoken. Does anyone who has not participated in this thread yet resonate with some of what I am suggesting here about Common Sense and Intuition? We are all competent in this existentialy even if we don't do the academic articulation part or the teasing out of nuances reegarding angels dancing on pinheads That�s a good thought and could lead to some interesting observations of life from others � if they will but dare to not feel they need to sound like an egghead (no insult to eggheads intended!). | ||||
|
Please be patient with me here. I think it is significant that in our discussions of the metaphysics, ontology, and phenomenology of science this entire field has been ignored. I think part of the purpose of this entire discussion (at least in my mind) is to expose the petty prejudices that have unnecessarily delayed or prevented such work from being done. As always, this entire field is dangerously susceptible to being labeled junk science because of some of the truly whacky things and people out there (with an acknowledgment that many who are now in the mainstream were once considered quite whacky). This type of non-local interaction has been reproduced dozens of times in equally tightly controlled experiments by William Braud, Marilyn Schlitz and others. Certainly being able to throw around terminology such as �non-local� � and quite rightly in this case � gives some of this science more credibility. As always, they�ll have to show that these types of experiments are repeatable � or, more fundamentally and interestingly - why they might not be. One senses the struggle to legitimacy, the overcoming of prejudice and superstition, just as the early sciences had to do. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Brad: Parapsychologists tend to avoid using metaphors such as "non-locality," since it would mostly be seen as hyperbole. The use of the term was mine to link the topic to some earlier discussions. My insistence on how parapsychology hasn't yet been thrown seriously into the mix isn't for failure to see the serious rethinking going on here, but wondering if it isn't for reasons that accomodate mainstream science for fear of further estranging the legitimate voices of religion and philosophy (mainstream psychology avoids Psi research for this very reason). This accomodation, IMHO, won't increase the mainstream's openness to data challenging its most cherished assumption (i.e., mind-body reductionism). Perhaps if Psi research had been more widely successful in assisting the CIA in the Cold War (the Soviet Union had their own research going), a level of practical merit would have earned it more careful regard in research outside the military (similar to the way you described on another thread the emergence of secular institutions in the 18th century procuring social benefits that helped the ideological shift). But I think one of Psi's most serious threats is in altering the boundary between science and religion in dialogue, where other fields of science would have to start accounting for possible psi phenomena affecting their subject areas, such that religous metaphor or similar paradigms become less distinct or less separate realities and generalized over numerous disciplines. Specializion would remain, but be more interdisciplinary, quite beyond the kind of exchange we see between chemistry and biology, or between cell biology and molecular biology. Getting research grants on this basis would be quite a mess. "One senses the struggle to legitimacy, the overcoming of prejudice and superstition, just as the early sciences had to do." Well put!! | ||
|
Thanks w.c. for your perspective on paranormal research. For others' benefit, below are some issues we have discussed here at Shalomplace in the past: Varieties of Anomalous Experience : Examining the Scientific Evidence Global Consciousness Project - Princeton A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife - Victor Zammit The Afterlife Experiments Websites - Dr. Gary Schwartz -professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Whatever we discover in the world of science about different types of nonenergetic causation, we need to remember that the distinction between the phenomenal and the ontological, the physical and the metaphysical will perdure. In the same way Russell distinguishes between limits and boundaries, which are not identical, to the extent that formal causation is at play or that a tacit dimension is unobtrusively but efficaciously influencing reality, it will remain occulted, in principle, inaccessible to the empirical methods of science, indemonstrable in the space-time-matter-energy plenum vis a vis conclusive proof. What we will get from the science of the paranormal, to the extent it advances, is a type of indirect evidence for atemporality, nonspatiality, immateriality and nonenergetic causation, an evidence that may lend itself to quasi/mathematical reconstruction, bolstered by indisputable statistical analysis, but not empirically verifiable or falsifiable or repeatable in the same manner as physical phenomena. Any mental mapping we do for a nonnatural or nonphysical environment is going to be related to through analogy and metaphor and symbol without the same type or degree of correspondence that exists between mathematics and the physical world, even that of quantum physics. As John Haldane suggests, reality is not stranger than we imagine but is stranger than we can imagine. What we will get are some rather compelling inferences, feeding more and more indirect evidence into various auxiliary hypotheses all constellated around our hypothetical core commitment to: _____________ (fill in your commitment - such as a panentheistic, immanent-transcendent, personal, loving God, or the God of Deism, or the Metaphysical Ground of Being, or a respectful Buddhistesque silence before the Sacred Mystery of it all, etc) The distinction I seek to preserve in my metaphysics is that of ontological discontinuity, between uncreated energy and created energy, between the Ground of Being and being as manifested in different levels of ontological density, between primary, formal and efficient causation, between essence and existence, between immanent and transcendent being, etc There is some tendency to facilely collapse these distinctions and to forget that we are dealing with analogies and metaphors in kataphasis; ergo the role of a good apophasis, to remind us that the summa johnboysia is really only so much straw. Below is a post I sent to a naturalism listserv, which seeks to further nuance their own facile collapsing of concepts that I feel aren't identical. It makes even more distinctions: I have encountered so many different ontological hypotheses that are so highly nuanced and so esoterically differentiated that I have trouble keeping them straight, this notwithstanding some very concise and cogent presentations such as that by Dr. Robert John Russell at Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at url = http://www.ctns.org/ and especially in his essay, Theology and Science: Current Issues and Future Directions, which is available here: http://www.meta-library.net/rjr/index-frame.html Perhaps we could tease out some of the more apparent ontological nuances and come up with a concept for differentiating disparate ontologies that is not so heavily laden with the theistic/nontheistic tension that is typically so very emotionally charged? What seems to be most at stake is an epistemological core commitment to the scientific method and its processes of conjecture & criticism, verification & falsification. My question is: Is the great ontological divide really only between naturalism and supernaturalism or is it rather between energetic and nonenergetic causation? It has never been apparent to me that a hypothetical nonenergetic causation would necessarily imply an ultimate telos, that a formative causation, such as might be involved in Bohm's "implicate order" or such as might be useful in understanding superluminality, nonlocality or even compactification of extra dimensions in Superstring Theory, would algorithmically drive to "super"natural conclusions. Such hypotheses might only indicate "non"natural phenomena, but only un-natural in the sense that there might be something besides the quantifiable and measurable space-time-matter-energy plenum. Now, I am not talking about the type of telos involved in noneqilibrium thermodynamics where entropy appears reversed and novel structures appear (like us, for instance), temporarily, or even in biological evolution, such as in Ursula's consideration of semiotics and Polanyi. I am thinking more on the quantum level where Heisenbergian uncertainty inheres and indeterminacy is at play. This is not to say that some type of nonenergetic causation wouldn't have a putative role in telepathic or other anomalous phenomena on a macrolevel, only that there could be some telic dynamics that are of a distinctly different nature than those we encounter in processes of emergence. Whatever one's views of such matters, the introduction of an implicate dynamism into the space-time-matter-energy plenum, a dynamism that can only be hinted at or indirectly verified, thereby eluding our classical empirical methods, would not, to me, logically coerce a supernaturalism. If there is such a tacit dimension, the hypothesis of nonenergetic causation, however indemonstrable, might increasingly provide us some indispensable explanatory ideas and may be so fecund as to birth other hypotheses which are logically consistent, internally coherent and, apparently, externally congruent, this notwithstanding any inherent occulting, both methodologically and systematically. If nonenergetic causation is unnatural, then it doesn't follow that it is supernatural, necessarily. If it were somehow supernatural, then it would not follow that it was necessarily personal rather than impersonal. If it were personal, then it wouldn't necessarily follow that it was good versus evil, benevolent versus malevolent versus indifferent, that it was ominpotent or omniscient, etc I offer this because I too often see discussions that too facilely collapse supernaturalism and theism. These distinctions are worthy of more nuancing. Finally, in the process of differentiating disparate epistemologies and ontologies, one might stumble over a less emotionally-charged dividing line between various hermeneutics and worldviews. Might that dividing line, for any of you, be nonenergetic causation? or a more heavily nuanced nonenergetic causation? From another angle, couldn't we more broadly conceive naturalism? By the way, I raise this issue outside of the context of defining RN per se. My best, jb +++ +++ +++ I realize the above post might seem like a capitulation to my materialist audience, but I was in dialogue with them and looking to explore some common ground, epistemologically and ontologically. And, I was setting a trap as in a game of chess pax, amor et bonum, jb | ||||
|
But I think one of Psi's most serious threats is in altering the boundary between science and religion in dialogue, where other fields of science would have to start accounting for possible psi phenomena affecting their subject areas , such that religous metaphor or similar paradigms become less distinct or less separate realities and generalized over numerous disciplines . Right on, w.c. -- I think we are already witnessing some boundary changes in the world of medicine, such as I referred to below in a post late last year: Very good points there, w.c. pax, jb | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
J.B. said: "What we will get from the science of the paranormal, to the extent it advances, is a type of indirect evidence for atemporality, nonspatiality, immateriality and nonenergetic causation, an evidence that may lend itself to quasi/mathematical reconstruction, bolstered by indisputable statistical analysis, but not empirically verifiable or falsifiable or repeatable in the same manner as physical phenomena. Any mental mapping we do for a nonnatural or nonphysical environment is going to be related to through analogy and metaphor and symbol without the same type or degree of correspondence that exists between mathematics and the physical world, even that of quantum physics." Your so right here. It is one thing to verify anomalies, and quite another to determine what they are, although I think a fair percentage of the determinations made in the "harder" sciences are not as waterproof as advertised, such as the research leading to pharmaceutical advances where research claims aren't carefully scutinized, or even altered to benefit the market place. Products recalled because of previously known safety issues are not unknown. Perhaps the backdoor for psi is through more mind-body venues in medicine, with the NIH a growing sponsor of these. | ||
|
re: although I think a fair percentage of the determinations made in the "harder" sciences are not as waterproof as advertised Right you are! One thing that I would not want to fail to point out is that, when I speak of the differences in the indirect evidences we can gather for our metaphysical hypotheses vs our physical hypotheses, at the same time, I do not mean to suggest, necessarily, that they are not just as compelling, in the inferences they invite us to draw, as some of the inferences we draw, everyday, from both indirect and direct evidences in the realm of science. How compelling an inference is can be different from how logically coercive an argument is, however, but the certitudes proceeding from these inferences can nonetheless be compelling enough to allow us to get along quite well, existentially! Though one set of hypotheses and their evidence is interpreted and accessed rationally while the other might be said to be meta-rational or transrational or super-reasonable, we can and do confidently respond to their reliability, their credibility and their authoritativeness. That is because the transrational or metarational is dealing with the very grounding of the rational. This pre-scientific grounding of the rational is what makes the intelligibility of the phenomenal world possible in the first place and is what make the epistemological activities of hypothesizing and gathering evidence possible, too. We experience certainty, at the level of the transrational or metarational, in the experience of faith, in the very grounding of both intelligibility, itself, and of our actions, which flow in response to this intelligibility. This meta-rational fundamental trust has a concommitant fundamental certainty that undergirds the certainty that will emerge from our rational enterprises of alternating conjecture and criticism, verification and falsification. To this extent, I see a correspondence between Kung's God hypothesis and Rahner's supernatural existential. from Faith & Reason: the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy To me, this unthematized state is at least analogous to what I was calling the unconscious competence of us all, the unarticulated grasp of metaphysical intuitions, one of which we call common sense. The encyclopedia treats the interaction between faith and reason via four models: a) The conflict model. [where the aims, objects, or methods of reason and faith seem to be very much the same] My comment: This would be represented by the militant atheists, like Dawkins, and the fundamentalists of any religion who, for instance, take their scriptures literally. [scientism and fundamentalism] (b) The incompatibilist model. Here the aims, objects, and methods of reason and faith are understood to be distinct. My comment: In many of its variants, the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria approach) lacks the necessary nuancing that prevents such approaches from degenerating into fideism. (c) The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though both maintain distinct realms of evaluation and cogency. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve miracles; that of reason to involve the scientific method of hypothesis testing. Much of the Reformed model of Christianity adopts this basic model. My comment: This sounds like the code word for the Protestant approach which views creation in a dialectical relationship with the Creator. (d) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have an organic connection, and perhaps even parity. A typical form of strong compatibilism is termed natural theology. My comment: This sounds like the code word for the Catholic approach which is analogical, which views the creation as sacred and inherently good. Because of its affirmation of the analogical relationship, natural theology becomes possible and this, to me, is most coherent with the metaphysics we have been trying to clarify and articulate in this thread. Reality teaches us something about Ultimate Reality through alternating kataphasis and apophasis, using the same critical realism and the same lingua franca of both science and religion, which is philosophy (see Fides et ratio, a masterpiece by JPII). Now, I'm not saying all of my approach is necessarily correct, but it feels more coherent and consistent and congruent to me. I resonate with Catholicism's affirmation of philosophy, the metaphysics of Aquinas, its analogical imagination and all of the preambles to its deposit of Revealed Truth. This resonance makes me feel more confidently assure in the dogmatic assertions, once knowing that such assertions are open to historicity, linguistic analysis, exegesis of literary, form and redaction criticisms, archaeology, the insights of the human sciences - anthropology, psychology, medicine, sociology - and other activities of human reason. p.s. So, despite the reason and resonance, the metaphysics and philosophy, if we accept Rahner's supernatural existential, then what might we expect to encounter in that human experience called Spirituality. How should we go about, in this very thread, in dialogue with Jim & Tyra's essay, indeed in our very lives --- responding with our faculties of the intellect, of the memory, of the will? If all of this is true and we have given notional assent, alone, what do we call that? If all of this is true regarding the preambles of faith and if we view the proofs of God's existence as compelling (even if not logically coercive), then what next? Or what have we done already, however unthematized or however third eye blind we may have been? IOW, so much for all this thinking and mental gymnastics, what does one DO? and WHY? Or what have we done, in the past, and why? Does anything in this present consideration matter to your daily living? Does it call forth a response or a renewed response? If any of this has shed new light or given one a novel perspective, THEN WHAT?  What about other truth claims of Christianity? Is there evidence there which requires a verdict? a response?pax, jb | ||||
|
Certain of life's exigencies are foreclosing on my opportunity to sleep, presently, so I will try to spur on the discussion of concrete responses to our metaphysical musings. If in our encounter with Truth, whether through natural or revealed theology, we say a Creed, then based on your ontology, what might the basics of that Credo include? If one approaches a life of prayer, based on one's ontology --- say pantheist versus Deist versus Christian or what have you --- how would your life of prayer be changed? or your view of Divine Action? Would it include praise and thanksgiving, but not petition? Would it include only private or also communal worship? In the moral life -- how would one's actions change based on whether one was a pantheist vs a deist vs a Christian vs a Jew or what have you? even an agnostic or atheist? and why? Could the religions be blended (syncretism)? Does it matter which belief one holds (indifferentism)? What about one's view of natural evil and suffering? Why do they exist? What about human evil or sin? Do they exist or are there merely errors and mistakes in a trial and error journey of life? Is there a universal salvation where all are saved (apokatastasis)? or is there a unique route to salvation (exclusivism)? or does one's belief system extend, implicitly, to all (inclusivism), dependent on Christ (Christocentric), or God (theocentric)? How many of the above issues can be resolved from mere metaphysical reflection and natural theology? Which ones don't emerge as issues until revealed theology is presented? How has the New Age Movement been useful? What are its promises based on the ontologies that might fit under its umbrella, both dual and nondual? What are some of its perils? Can you see why ontological and epistemological presuppositions, once drawn out to their logical conclusions can begin to impact the life of prayer? the moral life? one's view of evil and suffering? of salvation? The old bulletin boards are full of discourse by those who thought that Phil and my orthodoxy was nothing but an artifact of patriarchal oppression and control and whose rhetoric revealed the type of insidious influence that the worst parts of the New Age movement could have insofar as it impacted one's vision of human responsibility, freedom and sin. There were, too, on the other hand, those who too facilely labeled every Eastern spiritual discipline or practice, or the Sufi system of the enneagram, or Jungian psychology, or subtle energy phenomena, as New Agey in the most pejorative way. The confusion brought on by the arch-conservative and the ultra-liberal perspectives, in my opinion, came about from a failure to rigorously apply a coherent systematic theology as must be undergirded by a robust and consistent metaphysics. Tweak an ontological presupposition just so much or fail to sufficiently grasp a nuance of fundamental theology just right and one can set oneself up with a set of presuppositions that can take them far astray from traditional teaching and essential elements of the faith. As has been said, starting with a false premise, a very intelligent person, most adroitly using the tools of logic, can get further from the truth (and much faster at that) than any idiot could ever hope to aspire. pax, jb | ||||
|
Can you see why ontological and epistemological presuppositions, once drawn out to their logical conclusions can begin to impact the life of prayer? the moral life? one's view of evil and suffering? of salvation? They can indeed--especially one's view of how the universe began, and whether or not there's any purpose or meaning "built in" to the universe and it's evolutionary processes. Of course, most people don't begin with a consciously articulated ontology and epistomology and proceed to moral and spiritual living, but there's no doubt that *everyone* possesses ontological and epistomological assumptions underlie literally *everything* that everyone thinks or does. These assumptions are often unexamined in most people, but that doesn't matter most of the time for what they've absorbed in their cultural conditioning is sufficient for getting along in the culture. It's only when they're confronted with a crisis, intense suffering, or some other "earthquake" (a la Tillich) that they discover how inadequate their intellectual and spiritual formation has been. There's no doubt in my mind that philosophy and theology have an important role to play in helping one's spiritual life maintain proper focus and balance. Of course, some seem to be able to get by with less intellectual formation than others. It seems to be the special province of Jung's introverted intuitive thinking types to plumb the depths, here, for nothing less can stabilize the psychic life in these types, shallow fundamentalisms notwithstanding. ---------- Good exchanges on all the other topics. I'm still catching up on things, and still reading through Jim's essay. Carry on! | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
J.B.: It is interesting how the medical community has responded fairly openly to the funding of studies in University settings looking at the efficacy of prayer, including, but I think much less-so, long-distance healing not couched in traditional religious metaphor. And then even less received are the Psi studies, which could mainly be due to their not having a focus on healing. But there may be some ideological constraints at work as well, rather than simple expediency. For instance, some of the naysayers of Psi are not skeptical of the religious experience; even when they find Psi plausible, its measurements of a sacred domain appear offensive. These same scientists and physicians appear accepting, at least in public, of the reductionistic framework of their vocations, while privately engaged in some degree of spiritual life. Bringing Psi into the mix offends on both counts. And so Psi seems to lack a cultural framework in which to blend itself. | ||
|
The investigation of the paranormal carries with it some baggage, to be sure, and the separation of the charlatans from serious scientists has been problematical. It will be telling, in coming years, to monitor the flow of funds to reasearch scientists at major universities and in government institutions and to watch how well psychic research and phenomena penetrate mainstream media (such as in after-death communications). I think one of the positive aspects of the New Age movement, however reactionary against postmodern skepticism and modern secularization, is that people are coming forward to Just Say No to the a priori denial of such phenomena as most everyone experience but few have spoken of, both because such experiences are personal/ineffable and because of the stigma attached thereto from certain very influential and vocal worldviews. pax, jb | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The Beginning of the Universe | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |