Having now
completed our ten-part series of posts on Alex Rosenberg’s The
Atheist’s Guide to Reality, it seems a roundup of sorts is in
order. As I have said, Rosenberg’s book
is worthy of attention because he sees more clearly than most other contemporary
atheist writers do the true implications of the scientism on which their
position is founded. And interestingly enough,
the implications he says it has are more or less the very implications I argued scientism has in my own book The
Last Superstition. The
difference between us is this: Rosenberg acknowledges that the implications in
question are utterly bizarre, but maintains that they must be accepted because
the case for the scientism that entails them is ironclad. I maintain that Rosenberg’s case for
scientism is completely worthless, and that the implications of scientism are
not merely bizarre but utterly incoherent and constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the premises that lead to them.
I first reviewed
Rosenberg’s book in the November 2011 issue of First Things. My series of
blog posts on the book began around the same time. Here are links to each of them, together with
a brief description of the specific subject matter of each post:
Part I [On the content of Rosenberg’s book,
which is primarily about the implications of scientism rather than a critique
of theism or a defense of atheism]
Part II [On Rosenberg’s characterization of,
and central argument for, scientism, and his treatment of teleology]
Part III [On Rosenberg’s attempt to account
for the existence of the universe in terms of quantum mechanics and the
multiverse theory]
Part IV [On Rosenberg’s account of the
origins of biological adaptation, and its unintended but implicit
biological eliminativism]
Part V [On Rosenberg’s attempt in his book Darwinian Reductionism to avoid
eliminativism in the philosophy of biology]
Part VI [On Rosenberg’s attempt to show that
Darwinism is incompatible with theism]
Part VII [On the incoherence of Rosenberg’s
nihilistic approach to morality]
Part VIII [On Rosenberg’s appeal to
neuroscience, and in particular to “blindsight” phenomena and Libet’s free will
experiments, in order to cast doubt on the reliability of introspection]
Part IX [On Rosenberg’s failure to make his
denial of the intentionality or “aboutness” of thought coherent]
Part X [On Rosenberg’s treatment of those
arguments, from Thomas Nagel and others, which he regards as “among the last
serious challenges to scientism”]
Rosenberg’s
2009 article “The
Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality” was a precursor to the
book. A number of philosophers commented
on the article, and I wrote up my own response here:
Rosenberg
then responded to his critics here. I posted a couple of replies to this
response:
Finally, just
to pile it on, some links to critical reviews of Rosenberg’s book by philosophers
otherwise sympathetic to his naturalism: Michael
Ruse, Philip
Kitcher, and Massimo
Pigliucci.
UPDATE: Some time after the publication of The Atheist's Guide to Reality, Rosenberg posted online a draft of a paper, "Eliminativism without Tears," which tries to answer the incoherence objection against eliminativism. I examined the arguments of this paper in some detail in a series of posts:
UPDATE: Some time after the publication of The Atheist's Guide to Reality, Rosenberg posted online a draft of a paper, "Eliminativism without Tears," which tries to answer the incoherence objection against eliminativism. I examined the arguments of this paper in some detail in a series of posts:
Also, a post on why The Atheist's Guide to Reality is the best of the books in the New Atheist genre:
Please, Paisley. Will you knock it off already? Read through the dialog. If you're half as intelligent as you fancy yourself to be, you'll have no trouble spotting them. In fact, during the course of discussion you were called to it several times, but you went blissfully forward. Do your own work.
ReplyDeletePlease, Paisley. Will you knock it off already? If you're half as intelligent as you fancy yourself to be, you'll have no trouble spotting them. It's been pointed out to you several times, but you went blissfully forward and ignored them all. Do your own work. It'll probably be hard for you because you can't scan Wikipedia.
ReplyDeletePaisley, will you please knock it off already? It's already been pointed out to you several times. If you're half as smart as you fancy yourself to be, you'll easily spot them. Do your own work and re-read the thread.
ReplyDeleteThis clown is a troll & phony nothing more.
ReplyDelete"Aquinas may have clearly explained why, but Tony didn't. Besides, my argument in relation to that post was that an omnipotent, infinite mind should be capable of an infinite creation. Anything less than that seems...well...un-Godlike."
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense. What you are saying is God should be able to create another God.
Westcountryman,
ReplyDelete> This makes no sense. What you are saying is God should be able to create another God. <
I didn't exactly say that. What I said is that an "infinite mind should be capable of an infinite creation" (a creation more along the lines of the "many worlds" and "many minds" interpretation of QM). That being said, I do believe the "mind" is holographic.
It should also be noted that Christian doctrine holds that the Son is the eternally begotten of the Father, light of light , true God of true God. To "beget" is to "procreate." So, the Son is quite literally the procreation of the Father.
Westcountryman, a noble effort, but you'll come up empty against Paisley. He refuses to reply to the cogent rebuttals he has received. His modus operandi is to either ignore the argument or focus on one segment of it. He can then claim he answered the argument without dealing with the more critical aspect of the rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteIf you call him on it, he'll demand that you do the legwork and find it for him. Like I said above, I thought his line of argumentation was interesting until I saw him float and dance like Muhammad Ali. The instant I see that in a person, I lose respect for h/er.
I've argued online for quite some time now, and I will occasionally have somebody complain that I did not reply to h/er argument or that I misunderstood an argument. I always go back and re-read everything in order to address those concerns. That, to me, is what a principled person should do.
ReplyDeletePaisley is an ideologue. He could care less that he knows little of nothing about A/T, and he apparently could care less that he isn't even familiar with some of its terminology (e.g. his misstatement of the law of non-contradiction). He is simply "right" and everybody else is "wrong." For an ideologue, I guess that works because one can delude h/erself into believing in h/er intellectual invincibility.
But there is no such thing as an infinite creation, it is a contradictory term. Infinity is a word that by its nature has no qualifications, determinations, or limitations.
ReplyDeleteWesctcountryman,
ReplyDelete> But there is no such thing as an infinite creation, it is a contradictory term. Infinity is a word that by its nature has no qualifications, determinations, or limitations. <
Okay. I guess you don't believe in the "Absolute Infinite" (a.k.a. God).
Alastair,
ReplyDeleteHe certainly does believe in the absolute infinite, but he doesn't think anything can be predicated of such. His background is in perrenialism, which is a quasi-gnostic philosophy that treats most mystical traditions as masks or manifestations of the real God. These are necessary in order for said God, who we can say nothing about, to manifest as real to us within our unique cultural and historical contexts.
I'm familiar with "traditionalism" and "perennialism."
ReplyDelete"A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary." - A Course in Miracles
The universal experience has traditionally been called "gnosis" ("jnana" in Sanskrit).
See, you two are made for each other -- two peas in a pod.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has given a very inaccurate, basically strawman picture of Perennialism (Gnostics tend to lean very much to dualism whereas the Traditionlist school are hardline Non-Dualists for heck's sake!), but, anyway, Perennialism and my relationship to it (/and thank you anonymous for your brilliant insight into my motives and the background of my thought/ end sarcasm) is irrelevant. If he is the same anonymous who made the comment before my last comment, calling Paisley an ideologue and so on, then he is being hugely ironic.
ReplyDeleteThe point is a general Platonic, mystical, or Non-Dualist one that requires no affiliation with the Traditionalist school (I, myself, am first and foremost a Platonic Christian and tend to leave questions of the Transcendental Unity of Religions to others; while somewhat respecting great philosophers and mystics from other faiths, I concentrate on my own Christian tradition, as well ad the great classical thinkers) I cannot speak for the A-T position, but I can't see how it would disagree with my general point against Mr. Paisley. Infinity refers to that which is without limits, a determination, such as talking about infinite minds or an infinite creation, is by definition a limit. Specifically, when it comes to creation, how can something created be Infinite and absolutely unlimited? To ask that God create an infinite creation is to ask for him to create another God.
Westcountryman,
ReplyDeleteI did not discuss your motives in the least, nor was I the Anonymous that called Paisley an ideologue. I also know that Perrenialists are not gnostic -- this is why I called the quasi-gnostics. Certainly, they are not dualists, as most gnostics tend to be, but their emphasis on secret knowledge, the total unknowability of God, their revision of revelation as partial and complete, and their embrace of dialectic (even if only implicit) certainly carries a gnostic vibe. Sure, they don't think matter is bad and they aren't dualists. Ok.
As to what you actually believe, your statement here seems pretty inconsistent with the earlier description of your interests and perspectives -- at least as far as I recall. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be), but you (1) identified yourself with perrenialism, (2) identified the figures of greatest interest to you, which included a great number of non-Christians: pereniallists, theosophers, neoplatonists, sufists, etc., and (3) you professed to put metaphysics before theology. Lacking further clarification, it certainly sounds like you align yourself with perrenialism -- at least as perrenializing. I would think that a Christian, especially a platonizing one, would find ample resources in his own tradition to fill a dozen lifetimes without venturing into heterodoxical territory. The Desert Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Augustine, Denys the Areopagite, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory of Palamas, Hesychasm, the Philokalia, John Scottus Eriugena, the Victorines, Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, the Spanish mystics, and a host of others would be, in my mind, sufficiently platonic without needing to go off into theosophical territory.
Putting metaphysics before theology is also a huge red flag. The Eastern Fathers labored for centuries to dispel this very approach and its tendency toward dialectic -- the same tendency that one finds in most other mystical traditions. As a Christian of the East, whose own tradition, I suppose, could be described as platonic in some senses, you don't appear to be a "Platonic Christian" of any sort that I'm familiar with. Rather, you sound like a perrenialist, or again, at least one who is perrenializing. And your response above does little to disabuse me of this suspicion. You don't deny syncretism, for instance, you set it aside as a possible and concern yourself with other matters. You also failed to disavow the core perrenialist idea that the Christian God is only a mask behind which the Absolute sits.
Of course, I may be very wrong. You are, of course, welcome to tell me otherwise, though, if you so chose to do so -- and you are under no obligation to do any such thing -- it would be most helpful if you would be less ambiguous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA caricature? Certainly, it lacks their "nuance," but it's hardly a caricature. A bit simplified? Certainly. Does it gloss over certain distinctions? Yup. I don't deny that. But neither do you really refute it. You only assert that I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteBesides, why are you so defensive about it if you aren't one of them?
And no, my description does not apply to mysticism per se. I mentioned the dialectic, did I not? Christian "mystics" (really, I would much rather talk of theoria) are not dialectical. Gnostics are. Further, while "mystics" of Christian tradition certainly believe that the entire truth isn't revealed and that God can never be known in God's essence, they don't "revise" and "obscure" the revelation of God in Christ with secret footnotes at the bottom that say "not really," which is precisely what perrenialism does do.
I'm glad to hear that you draw on Christianity's rich history. That was not made known earlier, when you largely cited pagan figures. They may certainly be insightful, as you mentioned. St. Justin Martyr spoke of the logos spermatikos that can exist in any tradition. But, as I wrote, I became suspicious when you largely mentioned figures outside of the Church earlier rather than those inside of it. (As for theosophers, you mentioned Yeats, correct? He associated himself with the Theosophical Society and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.)
What I mean by dialectic is a violent ontology of negation that denies the Trinity in favor of the Absolute or Christ as the Theanthropos. This is why Christians emphasize the Persons of the Holy Trinity over the Essence. To posit absolute unity first and deny the fullness of Trinitarian perichoresis, as most heresies do, is to negate multiplicity and particularity, effectively creating a dialectic of negation whereby all returns to absolute unity. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, escapes this dialectic because the Trinity preserves distinction within unity, which means that the journey of the soul back to God, theosis, is not one whereby creation is negated, but perfected. Divine harmony is only possible in Christianity. Everything else leads to a violent oblivion. Even if other traditions aren't explicit about it, this is typically implicit in its metaphysics -- especially traditions that posit an Absolute without distinction. Have you read David Bentley Hart? He writes about this, especially in his Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. If you want a platonic Christian who engages philosophy and metaphysics, you will find few better.
continued
continued
ReplyDeleteAs for my comment about metaphysics and theology, I was referring to this statement by you:
I put metaphysics before theology. This is partly because I find the existence of God and his role he Absolute Good, Beauty and so on as obvious truths with little room for doubt, but the question of why accept a particular religion is something that I have found harder to support conclusively.
This passage, at least on the surface, comports with my initial suspicion, no? You are all for the Absolute, but cannot put theology before it. Can you see why my initial reading was suspicious?
This statement isn't clear to me: I deny the legitimacy of doctrinal theology to be illogical.
Finally, no need to be touchy. I know a little bit about some of these issues and more about others. It's not really fair to accuse me of "gross and repeated misunderstandings of multiple terms and concepts." If you think I got gnosticism or perrenialism wrong, you're free to proffer an alternative definition, but protesting alone won't really do; and until such, any "misunderstanding" on my part cannot really be "repeated." Look, I'm not accusing you of admitting truth in other faiths -- that's fine (cf. logos spermatokos above); rather, given your earlier claims (and some of your recent ones), you appear to actually identify with some of these traditions to an extent. That's what left me suspicious -- and I quite still am. You may not be a perrenialist, but you do seem perrenializing, at least to the extent that you begin with metaphysics, treat theology with suspicion, and put such emphasis on some of these figures.
Let me allow Hart to speak for himself:
ReplyDeleteAll things—all the words of being—speak of God because they shine within his eternal Word. This Trinitarian distance is that “open” in which the tree springs up from the earth, the stars turn angels raise their everlasting hymnody; because this is the true interval of difference, every metaphysics that does not grasp the analogy of being is a tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift. It is the simple, infinite movement of analogy that constitutes everything that is as a being, oscillating between essence and existence and receiving both from beyond itself, and that makes everything already participate in the return of the gift, the offering of all things by the Spirit up into the Father’s plenitude of being, in the Son. By the analogy, each thing comes to be as pure event, owning no substance, made free from nothingness by the unmerited grace of being other than God, participating in the mystery of God’s power to receive all in giving all away—the mystery, that is, of the truth that God is love. David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 248–9.
Only in Christianity do we find an analogy of Being that preserves harmony and peace in the interval between particularities. Everything else leads to violence on its way back to unity and oblivion.
You may also be interested in this article that you can find online:
‘FACE TO FACE’: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
HINDU AND CHRISTIAN NON-DUALISM
By Stratford Caldecott
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWoah there, I never claimed that apophaticism is illegitimate -- quite the opposite, in fact. I'm a Christian of the East, after all. I criticized dialectic as a metaphysical structure. The East has many "mystics," though we don't call them that, preferring instead the term, hesychasts. We don't make a distinction between theology and mystical theology as most of the West does.
ReplyDeleteYou are reading quite a bit into my statements. I never "linked" you with Theosophy, as if you were one of them. I claimed that you mentioned figures that were Theosophers as those that inspired you. This is hardly the same thing.
The Absolute contains creation? Are you a panentheist now? Or do you mean to suggest that non-Christians would argue this? If the latter is the case, I don't see how that changes the argument. If creation is the absolute, then oblivion of the particular through change occurs when anything returns to it and becomes something else. It's still violence, but of a different type.
Calm down. I do not "want to make some big victory out of this." This isn't a competition. I'm not making "wild claims against [your] 'Platonic Christianity,'" since I have no idea what you think, as you haven't elaborated upon it clearly. That was the point of my line of questioning.
And what are the "positives and issues of Perennialism [that you] brought up" that I haven't admitted to? You made a very general claim that it has metaphysical insights, so I made the equally general claim that it does in my discussion of the logos spermatokos. What else do you want me to say when you won't be specific? If you were to have, for instance, cited their hostility to modernity for it's inextricable nihilism, I would certainly acknowledge that; or, had you mentioned their respect for tradition against absolute self-autonomy, then I would cheer it. But you didn't.
In fact, I'm still waiting for you to be specific. For instance, what does this mean:
Though I have great respect for Stratford Caldecott, but like Phillip Sherrard whom I respect even more, he does sometimes make the claim, against Perennialism, that the Christian revelation, in the sense of traditional doctrinal positions, must be held in an absolute sense notwithstanding any rational or logical problems this may bring up. This is what I meant when I talked of illogicality. He does this, for example, in his blog posting entitled Sherrard's critique of Rene Guénon. I agree with Frithjof Schuon when he maintains that doctrinal theology has no right to be illogical, or rather to make us assent absolutely (rather than provisionally, instrumentally and/or partially) to the illogical.
Do you deny the Trinity? The Incarnation? What are the implications of this in practice? How does it affect your approach to Christian dogma? Do you only accept the Trinity and/or the Incarnation "provisionally," "instrumentally," or "partially," while accepting something else "absolutely"? Do you mean to say that there are only absolute experiences, not absolute traditions, as they do?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's try this:
ReplyDeleteAs I stated, you are simply drawing a very simplistic view of the relationship between Unity and particularity, God and Creation, and the Absolute and Relative, made by Christian mystics and non-Christian mystics.
Maybe I am, but if so, you don't tell me why, here or elsewhere. So I'm going to assert that I'm not.
You are also using a highly rationalistic understanding Unity. Your entire premise is that non-Christian mysticism and Unity entails oblivion, and is hugely distinct to Christian mysticism in this regard; this is simply simplistic and inaccurate. A Platonic understanding of the areas mentioned would help you to see how one-dimensional your picture is.
Why is this simplistic? What do you expect me to do with all of these assertions?
And if I'm overly simplistic, then so is the Christian tradition of the Greek Fathers. A Nicean "understanding of the areas mentioned would help you to see how" naive "your picture is." You may be surprised to find out that vulgar Platonism was a source of many heresies.
I find this discussion highly tedious, you simply highjacked my comments to spew gross misunderstandings of my positions and those of the Perennialists. Hence I'm not going into great detail. But you neither addressed the question of different faiths, the geographical and temporal restrictions of Christianity, and the general positives of their thought (though you mentioned some of these in your last post).
Who says there are only absolute experiences? This is no a phrase I have ever come across in my readings of the Perennialists.
You have clarified what I've gotten wrong with an alternative explanation. If you want this to not be so "tedious" and tire of the "gross misunderstandings" that I "spew," then actually be substantive. The pretentious posturing above won't do.
For instance, what do they say then, if you think my loose characterization is wrong?
All human language and mental conceptions have an aspect of the limited to them. They only grasp partial aspects of the truths they come across. To this degree I take Christian doctrinal theology as provisional and partial. This is not a revolutionary perspective. So Orthodox a Christian writer as C.S Lewis, for example, writes about the need to overcome our mental conceptions of God. Other than that, I couch my understandings of the Trinity and the Incarnation against a Platonic background. So I understand the Incarnation as representing historically the Universal redeeming of God for creation. I sometimes believe that doctrinal Christian theology is too rationalistic and is too quick to come to precise, discursive positions where a certain ambiguity would have been better. But in terms of my practice and everyday belief in Christianity this make little difference. In fact I'm as quick as anyone to maintain the necessity for adherence to tradition.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so quick to compare yourself with Lewis. What he meant and what you mean may be equivocal, especially since you aren't clear by what you mean since your responses are evasive. For instance, taking the "Incarnation as representing historically the Universal redeeming of God for creation" does not answer the question posed to you. In fact, it leads one to be even more suspicious: what does it mean to merely "represent" something "historically"? So is Christ just an instance of redemption and not truly the Theanthropos?
Seriously, how do you get through the Creed on an average Sunday?
And theology is crucial to practice. That is highly emphasized in at least Orthodoxy. You would know that if you were so attuned to tradition.
Look, no one is arguing that human knowledge is complete. St. Gregory of Nyssa escribes our knowledge of God as not the total envelopment of something in the intellect, as if we had grasped it in our hands completely. Knowledge is not total, complete, and final. It is reached by experience and participation. Nonetheless, that doesn't give one license to treat the Creeds as "placeholders." They may not be exhaustive, but they are true.
It should also be noted that to Perennialism, and it is a belief I share (at least in terms of Christianity), a revelation is, in a sense, a holistic, quasi-exhaustive Imaginal, doctrinal, ethical, and sacramental framework with which to approach God, being a reflection of total truth (according to the Perennialists each particular Revelation reflects this truth in somewhat different ways, with different emphasises and so forth, for different contexts, societies, and cultures). This make the revelation quasi-absolute in terms of the individual, despite all the reservations I have made in terms of any partial, provisional, and/or instrumental aspects to doctrinal theology.
And you claimed that linking you to Perrenialism was "silly"? This is at the heart of it all.
Thank you for finally answering my questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWestcountryman,
ReplyDelete> I concentrate on my own Christian tradition, as well ad the great classical thinkers) I cannot speak for the A-T position, but I can't see how it would disagree with my general point against Mr. Paisley. Infinity refers to that which is without limits, a determination, such as talking about infinite minds or an infinite creation, is by definition a limit. Specifically, when it comes to creation, how can something created be Infinite and absolutely unlimited? To ask that God create an infinite creation is to ask for him to create another God. <
Do you believe the "infinite mind" (a.k.a. God) is...well...INFINITE? Yes or no?
Aquinas' metaphysics, although strongly influenced by Aristotelianism, it is also influenced by the participation metaphysics and emanationism of Plotinus' Neoplatonism. IOW, Aquinas' metaphysics is basically a synthesis of Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism.
Also, Aquinas' "first cause" arguement does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the universe is infinite.
We should also distinguish between "gnosticism" (which is a term that has been coined by contemporary scholars to identify a particular religious movement which was contemporaneous with early Christianity) and "gnosis" (which means "experiential knowledge" of God). There is "gnosis" not only in Neoplatonism but also in Christianity.
ReplyDeleteGod is Infinite, but not a Mind in the human sense or in the sense of any created or limited Mind.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo the anonymous who highjacked the discussion I have moved my comments to my ancient, defunct blog, as I have no wish to keep discussing a topic which is totally irrelevant to the topic of Dr.Feser's article or my discussion with Mr.Paisley. I'm not particularly interested in continuing, because of your obvious lack of knowledge and misrepresentation, but if you desire to have an actual discussion go there.
ReplyDelete-Go to the combox of the last post I made, long, long ago.
If I wanted to discuss anything else, I would post it here.
ReplyDeleteBut you continual prevarication and the last few posts solidified my suspicions, so I am quite done with the conversation. As I wrote, I finally have my answer. Your inability to ascend to basic dogma after repeated questioning is answer enough.
Besides, why would I subject myself to being called a "hijacker" who "spews" "misrepresentations" and whose thinking is "simplistic" and "one dimensional"? Especially since you won't clarify any of the things that I'm wrong about. It's become quite boresome at this point.
So, rather, if you would like to continue discussing this, I'll be right here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Besides, why would I subject myself to being called a "hijacker" who "spews" "misrepresentations" and whose thinking is "simplistic" and "one dimensional"?"
ReplyDeleteBecause that is what you are, or rather how you have been acting, unfortunately. It is undeniable you dragged my discussion with Mr.Paisley to a completely irrelevant topic you were itching to discus and then did so in a way full of misrepresentations and strawmen.
As I said in the post in my blog combox, the reason I engaged you was not to educate you, or debate you, but to show that I'm not fazed, in terms of my actual beliefs, by your attacks. In no sense do I think you have shown your suspicions and attacks on my faith have any foundation. This is not a debate, that is why I have no necessity to dance to your tune, or give all the details you want.
I actually have defended my faith in basic Christian dogma repeatedly, despite your attempts, based on strawmen and misrepresentations (such as throwing around the word "placeholder" ) though they were, to cast aspersions on my faith.
I think you have not acted well, but if you wish to have a civil, more constructive discussion in which we actually begin to understand each other's positions then I see nothing wrong with that.
But this is not the place for it. Take it or leave it, as far as I'm concerned you have proved nothing against my beliefs.
Westcountryman,
ReplyDeleteYou're a funny man. You accuse me of misrepresentation, multiple times in fact, but never clearly state what I am misrepresenting and what the correct understanding is. Your modus operandi has been to present every argument this way.
If you think I got something wrong, tell me what is wrong, why I got it wrong, and the correct understanding.
And for the dozenth time, I'm not out to be "educated" by you -- you've demonstrated that you are not capable of that -- nor am I here to "debate" you, and I'm certainly not out to "attack" your beliefs or "prove something" against them. I only questioned what they were, following the huffing and puffing of your initial response to my post directed to Mr. Paisley. And now I have my answer, so I'm done with it. You can dispense with all this tripe and feigned offense. It would not have even gone on nearly as long as it did had you answered the questions directly instead of providing evasive responses. When I ask, for instance, "Do you believe in the Trinity"? and you ignore the immediate question, claim that you reject illogical doctrine, and only take most doctrine as provisional and partial, what else do you expect me to read from that? Grow up. Stop reading into my questions intentions that I do not have. And consider that my confusion may have more to do with your difficulty in explaining yourself than my ability to comprehend or willingness to accept your claims.
Your response to Mr.Paisley contained random attacks on me.
ReplyDeleteI have no wish for a general discussion here, but I will say this about my views on the Christian revelation.
I believe it from God. I believe it is a reflection of total truth. I therefore believe that its beliefs, doctrines, etc are not in any sense placeholders, but intimately linked to Truth as such. I believe in the Truth of Christianity. Now, when it comes to doctrinal theology I think certain formulations were more discursively precise and elaborate than was necessary, but this was clearly providentially acceptable and they are now an important part of the Christian Revelation and express the most important truths of Christianity very well despite any not strictly necessary discursive elaborations. Such reservations, limited as they are, have no impact on my personal spirituality, as I believe in total acceptance and practice of the Christian tradition when it comes to my personal spirituality; this tradition forms a complete container, as it were, for my spirituality, there is no room for placeholding, for other faiths, for Perennialism, or even for any notion of reservations or nuances in this spirituality and my relationship with God through Christ.
The only ways in which I differ from you would be; in my acceptance that different, legitimate emphasies of total truth may be possible, hence it may be true that other faiths are legitimate Revelations; in my remembrance of a certain limitation to form and human expression of total truth, allowing for a little more nuance in terms the relationship of doctrine to total truth, but in no sense does this mean think that doctrine is 'placeholder', indeed I maintain it is intimately connected to total truth, which it reflects. None of these has much impact on my personal spirituality or my full acceptance of the Christian Revelation, Creed, and Tradition.
I have no wish to end in hostility to you, whatever I feel about the beginnings and workings of our discussion. I hope you can appreciate that, whatever are our differences, it is in sense that I simply treat the Christian Tradition and Creed as a "placeholder' or provisional and partial, in any sense but the most limited and nuanced, and that for all intents and purposes I follow our Tradition and doctrine totally in my personal spiritual journey.
If we take the Trinity, which is certainly the most controversial, in my opinion, of the key Christian doctrines.
ReplyDeleteI accept it, in terms of my personal spirituality I accept it completely. I do feel that there was more discursive elaboration and precision than was necessary, while, paradoxically, there is still a certain vagueness, discursively, to aspects of the doctrine. But I accept it, the fully doctrine of the Trinity according to the Creeds, as providential, as intimately linked to total truth, as part of the basis of a total, encompassing Revelation of Christ the Son of God, Second Person, or Logos, of the Trinity. I would even go as far to say that as far as precise and elaborate doctrinal formulations go, the doctrine of the Trinity expresses perfectly the nature of God.
There are only a few areas where I may differ with the you on the Trinity. One would be my acceptance that one may emphasis different aspects of total truth, of God, than his Trinitarian nature. Christians cannot do this unless they are very specifically talking about one aspect, however. Also allowance of a slight nuances in my understanding of the doctrine and the doctrinal formulations of the Trinity. None of these has the least effect on my personal spirituality and relationship with Christ.
No, you perceived them as random attacks; they were manifestly not meant to be such.
ReplyDeleteAlright, fair enough regarding your statement of beliefs. I'm not out to judge you -- just to understand you after you protested my initial description. I don't question your orthodoxy or sincerity, either. That isn't my place.
To be fair Perennialism had little to with my discussion with Mr. Paisley, so to the degree you clearly desired to bring it into the discussion the attack was somewhat misguided, as was the two peas in a pod, contemptuous remark.
ReplyDeleteI hope you can then recognise that, whatever disagreements we may have, it far, far from the truth that I treat the Creed or Christian Revelation and doctrine as 'placeholders' or as provisional and partial in any but the most limited and nuanced sense (even then those words are probably not the best to use), based on the limitations of form and human expression. The doctrine of the Trinity is not completely to be identified with the Trinity itself, though it is intimately related and a reflection and extension of its truth. In terms of the personal and everyday spirituality of every Christian it must be accepted completely in its doctrinal form.
I should also make it clear I'm not out to convert anyone. I think it makes little difference in they accept my perspective or not, as long as they are Christians who are coming to know God through traditional Christianity.
@ Westcountryman
ReplyDelete> God is Infinite, but not a Mind in the human sense or in the sense of any created or limited Mind. <
Of course, the divine mind is not the same as the human mind. The divine mind is infinite; the human mind is not. But the divine mind, being infinite, has infinite thoughts (that's why it's infinite).
By the way, I'm not sure if Mr. Paisley meant that God could create an infinite universe or an infinite number of finite universes. That distinction is an important one.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem remains. Creation is determined and limited, by definition. The table in front of me is a particular length, a particular piece of wood and so forth. Even if it were space as such or wood as such that would be a limit and determination of one form and not another. Infinity has no limits. This is of course an excellent argument for the existence of God. Just ask someone what limits the universe. Nothing cannot limit the universe because nothing is pure negation, the opposite of everything that is and ever was. If it is something else determinate and limited that limits the universe then what limits it, and so forth? The conclusion is that existence if Unlimited or Infinite.
ReplyDeleteMr.Paisley, I don't think it is useful to talk in terms of the Divine Minds Infinite thoughts, that is too much like a bad analogy from the human mind. To God Knowing and Being are One. If you want to put it that way then God's thoughts are his Being, though that is not the best way, perhaps, to put it.
Anonymous, I was serious about what I feel is a slightly simplistic approach to the distinction between Christianity and other perspectives that you drew on the topic of Unity.
ReplyDeleteI think this is because you, like so many others, mistake the Platonic or Non-Dualist idea of Unity. It takes some time to truly understand it. Pythagorean thought is quite helpful in this regard. So is the thought of Samuel Taylor Coleridge; and James Cutsinger work on Coleridge is particularly good. This helps to understand how particularities can be subsumed in Unity and yet still maintain their particularity. Indeed, it is more than just maintaining it; it is a total Unity of particularities.
Our modern, materialist, billiard ball view of the universe prevents us seeing how there can be any Unity but that of discrete parts that come together.
Coleridge starts by illustrating the Unity in particularity inherent in polarities. Take Hot and Cold. These exist as particular poles, but they are also united by the very fact they are poles and therefore do not exist apart (my particular example of Hot and Cold is unimportant, if it is inadequate I'm sure you can imagine a better one). They also do not exist without what Coleridge refers to as a fulcrum, or that which they have in common; what we might call temperature in this example. But while Hot and Cold exist as particular poles, and any conception of their Unity must include their particularity and not extinguish it, they are Unified not simply as discrete parts. This is because Hot, Cold, and Temperature cannot exist without each other, they are not discrete parts, but an integrated Unity. But, as noted, this doesn't extinguish the particularities of Hot and Cold, in fact it completes our understanding of them. It is this model of Unity that Platonic and Non-Dualist builds on, and it is one that means that Unity is not simply oblivion.
I'll stick with the St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, and St. Maximus the Confessor on this one over the Pythagoreanism, Plotinus, Porphyry, and Proclus. I'm not sure how much you know about the formation of the Creed, the early Councils, and the philosophical and theological battles that the Fathers faced in their struggles with and against so many heresies that derived from Greek philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am aware of the trappings of modern thinking and its origins in voluntarism and nominalism, from a whole host of other frameworks sprang, including mechanism and epistemic skepticism. The latter was the basis for Kantian idealism with its distinction between phenomenal and noumenal reality, which Coleridge and other post-Kantians relied upon. Polarity is just another example of a dialectic that is totalizing, representing "a tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift." Rather than a "true interval of distance," we are left with the violence of negation and tension. There can be no peace in polarity, no harmony of difference, only a pulling apart into different directions. There is no "open" space for beings to dwell in at rest.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would suggest that you read Hart. He draws extensively from St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor.
I'm simply talking about understanding Unity in its ultimate sense, and what it means for non-Christians. If you wish to attack them then some understanding is necessary. Let's not forget that Greek philosophy is also an important influence on the Fathers, Creeds, and Councils. But really my suggestion to read the Pythagoreans was simply based on their tuition value when it comes to understanding Unity that does not extinguish particularity.
ReplyDeleteThe question of Coleridge's influences is not settled perhaps, I certainly believe he was far more influenced by Platonic and traditional Christian and Anglican thinkers than Kant.
I think you misunderstand what I meant by polarity. Polarity exists in the Universe in the sense of things like Hot and Cold and so forth. I was not trying to use it to create some fundamental metaphysical polarity or Dualism, simply as an illustration, in miniature, of how particularity can still exist in Unity.
As Owen Barfield explains of Coleridge's use of the term, “Polar opposites exist by virtue of each other as well as at the expense of each other”. My example was Hot and Cold. Hot and Cold exist only together, and only because they have Temperature, what Coleridge refers to as the fulcrum, in common. Hot and Cold exist as particulars, but also in a Unity that subsumes but does not extinguish (indeed it is its fullest expression) particularity. The Unity is not that of discrete parts, clearly, but a deeper more fundamental Unity. It is this sort of Unity, what Coleridge call interpenetration, writ large that the Platonist and mystics seeks; one that preserves multiplicity and particularity in a fundamental Unity.
I do not really understand your attacks on this idea of Unity, I do not consider it fundamentally at odds with Christian ideas, and neither did Coleridge (who was an Anglican Theologian). I do not understand how you can link it to what you refer to as 'dialectic' or violence and negation. In fact it seems the opposite of violence and negation to me.
Give me a day or two to get to this. Writing deadlines are upon me.
ReplyDelete