What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Davian]

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

It is not an atheistic postion, and your phrasing puts others in the position of proving a negative. That is ridiculous.

I am not claiming that the "religious experience" is only a physical phenomenon.

If *you* think that the "religious experience" is something "more" than a physical phenomenon, then you will need to show why, and not just keep repeating yourself.

I have elsewhere argued that Thomas Aquinas' explanation of man as a composite of body and soul is supported by these articles.

An explanation that presupposes the undefined and untestable explains very little.

 

[quatona]

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

Even if we were able to show that "religious experience is only [sic!] a physical phenomenon" this wouldn´t make a case for atheism. It would, however, destroy a certain theistic argument that so far (i.e. in the way it has been presented) lacks any reasonable support.
If you want this argument to be forceful I suggest you find and present rational support and substantiation for it instead of arguing against your own impression.

 

[madaz]

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

Your atheist friends are taking a rational position not an atheist position.

I have elsewhere argued that Thomas Aquinas' explanation of man as a composite of body and soul is supported by these articles.

Thomas Aquinas may have an explanation that is supported by your articles but it still doesnt validate his explanations.

 

[steve_bakr]

Even if we were able to show that "religious experience is only [sic!] a physical phenomenon" this wouldn´t make a case for atheism. It would, however, destroy a certain theistic argument that so far (i.e. in the way it has been presented) lacks any reasonable support.
If you want this argument to be forceful I suggest you find and present rational support and substantiation for it instead of arguing against your own impression.

Excuse me, I didn't realize that the word "atheist" would be objectionable. I thought that was the position of those arguing with me.

But it has not been proven that religious experience is merely a physical phenomenon in these articles. In fact, they lend credence to the view that man is a composite of body in soul.

But the truth of God is something that ultimately each person must discern. As I have said, our experience of God is "incomprehensibly obvious." That is why it is so easily missed.

Though there might be some heightened experiences, the experience of God is in our everyday consciousness, in our awareness of finite objects, events, and decisions made. This is what I have been trying to say. The proof comes when this experience is discerned.

I can only describe it for you. I can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I have no burden of proof. I know God exists and am aware of that knowing.

Our relatedness to God is so intertwined into our existence that we do nothing without Him. He is our very awareness--right there every moment, at every turn.

I have to borrow a phrase from the Quran. It says, "Everywhere you turn there is the face of God." Or from the Psalm, "Wherever I go, you (God) are there."

So, if your view of the cosmos doesn't include God, the transcendent experience of grace is still there for you. Grace is always being offered to everyone at all times. So, find a way to make it yours!

Pay attention to that Silence that is always in the background of your conscious awareness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have no burden of proof.

Yes, you do, actually. You do if you want your claims to be taken seriously.

Claiming that the experience of God is "incomprehensibly obvious" is a tipoff that it is not a rationally justified view at all. It's just a pre-existing belief that is being psychologically reinforced.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, you do, actually. You do if you want your claims to be taken seriously.

Claiming that the experience of God is "incomprehensibly obvious" is a tipoff that it is not a rationally justified view at all. It's just a pre-existing belief that is being psychologically reinforced.

eudaimonia,

Mark

It is a pre-apprehension of Being, a pre-apprehension of God. It is even prior to the formation of concepts. Attempting to describe it exceeds the limits of language Psychological concerns are secondary, at best.

It is not psychologically reinforced, as if it were some recurring experience recycled through the psyche to be recharged in some way.

It is a Unity. It is One experience, yet it is also continuous, perhaps because of our perception of time. I am streching language here. It seems to have a momentum of its own, yet it is always right here, independent of whatever I am doing.

Once I recognized my experience of God--once I NOTICED the Infinite--it now remains with me all the time. You cannot get at it through deductive reasoning.

I am sure this experience happens--in some form--in other religions. It may be called by different names, described using different terms. But for me, it finds concrete expression in my Catholic faith.

I refer to Karl Rahner a lot because he seems to have given a more or less concrete expression to my experience of God. Reading Rahner is like a recognition of what I already know, so I often use his terms and phrases. He puts it into words better than I can.

The only way I can prove it to you is for you to experience it yourself somehow by maintaining your awareness of a "Silent Presence." Rahner gives a pictoral description of a horizon upon which you experience everything. It is in the background but it also comes to the fore in times of heightened awareness.

It is like trying to describe the taste of sugar. How would I rationally prove to you what sugar tastes like? You could analyze sugar in many ways using the empirical method. But science can't yield the taste. Like the Psalms says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good!"

 

[madaz]

Let us consider this hypothetical scenario....

1. It is possible that koala bears may exist naturally in america.

2. We want this assertion to be true because it fits our worldview.

3. We have an experience that proves to us that koala bears exist naturally in america.

4. So therefore we "know" koala bears exist naturally in america.

5. So abandon your intellect and just believe and you will eventually know that koala bears exist naturally in america.

6. Anyone who claims that koala bears probably do not exist naturally in america are without morality and enemies of american koala bears. They are destined to burn in hell.

Just listen carefully to the silence, if you believe and have faith, you will hear koala's talking with an american accent.

Don't believe me? Just prove to me that koala bears do not exist naturally in america.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[quatona]

Excuse me, I didn't realize that the word "atheist" would be objectionable. I thought that was the position of those arguing with me.

Yet, not every argument they make is necessarily
(meant to be) an argument for atheism.

But the truth of God is something that ultimately each person must discern. As I have said, our experience of God is "incomprehensibly obvious." That is why it is so easily missed.

Of course, you are free to make unsubstantiated claims of that kind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is a pre-apprehension of Being, a pre-apprehension of God.

You only say that because you have a pre-existing belief in God. That's why you interpret that experience as one of God. Otherwise, there would be no reason to connect those dots together.

It is like trying to describe the taste of sugar. How would I rationally prove to you what sugar tastes like?

I'm not asking you to do anything like that. I'm not asking you to prove that you have an experience just like the one you describe. I'm willing to take your word for that.

What I am asking is more like this: Let's say that you taste something sweet and declare that you are tasting sugar. I'm asking you to establish the existence of the sugar. Perhaps you are tasting a different sweet substance instead. You may be misinterpreting the cause of the experience.

You could analyze sugar in many ways using the empirical method. But science can't yield the taste. Like the Psalms says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good!"

How do I know that I would be "tasting" the Christian God, and not something else altogether, perhaps even something completely internal to my own merely human psychology?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Excuse me, I didn't realize that the word "atheist" would be objectionable. I thought that was the position of those arguing with me.

But it has not been proven that religious experience is merely a physical phenomenon in these articles. In fact, they lend credence to the view that man is a composite of body in soul.

But the truth of God is something that ultimately each person must discern. As I have said, our experience of God is "incomprehensibly obvious." That is why it is so easily missed.

Though there might be some heightened experiences, the experience of God is in our everyday consciousness, in our awareness of finite objects, events, and decisions made. This is what I have been trying to say. The proof comes when this experience is discerned.

I can only describe it for you. I can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I have no burden of proof. I know God exists and am aware of that knowing.

Our relatedness to God is so intertwined into our existence that we do nothing without Him. He is our very awareness--right there every moment, at every turn.

I have to borrow a phrase from the Quran. It says, "Everywhere you turn there is the face of God." Or from the Psalm, "Wherever I go, you (God) are there."

So, if your view of the cosmos doesn't include God, the transcendent experience of grace is still there for you. Grace is always being offered to everyone at all times. So, find a way to make it yours!

Pay attention to that Silence that is always in the background of your conscious awareness.

In what way is this "God" that you describe distinguishable from "nonexistent"?

 

[Davian]

No, I don't think science is equipped for theology--as distinct from apologetics. It can study physical phenomena, but I already said that it would only confirm the proposals of Aquinas of how the human being is a composite of soul and body. There are naturally going to be physical elements to our spirituality. But this does not support atheism or challenge the validity of the religious life.

Science might be used to understand the neurological accompaniment of certain experiences, but using these studies as cover for atheism is reductionism. There are also many more elements to the religious life than certain experiences.

The transcendental experience of God that I have spoken of rests in our everyday conscious awareness in our usual encounters of concrete finite existence. Our conscious awareness of everyday experience is the experience of God and an offer of grace, which is always available. We can either accept or reject the genuine experience of God and his offer of grace.

(my bold)

What you are doing is called presuppositional apologetics:

Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true."

You are simply "begging the question", or in my view, asking for a "free ride".

 

[WonderBeat]

You are simply "begging the question", or in my view, asking for a "free ride".

Existence is theory-laden. We all beg the question to a certain extent.

 

[steve_bakr]

You only say that because you have a pre-existing belief in God. That's why you interpret that experience as one of God. Otherwise, there would be no reason to connect those dots together.

I'm not asking you to do anything like that. I'm not asking you to prove that you have an experience just like the one you describe. I'm willing to take your word for that.

What I am asking is more like this: Let's say that you taste something sweet and declare that you are tasting sugar. I'm asking you to establish the existence of the sugar. Perhaps you are tasting a different sweet substance instead. You may be misinterpreting the cause of the experience.

How do I know that I would be "tasting" the Christian God, and not something else altogether, perhaps even something completely internal to my own merely human psychology?

eudaimonia,

Mark

First, I'd like to say that I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but a Catholic Christian. It is within the Catholic belief--and especially Karl Rahner's theology, which I subscribe to--that a non-Christian, even an atheist--does not necessarily go to hell. And no one has the authority to say which person will experience hell.

My experience of the Infinite finds its best expression in my Catholic faith. It may be that someone else may find a different concrete expression of it.

I can't convince you that this experience of the Infinite exists for everyone, that grace is being offered to everyone at all times. But I think the existence of God is not subject to rational proof, because, at least for myself, it is experiential.

For myself it is an awareness, a knowing. Faith per se, doesn't necessarily apply in the case of a knowing. But perhaps at some point, there must be a faith that this experience is God, as faith is the "evidence of things not seen." At some point, as Brother Lawrence says, "Faith becomes swallowed up in sight (knowing)." Suffice it to say, that currently faith does not seem to play a role, although it does play a role in my Catholicism.

As I said, the experience of the Infinite is a pre-apprehension of Being--which is God--that occurs prior to conceptualization.

As we continue in life, I suppose that concepts overlay the experience. I suppose a scientist might explain it as the firing of certain neurons in the brain or some bio-electro-chemical event.

It may involve that, but it is not that alone. Because I say that the Infinite is always here, a horizon against which we experience the finite objects, events, and decisions of our ordinary lives. That is why it is so incomprehensibly obvious that it is so often missed.

BTW, I know several scientists who are Christians.

 

[Davian]

Existence is theory-laden. We all beg the question to a certain extent.

Some of us do not posit the existence of undetectable deities.

 

[steve_bakr]

(my bold)

What you are doing is called presuppositional apologetics:

Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true."

You are simply "begging the question", or in my view, asking for a "free ride".

I do not think that I fit entirely into that category, and apologetics isn't really my thing. While I am no scientist, I can relate to scientific thought in a general way. I did take life science, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and mathematics as part of my general education in college.

I know several scientists who are Christians, mostly in the biological field. And I think to engage in a science one needs to be able to apply scientific methods and the logic related to that particular science. My experience is that a Christian scientist may say, "This is how God expresses himself in the material world."

Apologetics is that branch of theology that attempts to show by rational argumentation the existence of God--specifically, the Christian God.

The theology I'm interested in is Catholic theology, which does its work within the system of the Catholic faith.

As you may notice, I'm not terribly interested in proving the existence of God. I know that God exists, Neither am I interested in finding faults in someone else's world view. Although, I would like to add to that view--if not the possibility of God--at least the possibility of the Infinite.

I don't think I'm looking for a "free ride," in terms of my experience of God because, as I said, I know that God exists.

I do appreciate the opportunity of
telling my experience to non-theists, though. There is a certain freedom in that. Were I speaking to another Christian, I would feel more obliged to take into consideration the other person's religious sensibilities--ie., is she a traditionalist, a progressive, a mystic, etc.? Knowing that I will be universally disavowed gives me a certain freedom to tell the unvarnished truth. That has been a kind of liberating experience.

 

[steve_bakr]

In what way is this "God" that you describe distinguishable from "nonexistent"?

God is distinguishable from the nonexistent because God is pure Being, which is existence itself.

 

[Davian]

I do not think that I fit entirely into that category, and apologetics isn't really my thing. While I am no scientist, I can relate to scientific thought in a general way. I did take life science, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and mathematics as part of my general education in college.

I know several scientists who are Christians, mostly in the biological field. And I think to engage in a science one needs to be able to apply scientific methods and the logic related to that particular science. My experience is that a Christian scientist may say, "This is how God expresses himself in the material world."

Apologetics is that branch of theology that attempts to show by rational argumentation the existence of God--specifically, the Christian God.

The theology I'm interested in is Catholic theology, which does its work within the system of the Catholic faith.

As you may notice, I'm not terribly interested in proving the existence of God. I know that God exists, Neither am I interested in finding faults in someone else's world view. Although, I would like to add to that view--if not the possibility of God--at least the possibility of the Infinite.

I don't think I'm looking for a "free ride," in terms of my experience of God because, as I said, I know that God exists.

I do appreciate the opportunity of
telling my experience to non-theists, though. There is a certain freedom in that. Were I speaking to another Christian, I would feel more obliged to take into consideration the other person's religious sensibilities--ie., is she a traditionalist, a progressive, a mystic, etc.? Knowing that I will be universally disavowed gives me a certain freedom to tell the unvarnished truth. That has been a kind of liberating experience.

Tell the "unvarnished truth", lol.

You mean, preach.

You are in the wrong forum.

 

[Davian]

God is distinguishable from the nonexistent because God is pure Being, which is existence itself.

Do you have something that could not be said with equal authority about the FSM?

 

[Eudaimonist]

First, I'd like to say that I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but a Catholic Christian.

Yes, I know. I saw the faith icon. I'm an ex-Catholic, myself.

It is within the Catholic belief--and especially Karl Rahner's theology, which I subscribe to--that a non-Christian, even an atheist--does not necessarily go to hell. And no one has the authority to say which person will experience hell.

Just curious, but by "within", do you mean that there are exceptions? IOWs, that identifiably Catholic opinion isn't of one mind on the subject?

My experience of the Infinite finds its best expression in my Catholic faith. It may be that someone else may find a different concrete expression of it.

Okay.

I can't convince you that this experience of the Infinite exists for everyone, that grace is being offered to everyone at all times. But I think the existence of God is not subject to rational proof, because, at least for myself, it is experiential.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that you don't have the burden of justifying your position. It simply means that you've decided that no such justification is possible because your views are basically arational and mystical. Being unwilling or unable to defend one's views doesn't really fly in philosophical discussion, which is all about presenting justifications.

As I said, the experience of the Infinite is a pre-apprehension of Being--which is God--that occurs prior to conceptualization.

The problem I have with this statement is that it smuggles this conceptual conclusion into the experience itself, and then conveniently tries to place this knowledge prior to conceptualization!

Even if one does stare out in any direction into some imagined "infinity", and one's mind experiences something that one attributes to "infinity", that doesn't mean that you are staring at God. It is your faith or belief in the existence of God, and your belief that God is "infinite", that causes you to interpret the experience of "infinity" as the experience of God. If you didn't believe in the existence of God, you would only say that you had experienced "infinity", or at least felt like you did.

As we continue in life, I suppose that concepts overlay the experience. I suppose a scientist might explain it as the firing of certain neurons in the brain or some bio-electro-chemical event.

No need to be so reductionistic. But the point here is that the concept that you are overlaying on the experience is the concept of God. And, until then, there is no reason to see the experience as one of God.

It may involve that, but it is not that alone. Because I say that the Infinite is always here, a horizon against which we experience the finite objects, events, and decisions of our ordinary lives. That is why it is so incomprehensibly obvious that it is so often missed.

In my view, when we stare out in any direction, we aren't staring at any actual "infinity". But I do grant that people may feel as if they are, just as people have difficulty relating to Einstein's views on the curvature of spacetime, and believe that the universe must therefore have some kind of edge or boundary surrounding it, with something (or nothingness) outside of that.

BTW, I know several scientists who are Christians.

I have no doubt of that, but I'm not certain what you think that shows.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, I know. I saw the faith icon. I'm an ex-Catholic, myself.

Just curious, but by "within", do you mean that there are exceptions? IOWs, that identifiably Catholic opinion isn't of one mind on the subject?

Okay.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that you don't have the burden of justifying your position. It simply means that you've decided that no such justification is possible because your views are basically arational and mystical. Being unwilling or unable to defend one's views doesn't really fly in philosophical discussion, which is all about presenting justifications.

The problem I have with this statement is that it smuggles this conceptual conclusion into the experience itself, and then conveniently tries to place this knowledge prior to conceptualization!

Even if one does stare out in any direction into some imagined "infinity", and one's mind experiences something that one attributes to "infinity", that doesn't mean that you are staring at God. It is your faith or belief in the existence of God, and your belief that God is "infinite", that causes you to interpret the experience of "infinity" as the experience of God. If you didn't believe in the existence of God, you would only say that you had experienced "infinity", or at least felt like you did.

No need to be so reductionistic. But the point here is that the concept that you are overlaying on the experience is the concept of God. And, until then, there is no reason to see the experience as one of God.

In my view, when we stare out in any direction, we aren't staring at any actual "infinity". But I do grant that people may feel as if they are, just as people have difficulty relating to Einstein's views on the curvature of spacetime, and believe that the universe must therefore have some kind of edge or boundary surrounding it, with something (or nothingness) outside of that.

I have no doubt of that, but I'm not certain what you think that shows.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, Mark, your post is extremely thought-provoking, to be sure.

I think that every discipline begins with a perception and certain assumptions. For science it is existence, that it is capable of being understood through observation and study.

For philosophy, I think it begins with Being. For some philosophers, Being is the Ground of Existence, and for theologians, Being is God, and all of this relates back to existence.

So, all of these disciplines can be said to overlap in some sense. For the theologian, existence itself is related to Being, and evidence for God.

Hans Urs von Balthasar's theology begins in God and descends to the person. Karl Rahner's theology starts in the person and ascends to God. He does so through both theology and philosophy. Philosophy and theology are related and interactive discplines.

There is an argument about that, of course. Tertullian thought that theology ought to have nothing to do with philosophy, but he might not be a theologian in the strictest sense of the word.

The relationship between philosophy and theology began early on, and perhaps reached a peak in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Karl Rahner began his career with two works of philosophy--Spirit in the World and Hearers of the Word--which formed the philosophical basis for his theology, which culminates in Foundations of Christian Faith.

Karl Rahner posits what is found in a simpler form in St. Ignatias of Loyola--that God is found in the humdrum of our daily existence. Rahner goes on to say that the key is found in the conscious awareness of our everyday finite experience. Lo and behold, this describes my experience!

But it is more than that, Rahner says, it is a transcendental experience. So, part of Rahner's theology is that man is a transcental being, which, IIR, is what you pointed out to me that natural emergence posits about man.

I imagine that you are very interested in consciousness as well, which Tielhard de Chardin posited is the peak of man's evolution to date, and Wayne Teasedale said is the heart of the spiritual experience.