Philosophy/Theology vs Mystery

[cloudyday2]

I assume that until the 20th century a philosopher would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if philosophers and theologians should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

 

[Radagast]

I assume that until the 20th century a philosopher would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if philosophers and theologians should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God? What do you think?

I don't quite get your argument.

Is it "Science is complicated, therefore I don't believe in God"?

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't quite get your argument.

Is it "Science is complicated, therefore I don't believe in God"?

I am changing my title, because I think that might be misleading.

I often hear philosophers and theologians presenting arguments about God, Creation, and other mysteries with a confidence that seems naive. I think we need evidence or experience more than reasoning, because reasoning only applies to the abstract model, and that model might not apply in the extremes of mysteries.

 

[mindlight]

I assume that until the 20th century a philosopher would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if philosophers and theologians should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

Humility is always a key to understanding a matter. But there is a difference between the finite understanding of a man that evolves with new discovery and the given revelation of a God who knows everything and Created the world we inhabit and then tells us what he thinks.

 

[Radagast]

I think we need evidence or experience more than reasoning, because reasoning only applies to the abstract model, and that model might not apply in the extremes of mysteries.

Thank you for telling us Christians we're doing it wrong.

 

[cloudyday2]

Humility is always a key to understanding a matter. But there is a difference between the finite understanding of a man that evolves with new discovery and the given revelation of a God who knows everything and Created the world we inhabit and then tells us what he thinks.

That is true, but where do we look for the given revelation of God
- the Bible?
- the traditions of some version of Christianity?
- the design of the natural world?
- trusted anecdotes from our own lives and/or the lives of friends and family?
- commonalities in the world's many religions (if any)?
- philosophical reasoning from abstract models hoped to be applicable to the extreme domains of mystery?
- ... ?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Surely there is a much simpler way of putting what your telling us, or "trying" to tell us in my case.

I can't decide if you are talking around something that you don't want to put bluntly or if yours it indeed the only way to put it.

 

[mindlight]

That is true, but where do we look for the given revelation of God
- the Bible?
- the traditions of some version of Christianity?
- the design of the natural world?
- trusted anecdotes from our own lives and/or the lives of friends and family?
- commonalities in the world's many religions (if any)?
- philosophical reasoning from abstract models hoped to be applicable to the extreme domains of mystery?
- ... ?

The bible is the only source of revealed truthes. Mathematics gives another kind of truth. Direct scientific experimentation can determine empirical truthes and historical analysis can test witness and source testimony also.

Historical analysis can be used to overthrow false religions like Islam and Hinduism but this process is really only just beginning in the cultures dominated by these. Christianity has survived the tests of the last 200 years with its emphasis on science and history.

 

[cloudyday2]

Surely there is a much simpler way of putting what your telling us, or "trying" to tell us in my case.

I can't decide if you are talking around something that you don't want to put bluntly or if yours it indeed the only way to put it.

If you tell me what you think I am telling you, then I can clear-up any confusion. Also read post #3 and #6 where I added some extra clarifications in case that helps.

 

[cloudyday2]

The bible is the only source of revealed truthes.

God inspired people, eventually religious texts were written, and finally leaders agreed on a Biblical canon. Is there anything preventing God from inspiring modern people with supplementary teachings, clarifications, instructions for specific local problems, etc? One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Paul was the gift of prophecy. Wouldn't a modern person with the gift of prophecy reveal truths from God?

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you tell me what you think I am telling you, then I can clear-up any confusion. Also read post #3 and #6 where I added some extra clarifications in case that helps.

I'm even further down the ladder of understanding than that, I don't even know what I think you are telling me.

No biggie, maybe it will get cleared up along the way.

 

[Silmarien]

I assume that until the 20th century a philosopher would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world.

Not really. There were plenty of forms of idealism prior to the 20th century, from Kant who would have considered these ideas to be conceptual representations that didn't necessarily reflect the external world, to the German idealists who wouldn't have been too interested in scientific descriptions at all. The idea of the abstract model really is not remotely new, though.

 

[zippy2006]

I often hear philosophers and theologians presenting arguments about God, Creation, and other mysteries with a confidence that seems naive.

Which philosophers? Which theologians? Which works? Which quotes?

 

[cloudyday2]

Not really. There were plenty of forms of idealism prior to the 20th century, from Kant who would have considered these ideas to be conceptual representations that didn't necessarily reflect the external world, to the German idealists who wouldn't have been too interested in scientific descriptions at all. The idea of the abstract model really is not remotely new, though.

Hmmm, I don't think you are getting my point either.

Let's take an analogy with physics. There are theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. The theoretical physicists provide the inspiration and the experimental physicists provide the reality check. Where is the reality check for philosophers and theologians who make claims about God, Creation, and other mysteries? Shouldn't they include a disclaimer with everything they write ("my philosophical reasoning about these mysteries is probably worthless due to its likely dependence on unconscious assumptions inspired by familiar mundane reality")

 

[Silmarien]

Hmmm, I don't think you are getting my point either.

Honestly, I think your point revolves around a misunderstanding of what philosophy actually is. It can actually serve as one of the reality checks on modern science, since philosophical inquiry can help unravel the unconscious assumptions that scientists and laypeople bring to what they think they know. You're treating empiricism like a perfect tool in determining what is and isn't true, and it's not.

Most modern philosophers are not in the business of making statements about God at all. It's a highly atheistic field these days.

 

[cloudyday2]

Honestly, I think your point revolves around a misunderstanding of what philosophy actually is. It can actually serve as one of the reality checks on modern science, since philosophical inquiry can help unravel the unconscious assumptions that scientists and laypeople bring to what they think they know. You're treating empiricism like a perfect tool in determining what is and isn't true, and it's not.

Philosophy sometimes seems to mean asking "what is X?" - for example "what is science?" I think that sort of philosophy is great. Other times philosophy seems to mean asking "if X is true then what does this imply and are there any contradictions?". And then philosophy sometimes means making claims "X is true". Obviously you can't explore "what is X?" without reasoning from assumptions, but I think philosophers often present themselves as knowing the answers when they should be asking the good questions that spur people in more practical fields to think.

That is my impression.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is true, but where do we look for the given revelation of God

YES>

- the Bible?

NO>

- the traditions of some version of Christianity?

NO>

natural

NO>

anecdotes

NO>

commonalities

NO!

- philosophical reasoning from abstract models hoped to be applicable to the extreme domains of mystery?

MAYBE >

- ... ?

YES>

Is there anything preventing God from inspiring modern people with supplementary teachings, clarifications, instructions for specific local problems, etc?

 

[Silmarien]

Philosophy sometimes seems to mean asking "what is X?" - for example "what is science?" I think that sort of philosophy is great. Other times philosophy seems to mean asking "if X is true then what does this imply and are there any contradictions?". And then philosophy sometimes means making claims "X is true". Obviously you can't explore "what is X?" without reasoning from assumptions, but I think philosophers often present themselves as knowing the answers when they should be asking the good questions that spur people in more practical fields to think.

That is my impression.

Where are you getting this impression? Who have you read?

 

[cloudyday2]

Where are you getting this impression? Who have you read?

I believe the only philosophy book I have read is this one on philosophy of science. I thought it was helpful. I've seen so many people on forums defining what is and is not science, and it has always annoyed me. I've always felt there is a lot more gray rather than black/white in science, and that book seemed to confirm this for me.
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha

 

[Silmarien]

I believe the only philosophy book I have read is this one on philosophy of science. I thought it was helpful. I've seen so many people on forums defining what is and is not science, and it has always annoyed me. I've always felt there is a lot more gray rather than black/white in science, and that book seemed to confirm this for me.
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha

Where are you getting your impression that philosophers go around making naive proclamations, then? It looks like the reading you've done in the field actually contradicts rather than supports that stereotype.