Spurgeon addresses the desirability and reality of knowing – this is what I could find most directly:
(I just noticed he uses your favorite phrase, “gives rise to…” ; - )
To respond to your question, and then I’ll quiet down, the thing here is what we have discussed elsewhere, what reason can tell you about the world and what it cannot.
Why am I doing this?
One reason is that it was better than pursuing an academic career.
Hey, it’s your choice. If you like the fruit - good enough. That’s like what I say about Christianity. Had the hook been firmly set I’m sure I’d be defending it too. In fact, I do anyway. Like @mitchellmckain i only argue for the reasonableness and intellectual respectability of the choice. Of course the grounds on which any person, Christian or other wise, may make their choice can be more or less intellectually respectable. But in the end the proof is in the pudding: does it enhance your life satisfaction or not? For those expecting to get the bulk of that satisfaction after death, no one can prove you’re wrong … or right either.
It depends on the choice. I’ve had some people jump at the notion of ‘God’ as an uncaused cause being unaware of its action. It’s rationally possible, and so is thinking your self in a one to one relation with it. What if that was the goal of this life as Hegel alluded with the goal of history? And in so doing you could empower the present moment to become ‘God’ itself.
A lonely God no doubt, and so appropriate is what Jesus said about what does it do for a person to gain the whole world and yet lose their soul.
There isn’t any description of God as the original source of or embodiment of he cosmos that I’ll be jumping toward. I don’t personally find any use for such a notion. My only interest is in what it is which has made God belief so compelling for so long in so many places. I think there is something real and important at the source. I’m just not convinced anyone knows it’s name or agenda. And I don’t think it has any existence separate from the cosmos. But imagining it does and addressing ourselves toward That is probably a good way to seek to know that part instantiated within. There is much I like about Christianity but I will never read in or overlay what that is with a cultural script. It’s just a different approach which has the advantage of feeling familiar to me.
That’s good. It’s just pretty funny that it can’t be God, even when we have objective evidence.
You should pay closer attention. ; - )
Just to acknowledge that there is an infinite being, but not an infinite number of things would be absolutely astounding.
Better to keep it in the middle where people are certain, but anything goes with God.
What a puzzle: someone who knows something is real but doesn’t know what it is, while at the same time insisting that others cannot know what they know even when there is objective evidence. (That could be called presumption or even bluster, don’t you think? ; - )
Mark, thank you so much for this link. I just went over to it, and to get a feel for the topic went to the OP, which I see was from you! I’m very interested in your OP questions as well as the long conversation that follows, or at least (probably) parts of it.
Looking forward to more great reading.
1 Like
I certainly enjoyed it and appreciated how receptive everyone was to hearing about a different approach without becoming defensive. You might enjoy my friend Dillon’s contributions in that thread and Wright’s responses to him. Dillon is one of best online friends I made on an atheist site and I think he is naturally gracious though perhaps not as nimble as me in finding positive ways to interpret Christian ideas. Then again he was a believer himself until he wasn’t and I still think that is harder
2 Likes
In a talk on Aquinas, Norman Geisler said in referring to pantheism, “The hard thing to prove is that you are not the eternal necessary being.” I would say that it’s impossible to prove philosophically, and that is the ultimate critique of pure reason.
1 Like
I can appreciate the loss, but what Peter said about not having anywhere else to go is a real experience that believers have, and I have experienced it myself in stages of disbelief.
Keener has a rich perspective, and he draws from his friendship with Bart Ehrman in talking about some of these more complicated issues with Christian belief.
You or someone else reading this may like to get a look at Keener in top form offering sincere answers to the question of whether there are errors in the gospels.
With a little adjustment, that sounds like it could apply similarly to panentheism.
There was something else I had in mind when Geisler was talking about being the eternal necessary being, or in other words, the uncaused cause that is not yet aware of its action.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.