Awe and beauty are owing to the mystery. The Christian says aw, that’s God but the literalist says I have a whole Bible’s worth of information about God. But the true believer along with the atheist just marvels at the new instance of mystery and wonders at how much greater the world is than what we know. For all of us God is a mystery and we have no way to rank or categorize the mysteries unless we are ruled by doctrine.
1 Like
The stars and moon because I’ve seen they’re not real. I saw the moon explode before…it is just light…and the stars are not that far away.
Like I said, I tried to answer your initial question, and I was then asked 4 or 5 more questions. One of which referenced objective demonstrability. I then recalled your position on post-modernism, which is not a small thing, and so I would like to know if there is anything objectively demonstrable to you.
If you please, who are Gould and what’s-'is-name, and would you sum up their arguments you mentioned?
Perhaps he is referring to Stephen Jay Gould whose sentiment below I applaud. If so wiki says:
In a 1997 essay “Non-overlapping Magisteria”[3] for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as “a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to … the supposed conflict between science and religion”,[1] from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”.[4] He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution”,[1] and describes the NOMA principle as “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”[1] “These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).”[1]
2 Likes
Thank you, Mark. What you quoted is what I’ve held to be the case since youth. I like the term “entirely conventional resolution” in the segment you posted from Wikipedia.
I sometimes question my own thinking on this, though. Not in any formal kind of way; I’m not a formal, organized thinker. It feels (that’s a deliberate choice of words) that some things we learn about the natural world at least challenge things I believe by faith. Part of the issue for me is understanding what makes the idea or information seem like a challenge. What are my rational or nonrational expectations that make it feel like a challenge. And to what degree do those matter in this situation anyway?
Thanks for bringing this in.
I may never know what HeyMike3 had in mind.
2 Likes
I can’t claim to have seen it this clearly from as early an age as you but I do now. On the other side I find non believers who exhibit scientistic tendencies often have the exact same magisterial confusion. Good luck distilling values, morals or the meaning of beauty in a laboratory. But there are those whose faith in the ability of science to do all things is every bit as great as the faith some believers have in their ability to gauge God’s power and limits based on their reading of the Bible. Both sides lack appropriate epistemic humility and so miss Gould’s entirely conventional resolution.
1 Like
Gould wisely noted that there can be overlap between the non-overlapping magisteria, or rather it’s not easy to define the border between them. I’ve always viewed NOMA as a metaphor or analogy that isn’t meant to be taken to extremes. If understood in this sense, I think NOMA is a good way of viewing the issue.
“This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.”
4 Likes
Yes if you’re going to look for overlap between what is fuzzy by nature and that which is not by (our) design, you would need to resort to analogy. The empirical just is more straightforward and easier to reach agreement on. It is possible to reach agreement where values are concerned too but you have to work harder for it. Just to reach agreement on the meaning of a poem both parties are required to say something more explicit than the text and then see if that translation seems to match up. It would require good will and skill by both parties but that is no knock on what it offers. Values also have value (duh) they just aren’t easy to pin down.
2 Likes
Gould is the person in the picture
Draper was his PhD advisor at Purdue and my professor at FIU
Paul Gould and Paul Draper
I believe I summarized their arguments in my answer to your why question
Anything else?
I am still interested in what you see as an objective truth
In the mean time I’ve been thinking about how the existence of beauty relates to love or goodness
Gould also had a decent explanation for the experience of beauty as transcendent in that it doesn’t run dry or become boring. He quoted Elaine Scarry, “inexhaustibly pleasurable” (per my chicken scratch notes)
1 Like
Identities:
This is a start. Since I could find no reference in the thread to who this guy is.
Summaries
This?
I didn’t/don’t recognize this as a summary. It strikes me more as a list of references. If you would summarize the arguments referenced here and their connection, it would be more like a summary.
Objectivity/Subjectivity
I was have referred to objectivity and subjectivity in this thread. I don’t believe I’ve used “truth.” I believe my understanding of objectivity and subjectivity are standard.
Google’s AI Overview did a nice job:
Objectivity is based on facts and evidence, while subjectivity is based on personal feelings and opinions
Objectivity
- Based on facts and evidence
- Unbiased
- Can be confirmed independently of a mind
- Used to reinforce credibility, transparency, and accurate reporting
Subjectivity
- Based on feelings, opinions, or emotions
- Dependent on a mind
- Based on an individual’s perspective or preferences
- Used to express personal viewpoints and emotions
Wikipedia also offers a nice description:
Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)
The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of countless philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:
- Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
- Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true.
Both ideas have been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as the distinction is often a given but not the specific focal point of philosophical discourse.[2] The two words are usually regarded as opposites, though complications regarding the two have been explored in philosophy: for example, the view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, or that a spectrum joins subjectivity and objectivity with a gray area in-between, or that the problem of other minds is best viewed through the concept of intersubjectivity, developing since the 20th century.
The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is often related to discussions of consciousness, agency, personhood, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, reality, truth, and communication (for example in narrative communication and journalism).
“Transcendent”
Gould’s explanation for the experience of beauty as transcendent does not resemble my or a common understanding of the word “transcendent.”
From Wikipedia:
In religion, transcendence is the aspect of existence that is completely independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws. This is related to the nature and power of deities as well as other spiritual or supernatural beings and forces. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience, transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence, and by some definitions, has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, rituals, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal visions.
It is affirmed in various religious traditions’ concept of the divine, which contrasts with the notion of a god (or, the Absolute) that exists exclusively in the physical order (immanentism), or is indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed in knowledge as well as or instead of its being. Thus, an entity may transcend both the universe and knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).
Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of various religious traditions affirm that a god is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.
And also from Wikipedia:
In philosophy, transcendence is the basic ground concept from the word’s literal meaning (from Latin), of climbing or going beyond, albeit with varying connotations in its different historical and cultural stages. It includes philosophies, systems, and approaches that describe the fundamental structures of being, not as an ontology (theory of being), but as the framework of emergence and validation of knowledge of being. These definitions are generally grounded in reason and empirical observation and seek to provide a framework for understanding the world that is not reliant on religious beliefs or supernatural forces.[1][2][3] “Transcendental” is a word derived from the scholastic, designating the extra-categorical attributes of beings.[4][5]
Finally, for now:
There is also the question validity of Gould’s overall claim about beauty, whether we consider that claim to be an example of the transcendent or not. Is it true that the experience of beauty doesn’t run dry or become boring?
1 Like
and @MarkD
The metaphor I have long had in mind are two parallel sets of train tracks.
Maybe lanes on a road would be more accurate, because sometimes it seems like traffic in one interferes or interacts with the other these days. Other peoples’ questions frustrate the neatness of my original idea.
2 Likes
Both Genesis Creation stories – just explain what kind of literature they actually are, and it’s immediately plain that not only don’t they contradict science, it’s not possible for them to do so.
John Lennox is one.
1 Like
Try running my summary through Grok. You will need to clarify it is Paul Gould as it will also read it initially as Stephen Jay Gould. The AI processing of Grok is super impressive all the way around!
I asked Grok for a description of Leonard Cohen today and the reply was as poetic as it was informative.
1 Like
This is Grok’s description of Gould’s concept of beauty’s transcendence:
1 Like
[I’m keeping the rest of the post intact so the reply makes sense. I was an idiot and confused Paul with Stephen. Mea culpa.]
From my reading, Gould considered the human experience of beauty as a spandrel, a non-adaptive byproduct of selection for other brain functions.
“The human brain is the most complicated device for reasoning and calculating, and for expressing emotion, ever evolved on earth. Natural selection made the human brain big, but most of our mental properties and potentials may be spandrels. That is, nonadaptive side consequences of building a device with such structural complexity.”
–Stephen Jay Gould
I’m not saying Gould is right, but I have never heard him claim that beauty is evidence of design or evidences something outside the material world.
2 Likes
you two are discussing two different Goulds… I think @heymike3 is talking about a “Paul Gould”.
3 Likes
Doh! Thanks for the heads up.
2 Likes
Good enough for what?
My best guess (strongest interpretation) is you mean… good enough for personal belief in the face of criticism.
It is good enough with one simple observation: science requires objective observation, but life requires subjective participation – the exact opposite of science. This is irrefutable, and the result is the unavoidable conclusion that the pretension of living life as if it were science is completely delusional. This reduces the kind of criticism of religion you speak of to the demand that religion restrict itself to this subjective aspect of life and refrain from the unreasonable expectation that others should agree with your personal conclusions.
But in my view, any greater degree of “strongly compelled” is what crosses the line from religion as a good thing to religion as something evil.
To say that the world is more hostile now to Christian thinking is just plain crazy. Rather I think the greatest challenge of modern times is that so much of the value in Christian thinking (at least in the form of good will/works for those in need) has become so widespread that impressing people with a higher standard of behavior has become more difficult. But then a complaint about this sounds like just so much whining.
Frankly an acknowledgement of the validity of their criticism is the biggest bullseye here. There is the simple fact that despite understanding and agreeing with these criticisms you still find value in Christianity. The subjective reasons for that are always going to be a matter of choice. And then it comes down to what they value most and arguments are not going to get you very far if they choose differently. The fundamental basis for Christianity is and always has been repentance – looking at ourselves and not liking what we see. I don’t see how that can or ever should change. And I doubt you should be trying hard to make anyone do that – ESPECIALLY children.
Frankly if it is just about changing what people believe then I don’t see any value in it. If it is not about overcoming our self-destructive habits then it looks like a waste of time to me.
1 Like
That’s a good question. I was vague.
You suggested
which is a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote, but slightly different from what I had in mind.
I am concerned not so much with criticism from others but with what exhibits itself as an, enculturated, internalized expectation that the basis for all beliefs be rational, demonstrable, etc. Objective! I think this leads to internal criticism of one’s willingness to accept subjective conclusions as valid although subjective. As such, this rejection of the subjective functions as a powerful motivation for individuals (as well as entire subcultures within the church) to represent matters of faith as objective, universal, and neutral.
We see this kind of thinking in the summary of Paul Gould’s views on beauty, that @HeyMike3 provided with the help of Grok.
Assuming that Grok’s summary is accurate, Gould presents subjective interpretations using the language of the objective, for example: evidence. This statement, for example, mixes the two in order to press as objective a value statement based on contingencies and personal interpretation:
From the wikipedia article evidence is:
In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude.
In the philosophy of science, evidence is material that confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses, acting as a neutral arbiter between competing theories.
In law, evidence is information to establish or refute claims relevant to a case, such as testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.
I think at best Gould’s claim demonstrates the impulse to present interpretation as if it were evidence - an impulse that results from the contemporary, enculturated pressure to give an answer for one’s hope in Christ, but in rational terms. It fails. There are all sorts of claims presented as facts, evidence and logical conclusions in the summary, which are nothing more than interpretations.
This is why I brought up the difference between our contemporary, western worldview and that of the NT. I don’t mean to say that the world today is more hostile to Christian thinking than earlier. I am beyond tired of that tune, and I don’t believe it. What I wanted to get at is that in the culture of the NT the understanding of the natural world’s connection with the transcendent was already woven into the common world view. There was no need to attempt to prove the rationality of the existence of God or gods. In their worldview, everyone already knew those things. They were self evident to the culture. This made Paul’s statement in Romans 1:20 perfectly reasonable. And what makes it so challenging now. Today this view of nature isn’t fact but interpretation.
Yep. Thank you.
Good point.
1 Like