what is theology good for?

Here is an example of why one needs to read a lot of theology before one deems to criticize it. Let's take the op in the thread that as an example: thread by Skylurker about "what is theology good for." (from CARM--link no longer good--2013)

Theology: The study of the nature of God and religious belief.

this is his definition of what he thinks theology is about. There are two definitions of theology that are used by 99% of people in the field, one is the old one the other is the modern one.

The old one (Anselm) Faith seeking understanding!

The main reason that one is disliked is because it makes theology a matter of concern only for the believer; it would have us think that theology is just the faitful trying to understand their faith.

New version: (John Macquarrie) Participation in in and study of the content of a religious tradition.


That's very different from faith seeking understanding because "participation" doesn't necessarily require faith and it opens it up to a much greater field of inquiry than just "seeking to understand faith." Yet both are very different from the study of the nature of God and religious belief, because nature of God and RB:

(1) leaves out the need to seek understanding

(2) it leaves out the need to sort out problems with faith

(3) leaves out a social scinece understanding of the tradition

(4) it's basically limits theology to doctrine alone.

Skylurker:

The latter "religious belief" seems like a worthy field of study but as i like to maintain more of a sub-field of anthropology or human psychology. 

A sub field of anthropology would be limited to academic objectivity and leave out the need to answer for the faith. It would also mandate certain approaches that would totally limit theologians from most of what they do. While there is a form of thought connected with theology called "anthropology" itis' not the 19th century social science that grew up around the work of Malinowski and August Compt.

Limiting theology to academic anthropology would kill the entire discussion. that's the only way atheists can shut it up. That's the little nasty trick the brain washers have set you to work on, destroy the confidence in technological answers so that the ignorant little nay sayers will be undisturbed in their character assassination of the faith. Why not ust do anthropology? The whole question is just throwing a wrench in the works,

Sky:

The former "nature of God" is the question for this OP. Have they made any progress?

That question asserts that there's some quasi scientific answer they have to come to. As though God is impersonal force like magnetism and we have to understand it in the say way we understand scientific things. there no reason to think this way. this nothing more than an extension of the reductionist dictum that one thing can exist that's the realm of knowledge that we control.

Can someone list the major important products or achievements of this field of study? Any general consensus? 

Well there's yacult yogurt. Yacult is the name of a section of the Talmud, also a rand of yogurt, there;s the joke you see. Trying to treat faith like a commercial product. Unless it has some pragmatic end that can be empirically demonstrated, like better gas mileage or fewer cavities then there's no justification of even considering it. that's nothing more than the comoditifacation of knowledge and the scientfication of reality.

why should there be such a hard cash value to something before it's worth considering? What's the cash value of Shakespeare? What hard tangible product does Beethoven produce? Has there been any progress in writing more symphonies? 

On the other hand if you want to play that game how about the "cash value" in getting your life fixed up? hard tangible results are all on the believer's side.[these are results from reciprocal studies--Wuthnow study and Noble study--used in my book The Trace of God] [1] [2]

less depression 
less mental illness
great sense of well being
overcome drug addiction
greater sense of meaning in life
greater sense of self authentication
greater self actualization
greater happiness
greater physical health
 

Now I am glad there are people exploring this because who knows maybe someday they will make a breakthrough - but so far it seems pretty much like they have drilled dry holes and created elaborate castles in the sky... especially compared to the fields of physical and biological sciences. So chastise me and straightening me out. 

 We will get Dupont on it right away. Maybe we can get something on the market before the next quater.

We are not developing a commercial product. faith is an inward journey. Only the individual can measure it's value. you are not going to do that by making bad analogies to a lame and shallow understanding of science.

The real value of theology is not a matter of  "progress" and can;t be measured  as though it's a race to the moon, It can only be measured by the individual in terms of personal growth, Those who made those comments are speaking the langue of one-dimensional man. At the same time   it needs to be said I had comments from fundamentalists on more than one occasion. One guy in particular began warning the carm board I was a false teacher,why? Because i would rather believe theologians than the Bible! Of course he meant his reading of the bible. They don't understand the value of theology either,

Christian theology has always encompassed all other areas of thought. St, Augustine made major contribution of the philosophy of the self,and set in motion ideas that have led to modern notions of selfhood [3]This was by way of developing his notion of self in the doctrine of the Trinity. Even thatis too close to cash value. In framing those concepts we come closer to understanding ourselves in ways that can't be packaged or tallied in the quarterly earnings.


Sources

[1]Joseph Hinman The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief, Colorado Springs: Grand Viaduct Publishing, 2014. page on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714

[2] the lists of benifits can be seen on y site religious aprioorio
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/11/argument-from-co-determinate.html


States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

the original sources:
(1) Studies Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.


Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

(2)Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

[3] Charles Taylor, Sources of the self

Trump Balance Sheet: What Trump costs us in Lives

factually quantifiable harms already accrued as result of Trump's attack on civilization

*13 million lose health care due to Tax scam


* 13 thousand /year die from air pollution due to roll back of regs on coal fired plants
(Trump's war on breathing: Resistance is not Futile)


*50,000 lives / year lost due to roll back auto emission stadards
(Ibid, see also "Trump  has started the roll back" the Guardian)

* Roll backs on regs that protect drinking water for 117 million
("Trump wrecks nation's clean water," Resistance...)


*cut food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants.()

21. Proposed slashing the WIC program. President Trump’s proposal to slash funding for the WIC program puts basic food security at risk for thousands of families. At an annual food cost of about $513 per person, the $200 million cut could help pay for a year’s worth of food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants. (100 ways 100 days; center for American Progress)

* 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year.
After more than four decades of development, this rule would protect construction and manufacturing workers from inhaling silica, which can lead to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. It was projected to save more than 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year.
(Ibid)

*Tried to cut his own taxes by millions of dollars while taking health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Based on President Trump’s leaked 2005 Tax Return Form 1040, repealing the ACA could give Trump a personal tax cut of more than $2 million. At the same time, the House legislation to repeal the ACA would have taken health insurance from 24 million Americans.


* ended Amnesty for 800,000 immigrants ("dreamers") who have been in country since childhood will lead to mass deportations (NBC News)


* sets precedent for destruction of civil rights

After barely eight months in office, President Trump has secured his legacy: If left unchecked, he will undermine civil rights progress in this country more than any president in modern history.
This week has shown previews of this dangerous agenda. And not for the reasons you’re thinking.
While Trump’s back and forth on whether he would condemn the white supremacist groups behind the deadly tragedy in Charlottesville lent the weight of the United States presidency to a racist worldview, we must also focus on the series of actions that prove those remarks are already being translated into an equally oppressive policy agenda.Since beginning his campaign, Trump has fanned the flames of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia – from calling Mexicans rapists, making a border wall one of his central campaign promises, implementing a Muslim travel ban, and using dog-whistle politics to talk in veiled terms about black communities. (The Hill)

* Potential loss of all life on Earthy due to global warming since Trup callsit ahoax and took us outof Paris accords, (see my research on Metacorck's blog)

see the full list of the Center for American progress, 100 ways in 100 days Trump has hurt America,

* Trump DOJ (Sessions) return ti debeter's prisions,Itps illegal to be poor! (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/sessions-says-to-courts-go-ahead-jail-people-because-theyre-poor.html?mtrref=l.facebook.com&assetType=opinion

There are debter's prisons. Deters prsions! that;s eighth century! Trump DOJ supports it1 It's acrime to be poor)

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions retracted an Obama-era guidanceto state courts that was meant to end debtors’ prisons, where people who are too poor to pay fines are sent. This practice is blatantly unconstitutional, and the guidance had helped jump-start reform around the country. Its withdrawal is the latest sign that the federal government is retreating from protecting civil rights for the most vulnerable among us....Ferguson [Mo.] used its criminal justice system as a for-profit enterprise, extracting millions from its poorest citizens. Internal emails revealed the head of finance directing policing strategy to maximize revenue rather than ensure public safety. Officers told us they were pressured to issue as many tickets as possible.Even the local judge was in on it, imposing penalties of $302 for jaywalking and $531 for allowing weeds to grow in one’s yard. He issued arrest warrants for residents who fell behind on payments — including a 67-year-old woman who had been fined for a trash-removal violation — without inquiring whether they even had the ability to pay the exorbitant amounts. The arrests resulted in new charges, more fees and the suspension of driver’s licenses. These burdens fell disproportionately on African-Americans.

What's it like to be a Property Dualist? Answering Parsons part 2

Parsons dismisses substance dualism's empirical arguments as small in number and moves on to the philosophical arguments.[1] What he leaves out, however, is the fact that what they lose in quantity they make up for in quality. He mentions Mines to blow off his arguments but doesn't actually quote him:

 The existence of conscious agents with these five mental properties[qualia, intentionality, privileged access, non physicality, and free will] therefore provides evidence that there is a God who created them.

QualiaThe hiss of car tyres on a wet road; the smell of jasmine or the taste of avocado; a flash of sunlight on a stormy lake. All these things have a raw qualitative “feel” that is as immediate and undeniable as it is indescribable. Philosophers call these subjective tinctures of sense perception qualia; and in his influential paper What Is It Like to Be a Bat? [2] the eminent philosopher of mind Thomas Nagel argues that they present an insurmountable conceptual challenge to naturalism.[3] 

This is not quite the way Mines sells the argument but it is the basis of the so called "hard  problem." David Chalmers calls  it that because no one has a clue  how to solve it, The problem is basically that we don't know what consciousness is.We all know we have it   none one seriously tries to argue that we are not conscious, But we can't definite it because can't explain what what causes it, The reductionist want to lose the phenomena and pretend it doesn't exist. Parsons treats this like the weak little old philosophical argument but I think is also empirical. We live empirical evidence that consciousnesses is basic. Parsons asserts that NDE  is the only argument but I don't even make reference to it. 

But Parsons rejects consciousnesses as an argument for God, he asserts that if consciousness is not reducible we could still be property duelists and not believe in God. "This seems a bit hasty[evoking God via irreconcilability of mind] and abrupt to me. Even if we conceded that the accepted terms of neuroscience—electrical and chemical happenings in neurons—cannot explain consciousness, could we not adopt a property rather than a substance dualism as a more parsimonious option?"[4] that is following the example of Chalmers who is an atheist. First my point is not argue for God here, I think we could it makes a good argument, I do use it. I think there is a more important argument to be made: that irreducibility  is important for all people, Theist or other wise,Secondly, while property dualism is compatible with either atheism or belief in God,Neither position is mandated by property dualism. Of course my God arguments are about warrant not proof.  Irreducibility mind could still be a good reason to believe in God without mandating belief.

Mines seems to be misquoting Nagel,however,in saying that "Nagel argues that they present an insurmountable conceptual challenge to naturalism." He is an atheist he does not argue against Naturalism.[5] Yet Parsons rejects Negals's argumemt, he has no real logical. Instead he evokes one of Denett's branding arguments labeling the Bat argument as 'an intuition pump." This is very misleading because it dismisses the argument as something less than it is. He's trying to pretend it's only rhetorical and emotive but in reality it is also logical. If in fact experiential knowledge is closed to us except through experience then it's only logical that we not regard facts as full knowledge without the experiential dimension.  But Dennett is merely losing the phenomena one tactic of a certain kind of reductionism. (For a full take down of Dennett's work Consciousness Explained see Doxa) [6]

Parsons goes on and admits that there is a basis to the idea that first person perspective gives a dimension that "Dorothy when she steps from the sepia of Kansas into the technicolor of Oz. Her experience is different in a way that she could not have explained, even if she were thoroughly versed in the physiology of color vision, to the Dorothy that sees only the gray shades of Kansas." [7] Sort of makes Quoting Denmett unnecessary. 

 Parsons major objection to the hard problem (at  least Nagel's Bat) is the idea that first person experience could be physically or nationalistically caused: 

There is nothing in the qualitative content of my consciousness that informs me that such experience could not have been physically produced. Maybe I cannot intuitively see why brain processes would cause qualia (Chalmers’ “hard” problem), but it does not follow that a brain cannot do it. So, the relevant question is not whether there are some items of knowledge that can only be had via first-person consciousness. The important question is whether first person experience can be physically caused. Why not? Nor is there any reason to think that we could not know, in detail, how it was caused. That is what neuroscience does. If neuroscience can explain how my brain produces first-person experience, then such experience is subsumable under a naturalistic ontology.[8]

Again he has reduced consciousness to brain function. Here he says if neuroscience can explain how the brain produces first person, (that  is brain function). If we understood how first person  experience is produced that would not necessarily  tell us what consciousness is, it would tell part of how consciousness is produced but not necessarily what it is  or what it means. Moreover, there are more God arguments to be derived from consciousnesses than just one stemming from cause and effect.

Parsons wants to defeat consciousnesses as a God argument, but there are more versions of that than just knowing the brain functions that produce consciousness. (see my existential version of the argument,[9] see also my TS argument where mind is a crucial part of the argumemt.[10]

Sources

[1] Keith Parsons, "Can you know what it is like to be a bat? Why not?" The Secular Outpost, blog, (APRIL 16, 2018)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2018/04/16/can-you-know-what-it-is-like-to-be-a-bat-why-not/
(accessed, 5/5/18)

[2 Thomas Nagle, "What's it like to Be a Bat?"The Philosophical Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 435-450

This corresponds to Mine;s fn 3: "Nagel’s fascinating essay is only 16 pages. You can read it here. See also his book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False."

[3]Ben Mines "The Argument From Consciousness: Qualia." Thinking Matters, blog  (April 8 2016) http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2018/04/the-argument-from-consciousness-qualia/

(accessed May 8,2018)

[4]Ibid

[5] Thomas Nagel Mind and Cosmos. Oxford, London:Oxford University press, 2012, 13 

[6] Lantz Miller,  hard sell of  human consciousness, Negations, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Social ail Criticism, issue 3, winder 1998.

scroll down to isssue3winter 98, part I and spriomg 2002 ror part 2

http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/

 scroll to issue 3

[7] Parsoons, Op cit

[8] Ibid

[9] existentiakl arguemt froGod, based upon Gabriel Marcel..

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Existential.html

[10] Argument from Transcendental Signifies, religious a priori

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html

Mind and Brain Function: Answering Parsons

Keith Parsons



Over on The Secular Outpost blog philosophy professor Keith Parsons tries to argue for brain/mid reductionism as a confirmation of the naturalistic view point. He levels his argumet against substance dualism: "What sorts of arguments can substance dualists offer? What sorts of arguments would indicate that mind can exist independently of a physical basis? There is overwhelming evidence of the extremely sensitive dependence of every aspect of the mental on a physical basis, the brain in particular."[1] One need not defend substance dualism to argue for the irreducibility of mind to brain (for example Chalmers is a property dualist).. Nor does the dependence of mind upon brain mean either that mind is reducible or that materialism or naturalism is supported. The position that consciousnesses is  a basic property and cannot be reduced to chemicals or brain functions is compatible with either property dualism or substance dualism,and either can be a Christian position.

Parsons has set up the discussion in such a way as to focus the issue upon supervenience,[2] or the dependence of mind upon the physical, but that issue is not the most cogent refutation of irreconcilability. Mind could be irredeemable to brain and still supervene upon the physical. Just because one depends upon the other does not mean it reduces to the other. .In fact mind could be the dreaded soul or spirit that one imagines Parsons is really trying to disprove  and still  supervene upon the physical.[3] 

Moreover, Parsons's position is really just the bait-and-switch of which philosopher David Chalmers warns.I an not causing Parsonsof this  tactic but it is used by the major reductionists such as Dennett.   He protests this allegation in the comment section (when I assaulted him with the charge) but it's clear from the arguments he makes. He doesn't even discuss consciousness but merely opposes one set of brain functions to another, which is the switch brain function for consciousness. Examine his arguments: 

He starts with  reference to the books of Oliver Sacks which show that "...the most basic experiences of perception and sensation are fundamentally altered when brain function is changed or impaired."[4] Examples include LSD causing perceptual problems and lack of magnesium causing depression or hallucinations. But that's all brain function and in fact he said he's dealing with brain function (above) he's not comparing consciousness or even defining it.  While such factors would effect consciousness at a superficial level that doesn't prove that consciousness is brain function. Consciousness might be related to brain function such that light is related to heat or smoke to fire, or some such relation but that does not mean they are identical. 

Parsons places even  more stock in behavioral arguments; certain  behaviors are related to brain function. David Eagleman backs standard deterministic viewpoints with arguments that empathy and bigotry are linked to brain function. As with most deterministic arguments he's just ignoring the exchange between will and bodily functions. Information is transmitted physically to the brain and obviously this has to be linked to behavior but there's no accounting for will and desire as motivating the process. The determinists assume if they can't quantify it it doesn't exist. So behavior is all there is  because it's all they can measure. Parsons quotes Eagleman: 

Experiments showed that the mPFC regions became less active in volunteers who were shown pictures of homeless people or drug addicts. The consequence is dehumanization, thinking of people as objects rather than persons:

…by shutting down the systems that see the homeless person as another human being, one doesn’t have to experience the unpleasant pressures of feeling bad about not giving money. In other words, the homeless have been dehumanized: the brain is viewing them more like objects and less like people. [5]

The problem is this is like looking away but it doesn't account for the decision to look away or the the moral decision to overcome the numbness and look back. We can see how this process of shutting down empathy would be linked to survival instinct where one might be fighting for one's life and could not afford empathy. That does not prove that we have no free decision making process involved in the choice. That means we are only talking about feelings not decision making or will.

Speaking of the kind of nuerological research he says: "Highly successful research programs tend to justify the heuristic assumptions upon which they are conducted. The regulative assumption of all neuroscience research is that brain function is sufficient for every aspect of the mental." [6] First, that "highly successful research programs," however that is being measured, tending to justify their heuristic assumptions is not the same as proving them true. Secondly, he documents no  evidence that allows his extrapolation from Eagleman's research to his assumptions about consciousness as a whole. The regulative assumption of all neuroscience research is that brain function is sufficient for every aspect of the mental is contradicted by some of the major researchers. Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 6o devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,”  “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….” 

The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[7]

Parsons asserts that substance dualists have little more than near death experience (NDE) from which to make empirical argument. He documents nothing and he dismisses all NDE argumet with guilot by association:"The odor of crackpots, cranks, and charlatans cannot be wholly cleansed from the topic of NDE’s, even when they are defended by distinguished academics. For tactical reasons then, if no other, substance dualists usually shy away from NDE’s." He never documents which NDE's are stained with crackpostism. Be that as it may there are several arguments that  have nothing to do with NDE that cold be advanced by either substance or property dualism. These arguments  demonstrate  that  mind is not reducible to brain function alone. Since I did a post on these just last month I will just refer the reader to that article, Please see that issue. [8]

He set's up a straw man argument by framing the discussion in terms of the mental working apart from the physical:"What arguments or evidence could indicate that, despite manifold and multifarious appearances, the mental is separable from the physical and capable of operating without it?" It's not important  to show that the mental can operate without the physical, not merely in order to be distinct from it. Human mental ability that operates totally apart from the physical is called "death." This makes empirical evidence hard to come by. It  is difficult to communicate with the test subject under these conditions. 

Parsons  allows for property dualism."Even if we conceded that the accepted terms of neuroscience—electrical and chemical happenings in neurons—cannot explain consciousness, could we not adopt a property rather than a substance dualism as a more parsimonious option?" Of course we could but property dualism is Chalmers's position. Under that label Chalmers argues that mind is not replaceable to brain. Parsons does have a point in that since Chalmers is an atheist property dualism is not that damaging to naturalism.

That is, rather than take the rather extravagant step of positing supernatural entities, we could argue that some physical things or processes have mental properties as well as physical properties. Further, it seems all too quick to say that the irreducibility of the mental makes theism the best explanation. Surely, it would be evidence for theism, or enhance to prior probability of theism, but it would be only one of numerous considerations (including negative evidence such as the problem of evil) that must be considered in assessing theism. Perhaps a demonstration of the irreducibility of consciousness would be better construed as evidence for animism, the idea that the visible realm is interpenetrated by a spiritual realm containing the spirits of animals, people, and things. 

When he says  "Surely, it would be evidence for theism, or enhance to prior probability of theism, but it would be only one of numerous considerations (including negative evidence such as the problem of evil) that must be considered in assessing theism..." the real issue is the admissions that property dualism could count as an argument agaisnt naturalism or materialism. Adding that there are still other issues is irrelevant because the problem or evil would have to be addressed even with substance dualism. That does not make a property dualistic approach any weaker as an  alternative.

Then he deals with the "hard problem" I will deal with that next time in part 2.

Sources

[1] Keith Parsons, "Can you know what it is like to be a bat? Why not?" The Secular Outpost, blog, (APRIL 16, 2018)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2018/04/16/can-you-know-what-it-is-like-to-be-a-bat-why-not/
(accessed, 5/5/18)
Parsons is professor of Philosophy at Univ Houston,Clearlake.

[2]Brian McLaughlin, and Karen Bennett, "Supervenience", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/supervenience/>.

A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.
As we shall see, this slogan can be cashed out in many different ways. But to illustrate the basic idea, imagine that there is a perfect forger. Her copies of paintings not only fool the art dealers, but are in fact exact duplicates of the originals down to the precise placement of every molecule of pigment

[3] "Supervenience, philosophy of mind:" Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=360950&a=a&first_name=David&author=Chalmers&concept=Supervenience

Supervenience, philosophy of mind: supervenience is an expression for a restricted dependency between areas. Elements of a region B are dependent on changes of elements of an area A, but not vice versa. Supervenience is used by some authors to explain the relationship between mental and physical processes. The assumption of a supervenience serves to circumvent more powerful assumptions like, e.g. the identity theory. See also covariance, dependency, identity theory, materialism, reductionism....

33Supervenience/Chalmers: supervenience is in general a relation between two sets of properties:B properties: higher-level propertiesA properties: lower-level properties (for us physical properties). The specific nature of these properties is not relevant to us.Basic pattern:Definition Supervenience/Chalmers: B-properties supervene on A-properties, if two possible situations are not identical with regard to their A-properties and at the same time differ in their B-properties.For example, biological properties supervene on physical ones insofar as two possible physically identical situations are also biologically identical.Local/Global Supervenience/Chalmers: we distinguish global supervenience, depending on how the situations under consideration, refer to individuals or possible worlds.Local Supervenience/Chalmers: B supervenes locally on A when the A properties of an individual determine the B properties of that individual.

[4] Parsons, Op cit

[5] Eagleman,quoted in Parsons, Ibid. (original page155).

[6] Ibid

[7]Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash  visited 5/9/12

[8] Joseph Hinman,"Mind is Not Reducible to Brain. (part 2),"Metacrock's Blog (March 20, 2018)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/03/mind-is-not-reducible-to-brain-part-2.html

apology

I am not making a joke about being an apologist, I do actually apologize for calking Skep names, That's wrong,i;ve tried to move away from that sort of thing.


I am quite serious about him having to admit that Negations was a real academic journal before he posts here again.

What is happening to modern Secularism?

Prof at McGill U. gave the Clifford Lectures, world famous Christian thinker 
His work Sources of The Self is must read.

Charles Taylor is one of my favorite historians. In this discussion he talks about the latest trends in world view that are repelling modern western secularism.


Listen to the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XC6DK1WkR4

I am pleased ad Proud

I've admired Sojourners for a log time. I just found this now,I had no idea about it, look who they quote.The whole little snippet is me.

 https://sojo.net/about-us/news/mazeways-they-are-achangn-nones-rise

Theology Requires Subtle Thought: Armstrong Vs Dawkins

Armstrong



The Wall Street journal commissioned both Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question "Where does evolution leave God?" "Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results."[1]

Armstrong:Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.

But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact. Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton's Mechanick and, later, William Paley's Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.

When I came across this article back in 2009 [2] I thought Armstrong was an atheist because the atheists on CARM thought she was and they were quoting her now and then. Here I observed her quoting Paul Tillich ("God Beyond God) so I began reading  her and realized she is merely a liberal theologian, in the vain of Paul Tillich. The Atheists on CARM were making the same mistake Armstromg warns Armstromg in this very quote. Dawkins makes the same mistake, although he did not not have the benefit of seeing her essay:

Dawkins: Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right.

Even though it says they didn't see each other's statements he was for some reason commenting upon a liberal theological view,which he clearly does not understand. Notice the central thought in his statement is actually disproved by her statement. The central thought here, which is a mistake in concept, is that liberal theology is fudging on the notion of being real.  His central thought in that quote is that liberal theology doesn't really see God as reality but a metaphor for some unreality, and that the only modes of being are science and nonexistence.

"Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive." That describes Dawkinsm, he understands  modern science well but not theological concepts. She is not saying God is some fuzzy unreality but what she describes is really mystical consciousness. It has to be exercised, it's subtle. It's not unreal it's more real. It is true reality and all the definite things we can point to about God are  illusory and metaphor for that very reason,  because they are rooted in the solid world that we know which is not ultimate reality. It is  reality thought, she;s not saying it's illusion but  is not ultimate reality. But Dawkins sees reality as tangible only.Unless science can quantify it it's not real.

The real giveaway is her statement: " whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart." That says we can't prove the existence of God,so he is not amenable to scientific  display. He can;t be this iron solid thing whose existence we can dig out and control. She does not say God is unreal. No she says we can know he's real but only by means other than scientific.  We can know  by subjective experiential means. Dawkins is into scientism, he doesn't do subjective or experiential. In Other words he is not a subtle thinker.

We know this because he doesn't like sophisticated ideas.We now he does not because of whathetellsusabout thati thesttatment: "If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence..." So for him these subtle ideas just because existence is not important. So he must think sophisticated theology is denying God's reality. He's not into consideration of modes of existence or sophisticated ideas.

\Another Amusing aspect is where he says "it's going to be a lonely  road," that is a sophisticated belief is not popular.  The argumet he is making is appeal to popularity,Not that he thinks atheism is popular but he imagines Christians are stupid so they think apparel to popularity is good, But if we take him at his word then that argumet cuts aist atheism too.


When I first posted about those quotes I got one comment:

dmcderm said...

I love Karen Armstrong, and that was a wonderful piece, but I don't see her arguing that. That people, especially guys like you, see aspects of the divine whether or not it actually exists is absolutely true. But there is nothing in that piece that suggests that is that she thinks "he [the big guy in the sky] doesn't have to exist to know that there is a God and that some aspect of being is divine." She merely describing what people think, not actively promoting that point of view. You're reading into the passage something that isn't there, and even if it were, wouldn't be a good argument anyway. Exactly how does the notion that we tell ourselves comforting stories to help us cope with life an argument for the existence of the divine in any form?

Well it's true that I am going on what I now know about her background. I think it;s pretty clear from what I quoted of her above that he is more than just repeating what others think. I think she says more than enough to indicate that she has at  least studied mysticism if not experienced it.

We now realise that the great religions of the world are not monolithic institutions but that they all contain several spiritualities – many of which are found right across the board of the world religions – which reflect different attitudes of mind towards our ultimate end. Mysticism is one such spirituality, found in all religions and is a startling example of this deep unity of the religious vision.

Mystics often have different beliefs which inevitably affect their experience. They will describe their interior journeys in terms of the orthodox traditions of their faith: Jews, Christians and Muslims, for example, believe in a personal God while Buddhists feel that this is an unreligious idea and prefer to speak of an ultimate but indescribable Reality....But the actual experience of all mystics is strikingly similar: all encounter a reality in the depths of the self, which is, paradoxically, Other and irrevocably separate from us....[3]

That is  called  "Karen Armstromg on mysticism and Being a mystic (or not,)" she is calling herself a recalcitrant mystic, Of course when the commeter says: "Exactly how does the notion that we tell ourselves comforting stories to help us cope with life an argument for the existence of the divine in any form?" He assuming the Dawkamemtalist view. That kind  of unthinking certainly that you just assume this of our opponent is a sure sign of stupidity. Like the guy on "Life of Brain" I ought to know because I've made that assumption so many times myself.

The best atheist thinkers see Armstrong as representative of a Tillichian sort of liberal belief in God they do not classify her as an atheist, Even though they tend to write off that view.[4]

The criticism I would make of  her statement is that she writes off the Newtonian sort of faith too easily. Robert Boyle was Newton's best fried,he discovered air pressure and was a major scientific mind of the era. It was really Boyle's project more than Newton's to bring science to Christian apologetic. But Boyle was not just a believer in some big man in the sky. He cm to his belief through an experience, probably a mystical experience, triggered by a thunderstorm. It is not uncommon for mystical experiences to be connected to nature or natural surroundings, [5]There is no reason why we can't have both strong arguments for God (although not actual proof) and deep experiential knowing that makes belief stronger than any scientific evidence. all it takes is subtle reflection. 

Sources

[1]  "Man Vs God" The Wall Street Journal, (Sep 22, 2009)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324
(accessed 5/2/18)


[2] Untitaled, Metacrock's Blog, (Sept. 27,2009)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2009/09/please-excuse-long-quote.html
(accessed 5/2/18)

[3] Karen Armstrong, "Karen Armstrong on Being A Mystic (or not)" Adventuress a Recalcitrant Mystic. website, (Dec 2016)

https://zoepopper.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/karen-armstrong-on-mysticism-and-being-a-mystic-or-not/

(accessed 5/2/18)

[4] Herman Philipse, God In The Age of Science, Oxford, London: Oxford University Press, 2012, 3 

[5] "Robert Boyle Converted in a Thunderstorm," Christian history institute, blog, (Dec 29,2018)

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/it-happened-today/12/29/

(accessed 5/2/18)