Augustin needs to discuss such matters over a beer or the like. A symposium if you will.Romaios said:I was trying to make him more palatable to Augustin. But that seems to be a lost cause...orthonorm said:
Youd love his book on atheists lol.orthonorm said:
I dunno. I liked his essay on baseball and time.Shiny said:Youd love his book on atheists lol.orthonorm said:
His book on theodicy was a little weak from what I remember. But then again what argument for that is ever strong?orthonorm said:I dunno. I liked his essay on baseball and time.Shiny said:Youd love his book on atheists lol.orthonorm said:
Hart's argument is directed toward the New Atheist, especially those who claim that the existence of 'God', being potentially empirically verifiable, has not been scientifically confirmed. Victor Stenger on the 'God Hypothesis' (see, e.g., here) is one example of such.Jetavan said:
Thanks. He seems to like Seinsvergessenheit to make hay. I always wonder what he has to say that theologians who have attempted to appropriated Heidegger already haven't.Jetavan said:Hart's argument is directed toward the New Atheist, especially those who claim that the existence of 'God', being potentially empirically verifiable, has not been scientifically confirmed. Victor Stenger on the 'God Hypothesis' (see, e.g., here) is one example of such.Jetavan said:
Stenger writes: "The scientific method is not limited to what professional scientists do but can be applied to any question that relates to observations." He also notes that that the deities most people worship are deities that have an effect on the natural world (e.g., miracles).
Hart's emphasis, though, is on the 'deity' who makes existence itself (including all 'deities') possible. He terms this 'deity' 'God', the 'God' of classical theism. He differentiates God -- which is the only true 'God' -- with a 'deity', a 'god', who is inherently separate from its creation, manipulating its creation like a potter manipulates his clay to produce a clay pot, a potter whose death does not alter the existence of the now-made clay pot. The true 'God', however, is that which makes anything possible, and whose non-existence would necessarily mean the non-existence of all beings. Such God is not observable, and not even theoretically empirically verifiable.
Fortunately, Hart does include a chapter where he discusses how contemplative prayer is able to put one into communion with God, and how contemplative prayer is the 'method' that can confirm whether God exists, but this method does not involve 'observation' or 'empiricism'. It involves going deeply into the second characteristic of God (and of ourselves) -- consciousness (the first being 'existence' itself). Hart notes that contemplative prayer, of one sort or another, is associated with all types of theistic traditions, from Christianity to Vedanta to Sufism to Judaism and so forth (even, he hints, to Theravada Buddhism, but I digress).
The source of all being is also absolutely conscious, and the consciousness of the source of all being is inherently blissful, thus giving us the third characteristic of God: all-bliss, all-joy, which is reflected in the human desire for the 'good' (which desire even supposed 'atheists' have). Hart then ties this desire for good as posing problems for evolutionary theory's supposition that altruism can be explained by means of natural selection. Personally, I found his critique of evolution in this regard less than satisfying, but I appreciated his critique of Intelligent Design as a theology of a lesser 'god' and not the true God.
I found his idea intriguing that modern atheism is not so much the result of more scientific information, but of a modern forgetting of what God really is, the mystery of being itself. In this way, much of what passes for Christian theology is actually simply another form of this forgetting, another form of atheism. Whereas the New Atheists rejects 'god', much of modern Christian theology defends 'god', being oblivious to God.
I thought you were gone.Asteriktos said:
It's about black metal. And stuff. Lots of pictures. Semi-coffee-table book kind of thing I guess? Anyway, looks interesting enough.
Sort of a light overview of the Dragon Age universe. A bit meh really.
Also rereading the collection of texts by John Henry Newman titled: Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine. I hope to take some notes this time around and when I'm done perhaps start a thread on the topic... hopefully one that doesn't devolve into the usual stuff. :angel:
This is just to mention that some people recognize this person as Professor Irwin Corey, who deserves to be named rather than ignored. I agree he would not have written about this topic.Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
V. 3, no? I read it earlier this year, and thought I'd like it more than I did. Hope you enjoy it moreGamliel said:The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) / Jaroslav Pelikan. V. 2 of the series: The Christian Tradition: a History of the Development of Doctrine.
Haven't read any other part of the series. I picked this one up to get an introduction to modern theology, which I desperately need to know more about.Gamliel said:^ What do you think of it? Did you read v.4?