The link to the Aeon article on Godel's letters to his mother in which he expressed hope for an afterlife consistent with the Apostle Paul's description in I Cor. 15 also has consonance with C. S. Peirce's thoughts on God, which your position, hinted at, and The Shape of Joy will almost mirror in its basic approach, if I understand correctly. Here is a quote from The Philosophy of Peirce, 377-8 [CP 6.494-6, 392-3]:
"Where would such an idea, say as that of God, come from, if not from...experience? Would you make it a result of some kind of reasoning, good or bad? Why, reasoning can supply the mind with nothing in the world except an estimate of the value of a statistical ratio... And skepticism, in the sense of doubt about the validity of elementary ideas--which is really a proposal to turn an idea out of court and permit no inquiry into its applicability--is doubly condemned by the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry...first, as obstructing inquiry, and...second because it is treating some[thing] other than a statistical ratio [as something] to be argued about. No: as to God, open your eyes--and your heart, which is also a perceptive organ--and you see him.
But you may ask, Don't you admit there are delusions? Yes: I may think a thing is black, and on close examination it may turn out to be bottle-green. But I cannot think a thing is black if there is no such thing..."
My problem with our overreliance Platonic thought is twofold.
First, it has tended to produce religion confined to the top three inches of our bodies.
Second (and most importantly) it has relegated the narrative story of Israel to the status of "that's nice" and encouraged supercessionalism and fueled Antisemitism.
As with most things, a "both and..." approach is best.
Very good! And I hope the first day of Fall Semester goes well for you today Dr. Beck!
I blanch a bit at the term “antimaterialists”. It works I suppose but it seems to bring to mind more of a “against material things” notion, which I know is not what is meant. Maybe “hypermaterialist”, meaning, more than materialist. Would be inventing a new word I suppose but what’s wrong with that! 😊
So now I’m an antimaterialist. Thank you. I’m not great at science but I do love it and will continue to acknowledge its importance in my day to day, especially when driving. ;) I see now that is possible because antimaterialists and scientists are not opposites. Phew. Thank you Plato! Screw you Platonist!
"The point to be observed here is that we can embrace science while rejecting scientism. As an investigative strategy to explore the natural world, science is the best tool we have to discover the material, empirical facts about the universe. And yet, the scientific method doesn't imply that material facts exhaust reality."
I welcome this as a rebuttal of the New Atheists. Scriptural literalists falsely claim that what is in the Bible is empirical fact. New Atheists pretend that this hold-over 19th century notion (a frightened reaction against science) is all there is to Judeo-Christian experience. They use it as their straw man.
Instead, all of our religious language and outward practice is metaphor for the mystery that we live yet cannot reduce to evidence and concepts.
Far more useful (though imperfect) is Jewish atheist and scientist Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA):
Science and religion represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values. There is difference between the realms of knowledge over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and the two domains do not overlap. - See "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life" (1999).
Bravo! As a retired Certified Life Coach I practiced Ontological Coaching with tremendous gratitude! The Ontological process allowed deeply valued, total unknowables to appear in the space between client and coach. I sat back and marveled at it all. There Are No Words (TANW) is my constant inner refrain. No amount of science could prove what occurred yet there was absolute truth and witness of the actual experience. Magical?Mystikal? To me and my hard working, dedicated partner clients it was pure beauty, gratitude and joy!!
As always, you inspire more thought in your readers. Thanks! - Just an observation, not really at odds with what you say: a consummate materialist is as metaphysical as any metaphysical philosopher in absolutizing its own take on life--kind of like the relativist who thinks everything is relative. . . except itself. !
I look forward to reading The Shape of Joy.
The link to the Aeon article on Godel's letters to his mother in which he expressed hope for an afterlife consistent with the Apostle Paul's description in I Cor. 15 also has consonance with C. S. Peirce's thoughts on God, which your position, hinted at, and The Shape of Joy will almost mirror in its basic approach, if I understand correctly. Here is a quote from The Philosophy of Peirce, 377-8 [CP 6.494-6, 392-3]:
"Where would such an idea, say as that of God, come from, if not from...experience? Would you make it a result of some kind of reasoning, good or bad? Why, reasoning can supply the mind with nothing in the world except an estimate of the value of a statistical ratio... And skepticism, in the sense of doubt about the validity of elementary ideas--which is really a proposal to turn an idea out of court and permit no inquiry into its applicability--is doubly condemned by the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry...first, as obstructing inquiry, and...second because it is treating some[thing] other than a statistical ratio [as something] to be argued about. No: as to God, open your eyes--and your heart, which is also a perceptive organ--and you see him.
But you may ask, Don't you admit there are delusions? Yes: I may think a thing is black, and on close examination it may turn out to be bottle-green. But I cannot think a thing is black if there is no such thing..."
My problem with our overreliance Platonic thought is twofold.
First, it has tended to produce religion confined to the top three inches of our bodies.
Second (and most importantly) it has relegated the narrative story of Israel to the status of "that's nice" and encouraged supercessionalism and fueled Antisemitism.
As with most things, a "both and..." approach is best.
Very good! And I hope the first day of Fall Semester goes well for you today Dr. Beck!
I blanch a bit at the term “antimaterialists”. It works I suppose but it seems to bring to mind more of a “against material things” notion, which I know is not what is meant. Maybe “hypermaterialist”, meaning, more than materialist. Would be inventing a new word I suppose but what’s wrong with that! 😊
I agree. Keep brainstorming! I think a better word needs to be discovered.
Perhaps a term rather than a single word. A holistic understanding of reality?
I like hypermaterialist too. I feel the same way about antimaterialist, although I understand the reasons why it makes sense.
So now I’m an antimaterialist. Thank you. I’m not great at science but I do love it and will continue to acknowledge its importance in my day to day, especially when driving. ;) I see now that is possible because antimaterialists and scientists are not opposites. Phew. Thank you Plato! Screw you Platonist!
"The point to be observed here is that we can embrace science while rejecting scientism. As an investigative strategy to explore the natural world, science is the best tool we have to discover the material, empirical facts about the universe. And yet, the scientific method doesn't imply that material facts exhaust reality."
I welcome this as a rebuttal of the New Atheists. Scriptural literalists falsely claim that what is in the Bible is empirical fact. New Atheists pretend that this hold-over 19th century notion (a frightened reaction against science) is all there is to Judeo-Christian experience. They use it as their straw man.
Instead, all of our religious language and outward practice is metaphor for the mystery that we live yet cannot reduce to evidence and concepts.
Far more useful (though imperfect) is Jewish atheist and scientist Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA):
Science and religion represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values. There is difference between the realms of knowledge over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and the two domains do not overlap. - See "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life" (1999).
Bravo! As a retired Certified Life Coach I practiced Ontological Coaching with tremendous gratitude! The Ontological process allowed deeply valued, total unknowables to appear in the space between client and coach. I sat back and marveled at it all. There Are No Words (TANW) is my constant inner refrain. No amount of science could prove what occurred yet there was absolute truth and witness of the actual experience. Magical?Mystikal? To me and my hard working, dedicated partner clients it was pure beauty, gratitude and joy!!
As always, you inspire more thought in your readers. Thanks! - Just an observation, not really at odds with what you say: a consummate materialist is as metaphysical as any metaphysical philosopher in absolutizing its own take on life--kind of like the relativist who thinks everything is relative. . . except itself. !