From the outset,
I must caution that I am not a philologist or expert on antiquities, do not read ancient languages, nor have I degrees in philosophy or physics. Nor am I a mathematician, tho I am able to follow some important particulars of mathematical logic. Neither would I call myself a theologian, even tho I have laid out some theological ideas in some of my work. To be candid, I am essentially what I have been for some time: a journalist. As a reporter, one of course gathers facts, but for complex stories these facts must be interpreted, at least to a degree.
Yet, a word of caution: Do not expect an "easy read."
With that disclaimer done with, let's begin by saying that the purpose of this essay is to provoke reflection on the notion that the only motive force is physical energy, that all that occurs is effectively a result of blind forces. My view is that we might wish to consider a perspective other than Religion v. Science. I doubt that one can adequately define either as a totalistic category or class. Yet many fairly well educated people are under the impression that this is a fair dichotomy. Witness, for example, the work of scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould -- both of whom have many excellent things to say, but who miss an important philosophical dimension, as witnessed by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, among others.
"A religious world view is only one response to the conviction that the physical description of the world is incomplete," Nagel writes. Further, he says, it would be reasonable to "admit that we do not have the understanding or knowledge on which to base a comprehensive theory of reality." [1]
We are reminded of the quandary of Friedrich Nietzsche. Again we quote Nagel:
In fact, many have argued that Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence is fundamentally a religious notion, which very roughly parallels the Indian doctrine of samsara, which is in Western eyes a religious notion but according to some is a philosophical and not religious idea.
In any case, my aim is to discuss a worldview which, not being the Dawkins one, will be held religious, even tho I see no reason why it should not be viewed as objective philosophy.
I propose a unitary theology incorporating Indian concepts into Christian views. This theology would be seen as a potent reflection of the universal philosophy labeled by the rubric universal christological principle, or UCP. Of course, some will prefer to use another term for this principle, but I find it expressive of a picture of "personal yet universal" unfoldment and enfoldment.
That theists and atheists can find common philosophical ground is well illustrated by Nagel, particularly in his forceful case against naive reductionism as applied to the mind-body problem [3]. One may also examine the development of the views of Bertrand Russell, another atheist who at length felt obliged to draw a somewhat similar conclusion [4].
1. Dawkins and Atheism in Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 (Oxford 2010) by Thomas Nagel.
1a. The aphorism "God is dead" was introduced by Nietzsche and then claimed by certain media following World War II, especially with regard to the Holocaust.
2. Nietzsche's Self-Creation in Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 (Oxford 2010) by Thomas Nagel.
3. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford 2012) by Thomas Nagel.
4. For further discussion of the views of Russell and Nagel, please go HERE.
Yet, a word of caution: Do not expect an "easy read."
With that disclaimer done with, let's begin by saying that the purpose of this essay is to provoke reflection on the notion that the only motive force is physical energy, that all that occurs is effectively a result of blind forces. My view is that we might wish to consider a perspective other than Religion v. Science. I doubt that one can adequately define either as a totalistic category or class. Yet many fairly well educated people are under the impression that this is a fair dichotomy. Witness, for example, the work of scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould -- both of whom have many excellent things to say, but who miss an important philosophical dimension, as witnessed by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, among others.
"A religious world view is only one response to the conviction that the physical description of the world is incomplete," Nagel writes. Further, he says, it would be reasonable to "admit that we do not have the understanding or knowledge on which to base a comprehensive theory of reality." [1]
We are reminded of the quandary of Friedrich Nietzsche. Again we quote Nagel:
"The sense of a deep connection with reality has often been given religious expression, but in light of the spreading modern recognition that God is dead [1a] -- that religion is a human creation rather than a transcendent truth -- Nietzsche looked for something to replace it that was not merely banal, not merely a scientific worldview. As Lou Salome observed, there was something religious in his temperament." [2]As occurs even with Nietzsche, the alternative worldview outlined herein will assuredly be dismissed as "religious," as will anything that challenges the worldview represented by Dawkins.
In fact, many have argued that Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence is fundamentally a religious notion, which very roughly parallels the Indian doctrine of samsara, which is in Western eyes a religious notion but according to some is a philosophical and not religious idea.
In any case, my aim is to discuss a worldview which, not being the Dawkins one, will be held religious, even tho I see no reason why it should not be viewed as objective philosophy.
I propose a unitary theology incorporating Indian concepts into Christian views. This theology would be seen as a potent reflection of the universal philosophy labeled by the rubric universal christological principle, or UCP. Of course, some will prefer to use another term for this principle, but I find it expressive of a picture of "personal yet universal" unfoldment and enfoldment.
That theists and atheists can find common philosophical ground is well illustrated by Nagel, particularly in his forceful case against naive reductionism as applied to the mind-body problem [3]. One may also examine the development of the views of Bertrand Russell, another atheist who at length felt obliged to draw a somewhat similar conclusion [4].
1. Dawkins and Atheism in Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 (Oxford 2010) by Thomas Nagel.
1a. The aphorism "God is dead" was introduced by Nietzsche and then claimed by certain media following World War II, especially with regard to the Holocaust.
2. Nietzsche's Self-Creation in Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 (Oxford 2010) by Thomas Nagel.
3. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford 2012) by Thomas Nagel.
4. For further discussion of the views of Russell and Nagel, please go HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment