The Religious Thread

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Toronthab said:

Tou're right...next time I'll call him "that treed guy".

"The Man in the Tree" for me will always be the mad uncle in Fellini's masterpiece Amarcord. Yes, the poor man, who, when his family came to take him for an outing would invariably find himself up a tree, shouting across the countryside, "I WANT A WOMAN!". Inevitably he would be coaxed back to Earth by a midget nun from a nearby convent.

Put that in your meerschaum.

[Toronthab]

M. said:

"The Man in the Tree" for me will always be the mad uncle in Fellini's masterpiece Amarcord. Yes, the poor man, who, when his family came to take him for an outing would invariably find himself up a tree, shouting across the countryside, "I WANT A WOMAN!". Inevitably he would be coaxed back to Earth by a midget nun from a nearby convent.

Put that in your meerschaum.

EXCELLENT!

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

While it would be more than passing strange if a sauteriological event from a God who is intelligence, in dealing with us guys did anything less thorough and comprehensible. That mythology should reflect fundamental desires and themes is only consistent.

This of course (like Harper's book "The Pagan Christ" based largely on a discredited "Egyptologist" ) does not address the most obvious element. Historicity. Like the trial of Socrates, too many witnesses for Plato to misrepresent what actually happened. Lazarus came forth, just out of the money, but it wasn't the last race: the crowd was still there.

I find that the stuff you're asked to swallow to make a case against "the greatest story ever told" is simply absurd. The evidence in support is overwhelming, enough for me like Nicodemus in the tree to say " I believe, help my unbelief."

If anyone really wants to investigate the whole questionof the existence or non existence of God you owe it to yourself to get Dr.Anthony Rizzi's (Physicist and Philosopher)"The Science before Science" . It is not a religious book, but if you're smart enough, he will lead you into and understanding of Aristotle's metaphysics from which Descartes and Kant blinded themselves by a rather basic but fundametal error. They denied the the critical role of the senses in acts of knowing and ended up "locked inside their heads ." A scientist, he treats of several scientific issues. He is not a fundamentalist or anti-evolutionary or in the least unscientific. Au contraire, and you will love what he has to say about "possible universe" ideas and other bits of quackery caused by philosophical confusion concerning the limits of scientific explanations.


In Chapter 8 he proves the existence of God.

I discovered this book accidentally while trying to help a friend's daughter studying philosophy at Western U.

You really do owe it to yourself to discover what's going on and this is a most approach able book by a distinguished scholar. Put your money where your mouth is. After all, one of the accepted definitions of a sane mind, is one that is in tune with the nature of life and the universe.

Overcome the 17th century premises of your intellectual life and satisfy that immense desire to understand.

At the very least, you will know what the fundamental issues really are. You will die without even knowing what the problem is if you don;t get a book like "The Science before Science". I will be enjoying and learning great stuff from this book for years.

This is not a book of Christian apologetics of any variety. It adresses scientific and philosophical reality. His view will integrate, not obfuscate what you already know. It;s your only hope.

Think of the upgraded observations that will be possible on this terrific board. And it truly is a terrific board as should be anything devoted to les glorieux.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't think I owe it myself to read Rizzi's book. Why? Because I prefer to deal with tested empirical evidence rather than with selective deductive reasoning. Proof of god's existence remains in the eye and mind of the beholder. Rizzi set out to prove the existence of god, not to disprove it. Seldom does someone with an a priori approach (and he would deceiving himself is he thought he wasn't) fail to reach the desired conclusion. I'm not a comparative theologian, but something tells me that "persuasive" arguments have been advanced for the existence of god along disparate intellectual trains of thought.

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't think I owe it myself to read Rizzi's book. Why? Because I prefer to deal with tested empirical evidence rather than with selective deductive reasoning. Proof of god's existence remains in the eye and mind of the beholder. Rizzi set out to prove the existence of god, not to disprove it. Seldom does someone with an a priori approach (and he would deceiving himself is he thought he wasn't) fail to reach the desired conclusion. I'm not a comparative theologian, but something tells me that "persuasive" arguments have been advanced for the existence of god along disparate intellectual trains of thought.

A couple of quick thoughts. Have you ever seen electricity or wind? I'm sure you're just speaking casually when you speak of tested empirical evidence which is ok, and I'm not really trying to be a smartask or rude, but you know that phrase is almost meaningless as expressed. If you think that empirical methodology can even begin to approach the question, this is of course impossible, and lastly, you are manifesting a priori conclusions without establishing your premises. It's common but ironic nonetheless, that folks who fancy themselves "scientific" and empirical emprace the cartesian, whose progenitor Descarte, denied the capacity of the senses to deliver reality. You are exactly up that tree. Accordingly you are locked inside your head.

So dismiss a priori, your tendency to indulge the a priori and actually deal with the work of a very distinguished scientist and philospher. Then come back and tell me his arguments built upon some of the most astute minds in human history aren't worth engaging.

Rizzi's early point is that the very greatest danger facing mankind is what you imagine yourself to be free of, that being...subjectivism. Post Descartes and Kanian confusion.
No offense, but you are unfamiliar with even the most basic elements of even framing the questions. Theologians don't advance philosophical arguments unless, like St. Thomas Aquinas, they are also philosophers. Don't look for persuasive arguments. That's what you're advancingl Look for sound reasoning. Don't hide behind your a priorii dogma and call others impure. Engage the arguments. Get the book and engage. It will be the best book you will read in the next twenty years.