That sounds a lot like the basis of the cartesian circle, which I don't really mean. I'm referring to something that is fundamentally semantic i.e. God is these things on this paper here that we can't understand; but perhaps most people do not recognise as a semantic term and almost think of it as being a scientific observation. From my perspective this is the rational gap in religion - observe, celebrate and revere the greater unknown, but don't assign it a consciousness with motivations! That's just weird.
Haha, I totally agree. Just to make a quick distinction between what Neil is discussing - that which we don't understand but conceivably could; and what I am drawing upon - that which we potentially can't understand in strict scientific terms. I'm talking about the metaphysical really, things that lie at the base of identity, linear time, subjective perception etc.
So basically, all the things we don't yet know how to explain? Which brings us back to the god of the gaps, whether or not you consider it either divine or even sentient. What part of "I don't know" leads you to "therefore I believe"?
My response got a little long and I really want to get what I'm trying to say right (which I don't think I have been doing above haha), so I'll hold off for now. Thanks for discussing this with me seriously rather than just treating me as an idiot. I think I'm going to write this as an actual philosophical essay. I'll post here or tag you in the post when I'm done. Thanks for inspiring me to put some effort in haha :D
Like dark matter of the philosophical realm, yes. This is why religious leaders worth their salt have said that they await science to change how they think about their religion. The more we actually know about the world, the more accurate we can make our philosophies of the metaphysical.
So you're saying that God is like a varying constant. You use it to make the equation work when you can't figure it out?
It's also known as the god of the gaps.
That sounds a lot like the basis of the cartesian circle, which I don't really mean. I'm referring to something that is fundamentally semantic i.e. God is these things on this paper here that we can't understand; but perhaps most people do not recognise as a semantic term and almost think of it as being a scientific observation. From my perspective this is the rational gap in religion - observe, celebrate and revere the greater unknown, but don't assign it a consciousness with motivations! That's just weird.
Revere the greater unknown?
Haha, I totally agree. Just to make a quick distinction between what Neil is discussing - that which we don't understand but conceivably could; and what I am drawing upon - that which we potentially can't understand in strict scientific terms. I'm talking about the metaphysical really, things that lie at the base of identity, linear time, subjective perception etc.
So basically, all the things we don't yet know how to explain? Which brings us back to the god of the gaps, whether or not you consider it either divine or even sentient. What part of "I don't know" leads you to "therefore I believe"?
My response got a little long and I really want to get what I'm trying to say right (which I don't think I have been doing above haha), so I'll hold off for now. Thanks for discussing this with me seriously rather than just treating me as an idiot. I think I'm going to write this as an actual philosophical essay. I'll post here or tag you in the post when I'm done. Thanks for inspiring me to put some effort in haha :D
I look forward to seeing what you write. :)
Like dark matter of the philosophical realm, yes. This is why religious leaders worth their salt have said that they await science to change how they think about their religion. The more we actually know about the world, the more accurate we can make our philosophies of the metaphysical.