I’m newish here (six months or so) so if this comment takes things in a bad direction or is otherwise inappropriate please delete it. It might also be too long.
With that clearing of the throat, I would like to suggest the following:
that the atheistic perspectives become more informed about the actual nature of the philosophical/ theological tradition, especially within the dominant (Thomist) tradition of Western Christianity. If this site is seeking to become ‘less wrong’ through exploration and respectful dialogue then please hear a representative of that tradition when they say ‘the existence of God is not an empirical question’ and ‘God is not a supernatural agent’. I suppose this is a way of saying ‘don’t assume that pre-Enlightenment thinkers were stupid’, which is good advice whether what I am specifically saying here is true or not. Denys Turner (top philosophical/theological professor ex-Cambridge UK) put it like this: atheists (the atheists who make such arguments) haven’t even reached the ‘theologically necessary level of denial’ - it’s not that the specific claim being made by the atheist is incorrect, it’s that the implication that is believed to follow does not actually follow. (Turner paper is available here if anyone wants to read it https://www.jstor.org/stable/43249944?seq=1 )
that an aspect of spirituality (or ‘wisdom traditions’) that is missed in that otherwise estimable list is that it involves techniques to enable a closer appropriation of the truth. That is, in order to discern the truth correctly, it is necessary to address internal questions involving matters of character and will. This requires time spent in reflection and most especially it involves the cultivation of the virtue of apatheia or detachment (I believe there to be a significant overlap across different wisdom traditions on this point). Most especially the edifice of modern science remains dependent upon the practice of spiritual virtues of this sort in a way that is less denied, more ignored. The edifice of scientific research depends on things like the honesty of the researchers, and therefore upon the institutional cultivation of such honesty. In so far as institutions succeed in cultivating such honesty then they are operating as spiritual bodies. I would personally argue that the edifice of science that we presently have is structurally dependent on that Thomistic tradition I mentioned above, and that it could not exist separately from that tradition, but that’s an argument that might be distracting as it is very contentious
lastly, that an important form of spirituality that is also massively understood in contemporary culture, although it is of major historical significance in the West, is that of magic. Rightly understood, this is not about Harry Potter-esque actions that violate natural law but about ‘change of consciousness in accordance with will’ - in other words, it is about the training of the intellect in ways of seeing. (Some of the ways of seeing can be bonkers of course.)
So—apologies if this is not the sort of thing desired here (or if it has been engaged with elsewhere on the site—as I said, I’m newish) but I hope it might contribute to the conversation.
Some questions (either answers, or summaries of answers plus pointers elsewhere for the full treatment, would be fine):
the existence of God is not an empirical question
What kind of question is it?
God is not a supernatural agent
What kind of agent is he?
“theologically necessary level of denial”
In what sense is “theologically necessary” a relevant or interesting category in epistemological terms? (More bluntly, if you like: why should we care what is, or is not, theologically necessary, as distinct from what is epistemologically necessary?)
it’s not that the specific claim being made by the atheist is incorrect, it’s that the implication that is believed to follow does not actually follow
What is the specific claim, and what is the believed implication?
techniques to enable a closer appropriation of the truth
What, exactly, is an “appropriation of the truth”? I have never encountered this phrase, and am unsure what it could mean.
In so far as institutions succeed in cultivating such honesty then they are operating as spiritual bodies.
This claim seems to beg the question by defining ‘spiritual’ in a way very different than how it’s normally defined. No conclusions that might be reached after starting with such an unusual usage could possibly apply to ‘spirituality’ in the way the term is normally used.
I would personally argue that the edifice of science that we presently have is structurally dependent on that Thomistic tradition I mentioned above, and that it could not exist separately from that tradition, but that’s an argument that might be distracting as it is very contentious
Indeed.
lastly, that an important form of spirituality that is also massively understood in contemporary culture, although it is of major historical significance in the West, is that of magic. Rightly understood, this is not about Harry Potter-esque actions that violate natural law but about ‘change of consciousness in accordance with will’ - in other words, it is about the training of the intellect in ways of seeing. (Some of the ways of seeing can be bonkers of course.)
Needless to say, this runs into the usual “show me the money” (a.k.a. “cake”) kinds of problems that we see with ‘Looking’, ‘kensho’, and all the rest. Absent an answer to such demands for demonstration of effectiveness, the mere fact that ‘magic’ is not judged to be important or worthy of study is simply correct and appropriate.
I’m newish here (six months or so) so if this comment takes things in a bad direction or is otherwise inappropriate please delete it. It might also be too long.
With that clearing of the throat, I would like to suggest the following:
that the atheistic perspectives become more informed about the actual nature of the philosophical/ theological tradition, especially within the dominant (Thomist) tradition of Western Christianity. If this site is seeking to become ‘less wrong’ through exploration and respectful dialogue then please hear a representative of that tradition when they say ‘the existence of God is not an empirical question’ and ‘God is not a supernatural agent’. I suppose this is a way of saying ‘don’t assume that pre-Enlightenment thinkers were stupid’, which is good advice whether what I am specifically saying here is true or not. Denys Turner (top philosophical/theological professor ex-Cambridge UK) put it like this: atheists (the atheists who make such arguments) haven’t even reached the ‘theologically necessary level of denial’ - it’s not that the specific claim being made by the atheist is incorrect, it’s that the implication that is believed to follow does not actually follow. (Turner paper is available here if anyone wants to read it https://www.jstor.org/stable/43249944?seq=1 )
that an aspect of spirituality (or ‘wisdom traditions’) that is missed in that otherwise estimable list is that it involves techniques to enable a closer appropriation of the truth. That is, in order to discern the truth correctly, it is necessary to address internal questions involving matters of character and will. This requires time spent in reflection and most especially it involves the cultivation of the virtue of apatheia or detachment (I believe there to be a significant overlap across different wisdom traditions on this point). Most especially the edifice of modern science remains dependent upon the practice of spiritual virtues of this sort in a way that is less denied, more ignored. The edifice of scientific research depends on things like the honesty of the researchers, and therefore upon the institutional cultivation of such honesty. In so far as institutions succeed in cultivating such honesty then they are operating as spiritual bodies. I would personally argue that the edifice of science that we presently have is structurally dependent on that Thomistic tradition I mentioned above, and that it could not exist separately from that tradition, but that’s an argument that might be distracting as it is very contentious
lastly, that an important form of spirituality that is also massively understood in contemporary culture, although it is of major historical significance in the West, is that of magic. Rightly understood, this is not about Harry Potter-esque actions that violate natural law but about ‘change of consciousness in accordance with will’ - in other words, it is about the training of the intellect in ways of seeing. (Some of the ways of seeing can be bonkers of course.)
So—apologies if this is not the sort of thing desired here (or if it has been engaged with elsewhere on the site—as I said, I’m newish) but I hope it might contribute to the conversation.
Some questions (either answers, or summaries of answers plus pointers elsewhere for the full treatment, would be fine):
What kind of question is it?
What kind of agent is he?
In what sense is “theologically necessary” a relevant or interesting category in epistemological terms? (More bluntly, if you like: why should we care what is, or is not, theologically necessary, as distinct from what is epistemologically necessary?)
What is the specific claim, and what is the believed implication?
What, exactly, is an “appropriation of the truth”? I have never encountered this phrase, and am unsure what it could mean.
This claim seems to beg the question by defining ‘spiritual’ in a way very different than how it’s normally defined. No conclusions that might be reached after starting with such an unusual usage could possibly apply to ‘spirituality’ in the way the term is normally used.
Indeed.
Needless to say, this runs into the usual “show me the money” (a.k.a. “cake”) kinds of problems that we see with ‘Looking’, ‘kensho’, and all the rest. Absent an answer to such demands for demonstration of effectiveness, the mere fact that ‘magic’ is not judged to be important or worthy of study is simply correct and appropriate.