Skip to main content

more adequate description of how we become theists than agency detection

If I were to try to explain the origin of theism as naturalistically as possible, my starting point would not be trying to explain causes of natural phenomena (which D'Souza points out, is an anachronistic reading of history) but look at something like the communion of the saints as natural to human society. And that communion, as a community, has a leader: the Holy One.

This theme is not utterly independent of seeking causes of nature. But an adequate explanation must include both.

By "natural" I don't mean "non-supernatural," for nature itself points to God. Especially human nature: if there is freedom, then there is more to nature than an ontological-naturalist (as in anti-supernatralist) is willing to recognize; and there is more to nature than a methodological-naturalist (that is, one who as a matter of principle, when doing science admits only of materialistic explanations) is able to recognize.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
Interesting - human community as something animals don't have, and thus, where did this come from, etc.

Walker Percy, in Lost in the Cosmos, has this great section where he describes the human need for religion as self-understanding. The first man would be walking around naming things according to their apparent purpose. Then he sees himself. How do I "name" myself properly? What is my "name"? How would I "name" Everything? What do I have to do with nature? Why am I not like all these plants, animals, and rocks I'm naming? Thus the first phase of religious development is totemism - I become "Flying Eagle" or whomever, I identify myself with something in Nature. Conversely, I see persons in Nature, seeing it populated with spirits. Then successive stages of religious evolution come. According to Soloviev (I'm jumping around authors here) the highest religious thought attainable through reason is Platonism. And then you await Revelation...
4:29 PM
Leo White said…
I like what you say about naming and the difficulty of naming the namer-of-all. Reminds me of what Aristotle said of the human psyche/soul, i.e., that it is all things. Meaning that we think of the totality... not far from saying that we name each part of that whole.
In any case, you capture the sense that humans have always had that they are kind of strange compared to the rest of nature. JPII talks about this as "original solitude" or something like that. It becomes the basis for bonding with other humans... they have the same inner depth which can first be experienced as a kind of emptiness but then becomes the capacity to be filled with the other in a way that the non-strange don't experience.

As for totemism... there was a time when I knew what that is, but I plumb forgot, but it seems that you are saying that we name ourself according to that part of nature that we are like/is like us: something like that? And at the same time, parts of natures are personalized: right?

I definitely like the depiction of Platonism as the final philosophical stage... even though I am not exactly a Platonist, he better than any other writer gets one to recognize that there is another dimension to reality.
8:35 PM
Unknown said…
I don't know what totemism technically is, either, but the image is of a nature-religion where you identify with a particular animal in s special way - the way an American Indian will dress as a particular animal and take a name in relation to it.
10:49 PM
Unknown said…
Soloviev:


If
one were to ask me to define
man by a sign as characteristic
as it is ap-
parent,
I would call him "the being that
laughs."
We will soon see that
this
returns
us to the previous
definition
of inan as a inetaphysical
being.
An animal,
coinpletely
absorbed
by
reality
at hand, cannot place itself
in
a critical
and negative
position
toward
that
reality,
and, for
this
reason,
cannot laugh. Laughter supposes a state of freedom;
a slave does not
laugh.
2:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more