However there is a grain of truth about the existence of god and the workings of science. Though science carefully distinguished itself from religion and existential questions in the renaissance, it owed its birth to late medieval mysticism (devotio moderna) and the assertion that god is manifest in all things, so that one form of devotion, perhaps the highest form of devotion, would be to cultivate a form of dispassionate attention that would, when properly applied, reveal the underlying reality/connection of things. The subsequent development of science is a heartbreaking vulgarization of this form of attention. Reducing it to the application of math to nature and absolving the scientist from doing the hard work of understanding the partiality of his view.
Anyway. Just sayin.
Joanna
----- Original Message -----
On Aug 5, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
> Here's the best account I know of the question that Holt (and a good
> number of other modern philosophers) raises. It's from the late
> Oxford philosopher/theologian Herbert McCabe (Terry Eagleton's
> teacher).
>
> http://newsfromneptune.com/2010/08/14/god-and-creation/
>
> "In my view to assert that God exists is to claim the right and need
> to
> carry on an activity, to be engaged in research...
> Gibberish. Nobody denies his right to carry on any intellectual
> activity he wishes or to research on any topic he wants. What does
> that have to do with the undefined and undefinable word "God" and
> the (in his sentence) undefined word "exists?"
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk