For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
This is a very satisfying blog. I will study how you get such open mindedness from the participating Atheists.
You have said that admission of “relative” viewpoint on your part is the secret. Possibly. But the budding of what approaches real contemplation, is a thing of beauty to witness.
My “paradigm” begins with infinity. But the infinity of singularity, not that of self regulating sets. Those are second stage phenomena. Not really infinite. In fact, the essence of the finite. The emergent characteristic of Singularity.
The Entirety. God.
Following from this, is us. Related to it and not different from it. Knowing as self the one Self. Because it is.
portion of response from troymo – “I would say that (my) ‘relative perspective’ is the only place to start when having a conversation with atheists, and so the best way to invite them (into) having a discussion about (their) relative perspective. I find I am often disappointed (with) how deeply lost people can become within their ‘relative paradigm.’ This article therefore is an attempt to promote (such) awareness of just what ‘this’ means, and how easily we are lost to it (myself included).”
(After following a video link provided by troymo in his blog posting.)
Thanks. I think that this is my first encounter with David Berlinski. I’m pleased that my blind fumblings have brought me into his company.
With confirmation of such caliber I can let the reins out a little; Confidence strengthened. An evolutionary process.
Intuition and reason; The intention to pay attention.
In early stages of the enquiry, a watchful self doubt is a helpful thing. Looking for overplayed and foolish certainties.
However, at some point, the great leap requires a final smashing of the mirror.
(And, in a delightfully timely fashion, there is an opportunity to practice troymo’s technique.)
brmckay – “Time to let go of the Bible then. Contemplation of God does not require such a flimsy interface. Whoever the carpenter was, it would be my guess that he didn’t thumb through the pages of a book for confirmation.”
Caroline Fairless – “Here’s my question. Does the understanding of the universe as sacred require divine agency at all? In other words, no carpenter.”
Interesting words “sacred” and “divine”. They indicate an attitude, not just of the mind, but of the heart.
For me, cultivation of a sense of the sacred is much more imperative than cultivating say money for instance. But for others, of course, that isn’t always the case.
That was not your question though. It was about understanding the universe as sacred without including contemplation of divine agency.
Sure. Why not? However, understanding the universe requires the same all encompassing grasp of infinitude as is required for understanding God.
It also has to encompass the nature of existence, self and consciousness.
If the universe is sacred, and there is a conscious agent living within it, even if it is only you, then that agent would be divine.
Whether you are a carpenter by trade or not.
I’ll backup a bit though. I have to ask. What is awareness? What is self? What is infinitude? What is finitude? We know the experience of these phenomena from a very narrow and subjective vantage point. What is the real picture? Are you not in awe?
I have my ways of thinking about this, but what are yours?