My beef with negitive theology

[panther.jd]

I have some beef with negative theology: I don't believe it, I don't even like it. Thinking about my judgment produced the following thinking:

My main beef with it is the two big assumptions it makes, completely without any reason offered for supposing that it's true.

Assumption One: That there are things beyond human comprehension.
It makes the assumption that there are things which NO HUMAN can ever understand. I disagree 100%

It has not been shown that this is the case, that there are things which can not, in principle, ever be understood by any human. I can think of no way to even falsify the principle, nor do I know of any reasonable proof that it is the case. In short, there is no reason to suppose that it is true.

One might at this point bring out the popular quote from science: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.” -Richard P. Feynman This proves, one could go on, that there are things which no human can understand. But just because there are now things that no human understands, that does not mean that in principle no human will ever be able to understand them. The history of science is full of things that no one understood at the time that where later explained. Even now scientists are seeking a theory that explains the things that science does not currently understand about physics.

You can easily say that one could just as well say there is no reason to suppose the principle is false, but why is supposing it true preferable to supposing it false? If you take the view: “I don't know, I can't prove or disprove the concept.” Is it reasonable to base other reasoning on a principle you can't prove or disprove?

Assumption Two: That god is one of the things beyond human comprehension.
Even if it were established that there are things that are in principle forever beyond human comprehension, what is the basis for including god in this category? This is assumed to be so, seemingly without reason. Why should god be one of things that are beyond human comprehension? How is it know that god falls into this category?

--If True--
If one assumes that Negative Theology is true, the following conclusions follow. I am not saying that these conclusions show that negative theology is false, these conclusions are perfectly reasonable. They are however points to be addressed by a religion seeking to support any particular conception of god with it.

All religions are false.
God being incomprehensible by human beings, no religion can describe god, no religion is right about god. No attempt to to describe god can succeed. No reason can exist, in principle, that would establish that one religion has a lock on the true god.

Total agnosticism most rationale conclusion.
God's existence is not addressable, in principal, one can never prove or disprove the god concept, because said concept is beyond humans. You can never know if god exists or not in principle. To even conclude that god does exist is an error. And supposing he does not exist is also an error.

There is no reason to suppose that such a god is concerned with human affairs.
God can not be said to be concerned with human affairs. To say that god at all cares about, love or hates humans is an error. One could equally well say that there is no reason to suppose that god is NOT concerned with human affairs, but there can be no valid basis for choosing one over the other, even in principle, because god can't be comprehended.

God can not be said to have created the universe.
God can't be said to have created the universe, or anything at all. To say that god did something is to ascribe a quality to god without reason. We can't understand god, and the attempt to ascribe a quality to god like: "god created the universe" is a error, an attempt that falls short of the true nature of god. One also can't say that god did not create the universe and just as before there can be in principle no basis for choosing or preferring one over the other.

You can't know anything about god.
The only reasonable conclusion one can make about god is that it is impossible to know any facts about god.

[Creamsteak]

I think you've picked a terrible area of discussion. That isn't to say I agree or disagree with you, but I just don't think this is something you're going to get anywhere with.

Are you worried about "humans" specifically? For example, do you think a dog can understand everything? What about a rock? Where is the plateau at which "understanding everything" becomes an option? Why do you think humans are at that plateau? How much are you willing to modify the definition of human to fit this?

[Enk]

Your summary ignores faith as the counterpart to negative theology.

[panther.jd]

I think you've picked a terrible area of discussion. That isn't to say I agree or disagree with you, but I just don't think this is something you're going to get anywhere with.

Are you worried about "humans" specifically? For example, do you think a dog can understand everything? What about a rock? Where is the plateau at which "understanding everything" becomes an option? Why do you think humans are at that plateau? How much are you willing to modify the definition of human to fit this?I'm not saying that it is possible that everything in the universe can be understood, given the vast size and variety of the universe.

I'm saying that I don't think that the universe contains anything that, in principle, can never ever be understood no matter what. Actually understanding everything is an impossibility, I didn't say that everything can be understood, I said there is nothing the can't be understood because of it's nature. There are some things we may never understand because we can't gather the necessary knowledge to form an understanding of it, but I don't think there is anything that just can't be understood because that is part of it's nature or because the human mind is incapable of grasping the concept no matter what knowledge is gathered.

(Feel free to point out that god is outside the universe.)

[panther.jd]

Your summary ignores faith as the counterpart to negative theology.If all I need to believe in negative theology is faith, that actually explains everything.

[Creamsteak]

I don't think there is anything that just can't be understood because that is part of it's nature or because the human mind is incapable of grasping the concept no matter what knowledge is gathered.

Maybe the use of the word "everything" confused you. I could have said, "anything" for roughly the same meaning. My question still stands.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I have some beef with negative theology: I don't believe it, I don't even like it. Thinking about my judgment produced the following thinking:

Finally! Some arguments against a theistic deity. Thank you, Panther

If we define theology is an attempt to formally talk about human experiences of transcendence, then there is a common thread that runs through human mystical experiences - regardless of creed of culture

These experiences are of something other, of something beyond comprehension. I think that's the "reason" you're looking for

Why do theistic mystics talk about God as being something utterly beyond comprehension? Because that's our experience of Him

The utterly bizarre thing is that when two mystics from completely different cultural backgrounds get together and start talking, after a few minutes of settling on a common language, they often find incredible common ground and insights that help each other along their respective paths. To use a personal example, the Daoist concept of the "Three Pure Ones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones), really helped me to get my head around the Christian concept of the Trinity

Now these experiences of transcendence may just be nothing more than (say) a misfiring reward mechanism and it's always important to keep that in mind.

This is faith (or at least one wording of the concept): the working assumption that ones experiences have some external reality

All religions are false.
God being incomprehensible by human beings, no religion can describe god, no religion is right about god. No attempt to to describe god can succeed. No reason can exist, in principle, that would establish that one religion has a lock on the true god.

Agreed

Total agnosticism most rationale conclusion.
God's existence is not addressable, in principal, one can never prove or disprove the god concept, because said concept is beyond humans. You can never know if god exists or not in principle. To even conclude that god does exist is an error. And supposing he does not exist is also an error.

Tentatively agree

That'll do for now, though I'll give a tentative response to the next point (about God's interest in human affairs) by saying that it's the Christian experience of God that He is interested in human beings enough to become one. "God became man so that man could become God" as one formulation puts it

[Sobek]

I could wikipedia/google this, but I want to know I'm using the same definitions as everyone else:

Define "negative theology".

[panther.jd]

I could wikipedia/google this, but I want to know I'm using the same definitions as everyone else:

Define "negative theology".I went with the wikipedia def.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology

Actually I had to do that for transcendence too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28philosophy%29
The Kantien def is interesting, but I'm pretty sure that's NOT the one Hastur meant.

[panther.jd]

All religions are false.
God being incomprehensible by human beings, no religion can describe god, no religion is right about god. No attempt to to describe god can succeed. No reason can exist, in principle, that would establish that one religion has a lock on the true god.

Agreed


At first, I was going to say all religions are equally true and false, but then I realized that that would put Scientology on a equal footing with other religions and I couldn't do that. It's Scientology for Christ's sake!!!

Now these experiences of transcendence may just be nothing more than (say) a misfiring reward mechanism and it's always important to keep that in mind.
My conclusion is that the experience of transcendence is an illusion, just like consciousness. (Note: we might save the consciousness debate for another thread, or this will get really hard to follow. ;) )

I would hesitate to call it a "misfiring" though. We are beginning to learn fascinating things about human experience, but we don't know enough about the mechanism/s that gives rise to experiences such as transcendence to be able to say what is the cause or reason for the experience transcendence. (We can theorize though.)

This is faith (or at least one wording of the concept): the working assumption that ones experiences have some external realityI do believe that there is an external reality independent of my mind that I exist in. However, I don't think my experience is a 100% faithful representation of that reality.

Would you agree with the following principle? (This is a principle that I believe in.):

That moral values should NOT be based on religion. Here I am not concerned with people's reasons for behaving morally, people can base their reasons for behaving in a moral fashion on religion or anything else they like, I don't really care.

But religion should not be the basis for deciding what things or acts are or are not moral.

One big reason for this is if we use religion to decide what things are right and wrong, we have to choose a religion as the "standard" for deciding what is right and wrong and in so doing we excluding everyone outside the "standard" religion, creating conflict.

[panther.jd]

Maybe the use of the word "everything" confused you. I could have said, "anything" for roughly the same meaning. My question still stands.Umm Ok...

Are you worried about "humans" specifically? For example, do you think a dog can understand anything? What about a rock? Where is the plateau at which "understanding anything" becomes an option? Why do you think humans are at that plateau? How much are you willing to modify the definition of human to fit this?:confused::confused:

Umm... Professor... Could you restate the question?

[Creamsteak]

Why humans? Why not something sub-human? Why not something post-human? Why is it that humans have the magical capacity to interpret anything into the knowable? At what point did you pass the point that this became possible?

To help this along, my point with this question is to examine whether you think that "all things" can understand "anything", or if it's some special cognitive point. If it's the first, then no problem arise, but your assertion changes significantly. If it's the latter, you have to define what one needs in order to understand "anything".

If you go with the first choice, your ideas function, but they become pragmatic and essentially useless. So rocks, molecules, photons... they can understand the universe. If you go with the second choice, you have to come up with some magical explanation for humans being on the "level" and not a dog or a rock. I think that you will find that path itself unknowable (because there could always exist essential and important but unobservable traits), but that's besides the point.

[GhostWolf69]

(I guess you guys know my take on this by know, but here it is in a different version)

On the internet, in forums such as these, one of the worst things that can happen (apparently) is to be prooven wrong.

We weight our words on a precious scale and try to cover all our bases.

Agnostics act the same way.

They seem terrified of drawing any kind of conclusion from the information at hand since:

"No attempt to to describe god can succeed. No reason can exist, in principle, that would establish that one religion has a lock on the true god."

and further that;

"You can never know if god exists or not in principle. To even conclude that god does exist is an error. And supposing he does not exist is also an error."

... as if all descisions made in life are part of this big Reasoning - Logic competition that will Fuck You Up, should you ever make a misstake.

If abvove is True, I find it infinetly more interesting to talk to people who stick their neck out and take a stand for what they believe. (i.e. Atheists or Believers alike)

If above is False, then there is nothing to worry about anyway and being a coward doesn't even serve the purpous for which it was invented, namenly cover your own ass from the great horror of being wrong.

Besides... entering any religious debate with the assumptions that any one else should follow rational and logical ways of thinking is initself an error (if you ask me).

/wolf

[Hatter]

It's cowardice to reach the logical conclusion that existance of God cannot be affirmed or denied with the evidence at hand?

[PWD]

Why do theistic mystics talk about God as being something utterly beyond comprehension? Because that's our experience of Him

The utterly bizarre thing is that when two mystics from completely different cultural backgrounds get together and start talking, after a few minutes of settling on a common language, they often find incredible common ground and insights that help each other along their respective paths. To use a personal example, the Daoist concept of the "Three Pure Ones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones), really helped me to get my head around the Christian concept of the Trinity

Tangential point here, but this is spiritually a second-cousin to the point I was attempting to make in another discussion elsewhere with Sobek in which I fumbled badly enough to make him feel I was attacking him rather than a position.

Rather than revisit any of that argument or hurt feelings, I hope maybe he'll see this, factor it into where I had been attempting to go, and while still maybe never agree with me, at least get what I was building up to.

Handy, these temporal dislocations of discussion. :)

[panther.jd]

Why humans? Why not something sub-human? Why not something post-human? Why is it that humans have the magical capacity to interpret anything into the knowable? At what point did you pass the point that this became possible?

To help this along, my point with this question is to examine whether you think that "all things" can understand "anything", or if it's some special cognitive point. If it's the first, then no problem arise, but your assertion changes significantly. If it's the latter, you have to define what one needs in order to understand "anything".

If you go with the first choice, your ideas function, but they become pragmatic and essentially useless. So rocks, molecules, photons... they can understand the universe. If you go with the second choice, you have to come up with some magical explanation for humans being on the "level" and not a dog or a rock. I think that you will find that path itself unknowable (because there could always exist essential and important but unobservable traits), but that's besides the point.Is your question: What does it mean to understand?

[Varaj]

Is your question: What does it mean to understand?

I think his question is more "What makes humans so special?"

[panther.jd]

(I guess you guys know my take on this by know, but here it is in a different version)

On the internet, in forums such as these, one of the worst things that can happen (apparently) is to be prooven wrong.

We weight our words on a precious scale and try to cover all our bases.

Agnostics act the same way.

They seem terrified of drawing any kind of conclusion from the information at hand since:

"No attempt to to describe god can succeed. No reason can exist, in principle, that would establish that one religion has a lock on the true god."

and further that;

"You can never know if god exists or not in principle. To even conclude that god does exist is an error. And supposing he does not exist is also an error."

... as if all descisions made in life are part of this big Reasoning - Logic competition that will Fuck You Up, should you ever make a misstake.

If abvove is True, I find it infinetly more interesting to talk to people who stick their neck out and take a stand for what they believe. (i.e. Atheists or Believers alike)

If above is False, then there is nothing to worry about anyway and being a coward doesn't even serve the purpous for which it was invented, namenly cover your own ass from the great horror of being wrong.

Besides... entering any religious debate with the assumptions that any one else should follow rational and logical ways of thinking is initself an error (if you ask me).

/wolfI'm atheist. In my first post I said I don't believe negative theology. What I am saying is if negative theology is accepted as true total agnosticism is the rational conclusion. The second part of my first post is taking negative theology to it's rational conclusions. (And I don't believe that these conclusions in themselves show that negative theology is false. I'm interested in the thinking of those who do believe in negative theology.)

In the first part of my post I state some of my reason for not believing negative theology. In another thread I might even give reasons for being atheist, hopefully leaving all 747's aside. :tongue:

[panther.jd]

I think his question is more "What makes humans so special?"It's not that I think humans are special. It's that humans do have the capacity to understand things, and I'm saying how do the negative theologians know that there are things that are not within this capacity? What reason is there for assuming that this is so?

You can ask the counter question what reason is there for assuming that there are not things outside of the capacity of human understanding. I don't know of any compelling evidence to settle the question one way or the other, but I do have a reason for believing that all things are understandable provide we can gather knowledge about the things in question. My reason is it is useful to believe that we can understand. We should believe that we can understand things because it increase the chances we will learn something.

Negative theology as I understand it is saying that there are things that humans can never understand regardless of the available information. Even if you had complete, perfect knowledge of god, a human still would not be able to understand god.

If you are saying there are some things we may never be able to gather enough knowledge on to build an understanding, I do not disagree with that at all. All I'm say is that there is nothing that we could not understand provided we are able to obtain information sufficient to build an understanding. If I am understanding the negative theologists position right, they are saying it don't matter how much information humans can gather about god they will never understate god regardless of the available information about god.

[Varaj]

It's not that I think humans are special. It's that humans do have the capacity to understand things, and I'm saying how do the negative theologians know that there are things that are not within this capacity? What reason is there for assuming that this is so?

You can ask the counter question what reason is there for assuming that there are not things outside of the capacity of human understanding. I don't know of any compelling evidence to settle the question one way or the other, but I do have a reason for believing that all things are understandable provide we can gather knowledge about the things in question. My reason is it is useful to believe that we can understand. We should believe that we can understand things because it increase the chances we will learn something.

Negative theology as I understand it is saying that there are things that humans can never understand regardless of the available information. Even if you had complete, perfect knowledge of god, a human still would not be able to understand god.

If you are saying there are some things we may never be able to gather enough knowledge on to build an understanding, I do not disagree with that at all. All I'm say is that there is nothing that we could not understand provided we are able to obtain information sufficient to build an understanding. If I am understanding the negative theologists position right, they are saying it don't matter how much information humans can gather about god they will never understate god regardless of the available information about god.

Just to play devil's advocate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle for science on somethings we can't know. :devil:
Now to play devil's devil's advocate.
That shouldn't apply to the Christian God because he is unchanging, but it is what Taoist say about the Tao, to understand the Tao is to change the Tao making it so you don't understand the Tao.

[PWD]

Just to play devil's advocate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle for science on somethings we can't know. :devil:

Cute, but the uncertainty principle has to do with the inability to accurately *measure* two interdependent quantities at the same time, not an inability to understand them, their function, and how they're linked such that we could derive the uncertainty principle in the first place. :D

[Varaj]

Cute, but the uncertainty principle has to do with the inability to accurately *measure* two interdependent quantities at the same time, not an inability to understand them, their function, and how they're linked such that we could derive the uncertainty principle in the first place. :D

But it is something we can't know. If we try to know it we change it.

[PWD]

But it is something we can't know. If we try to know it we change it.

And yet we can understand it. And we can choose which one we want to know at any given time, we just can't know both at the same time. So we can alternate.

So it's not unknowable, it's make-a-choice-able. (Bastardizing english is fun!)

[Varaj]

And yet we can understand it. And we can choose which one we want to know at any given time, we just can't know both at the same time. So we can alternate.

So it's not unknowable, it's make-a-choice-able. (Bastardizing english is fun!)

You cannot know both at the same time. That bit of information is unknowable.

[Creamsteak]

I think his question is more "What makes humans so special?"

Pretty much spot on, though the word "so" seems to give it a slant, and apparently even in that form it gets misunderstood.

Let's just go back to the first question as it was asked. Seriously.

"Can a dog do this? Can a rock?"

[PWD]

You cannot know both at the same time. That bit of information is unknowable.

If I appear dogmatic on this, it's only because I am.

But a completely understandable datum which cannot be known all at the same time is rather different from the idea of a concept beyond understanding. It's not a good analogue. Is it illustrative? Sure, somewhat, but it doesn't hold up.

Anyhow, no need to continue the sidetrack :)

[Special K]

I think the "Why are humans special?" boils down to something like this, and it was the first thing I thought of when I read the first post in this thread.

Suppose a dog was given all the information in the world regarding physics. Or music. Would the dog then have the capacity to understand it? Probably not, due to the limits of the species of dog. This is pretty self-evident. Humans must also have certain limitations on our species based on the fact that we are just biological organisms, unless you believe that humans are a chosen creation of some sort of God. If you don't, then you have to submit that we are just the product of evolution with certain advantages and disadvantages. If we are just another species on the evolutionary timeline, then there must also be some things that, despite being given all the information in the world, we just can't understand. These things would probably be completely above our awareness. It wouldn't be like someone in school who can't remember all of his physics equations, it would be a like a dog who simply doesn't grasp the concept that physics exist, and doesn't care.

That having been said, I don't really care much more about the subject.

[Creamsteak]

I think the "Why are humans special?" boils down to something like this, and it was the first thing I thought of when I read the first post in this thread.

Suppose a dog was given all the information in the world regarding physics. Or music. Would the dog then have the capacity to understand it? Probably not, due to the limits of the species of dog. This is pretty self-evident. Humans must also have certain limitations on our species based on the fact that we are just biological organisms, unless you believe that humans are a chosen creation of some sort of God. If you don't, then you have to submit that we are just the product of evolution with certain advantages and disadvantages. If we are just another species on the evolutionary timeline, then there must also be some things that, despite being given all the information in the world, we just can't understand. These things would probably be completely above our awareness. It wouldn't be like someone in school who can't remember all of his physics equations, it would be a like a dog who simply doesn't grasp the concept that physics exist, and doesn't care.

That having been said, I don't really care much more about the subject.

That's a pretty good example, though I don't want to get bogged down in what exactly constitutes the "next step" for obvious reasons.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I went with the wikipedia def.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology

Actually I had to do that for transcendence too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28philosophy%29
The Kantien def is interesting, but I'm pretty sure that's NOT the one Hastur meant.

I was using the Wiki definition of negative theology and the traditional (religious) definition of transcendence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29)

But religion should not be the basis for deciding what things or acts are or are not moral.

I agree. It can be a great framework for teaching morality, but I firmly believe that if your interpretation of your religion encourages you to commit an act that you consider immoral than your interpretation is wrong (and you might want <Rev. Lovejoy> consider one of other major world religions - they're all pretty much the same </Rev. Lovejoy>

[GhostWolf69]

I'm atheist. In my first post I said I don't believe negative theology. What I am saying is if negative theology is accepted as true total agnosticism is the rational conclusion. The second part of my first post is taking negative theology to it's rational conclusions. (And I don't believe that these conclusions in themselves show that negative theology is false. I'm interested in the thinking of those who do believe in negative theology.)

In the first part of my post I state some of my reason for not believing negative theology. In another thread I might even give reasons for being atheist, hopefully leaving all 747's aside. :tongue:

My apologies. I read it as if you were going that way yourself. My misstake.

/wolf

[panther.jd]

Pretty much spot on, though the word "so" seems to give it a slant, and apparently even in that form it gets misunderstood.

Let's just go back to the first question as it was asked. Seriously.

"Can a dog do this? Can a rock?"No a rock can't do it. Dogs and other animals can't understand things as successfully as humans. As far as we know, nothing else on earth can do the understanding trick as well as humans. It may be that some other spices will rise in the future that will do the understanding trick better than humans, I don't know.

What understanding is, is the ability to build a successful model of something.

A successful model is a model of a thing process or whatever is being understood that makes successful predictions about it.

(The understanding doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to be useful. In fact the understand will probably never be perfect, but it is my assertion that the universe only contains things that if we could only collect enough information about them, we could build an understanding, a model, that is good enough to be useful. Also, I am not saying that it is actually possible to collect information on everything.)

You assume that there is no special reason for assuming that the universe only contains things we can make successful models of. I assume the opposite, that there is no special reason for assuming that the universe contains things we can't make a model of. If sufficient evidence is offered, I will revise my assumption. Until then, I think my stance is more useful then the opposite one.

With regards to negative theology, I can go back to my first post:

If you take the view: “I don't know, I can't prove or disprove the concept.” Is it reasonable to base other reasoning on a principle you can't prove or disprove?

Can you prove the assumption there are things humans can't understand? Just as I can't prove the idea that there are not things that humans can't understand I suspect that you can't prove that there are things that humans can't understand. At least no one has proven the concept. Many people have pointed out “How do you know the opposite is not true.” I don't “know” it (though I do believe it, but that's beside the point)., not knowing this for sure does not invalidate my point:

Given that the concept “there are things humans don't understand” has not been proven is it reasonable to base a whole system of reasoning on this point? I don't need to prove the opposite case to point out that if your whole line of reasoning is based on an unproven assumption, then your whole line of reasoning is based on a sandy foundation. Note that I have not based a line of reasoning on the concept "the universe contains noting that humans can't understand", I only said that the concept that negative theology is based on is unproven and asked if it was reasonable to base a whole line of reasoning on an unproven assumption.

Even if I were to accept the concept there are things humans can't understand, my second point would still stand:

Assumption Two: That god is one of the things beyond human comprehension.
Even if it were established that there are things that are in principle forever beyond human comprehension, what is the basis for including god in this category? This is assumed to be so, seemingly without reason. Why should god be one of things that are beyond human comprehension? How is it know that god falls into this category?

[panther.jd]

I agree. It can be a great framework for teaching morality, but I firmly believe that if your interpretation of your religion encourages you to commit an act that you consider immoral than your interpretation is wrong (and you might want <Rev. Lovejoy> consider one of other major world religions - they're all pretty much the same </Rev. Lovejoy>It seems we may disagree on the fundamental basis of reality, but I think we may be in agreement on the things that really matter.:)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

My problem with negative theology is that it seems to me, on what I've read so far, to be either equivalent to functional atheism or it's a dishonest dodge.

Why is it equivalent to functional atheism? Because *I* can agree with it. I can agree with the proposition that God is "not ignorant" for the same reason that I can agree with the proposition that the Mosad agents who framed Osama bin Laden or the US government officials who faked the moon landings were "not ignorant". I can agree that those things are "not [anything]" because I don't think they are real. Moreover, how does one get from negative theology to, for example, the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Why is it a dodge? Because very few "theisms" are purely based on "negative theology". They always have positive beliefs about God. Negative theology is the fortress of sophistry into which the theist retreats when pressed by scepticism. When the scepticism goes away, the theist opens up the gates and begins frolicking in the meadows of positive theology once again. If there's anything really new about the "new atheists", it's that they're planning a permanent siege. No more frolicking without a fight.

If we define theology is an attempt to formally talk about human experiences of transcendence, then there is a common thread that runs through human mystical experiences - regardless of creed of culture

That would be a very misleading definition of theology. It also ignores the question as to whether theology is a useful or misleading way of talking about experiences of transcendence.

These experiences are of something other, of something beyond comprehension. I think that's the "reason" you're looking for

Why do theistic mystics talk about God as being something utterly beyond comprehension? Because that's our experience of Him

The utterly bizarre thing is that when two mystics from completely different cultural backgrounds get together and start talking, after a few minutes of settling on a common language, they often find incredible common ground and insights that help each other along their respective paths. To use a personal example, the Daoist concept of the "Three Pure Ones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones), really helped me to get my head around the Christian concept of the Trinity

Now these experiences of transcendence may just be nothing more than (say) a misfiring reward mechanism and it's always important to keep that in mind.

But Sam Harris' argument accepts that but says that there's no need to believe bullshit to understand it. Indeed, he argues that the bullshit gets in the way. Interestingly, at least based on some of his statements, Harris' old boss the Dalia Lama agrees with him.

This is faith (or at least one wording of the concept): the working assumption that ones experiences have some external reality

Why make that assumption? If it's wrong it's going to set you after red herrings, as it probably has for the last 6000 years. Let's examine that question scientifically and rationally.

[Creamsteak]

No a rock can't do it. Dogs and other animals can't understand things as successfully as humans.

Finally an answer to a question.

As far as we know, nothing else on earth can do the understanding trick as well as humans.

Now hold up. You can't go that far yet. That's where the NEXT question comes from. You jump the gun to much. "How do you define human? How far are you willing to stretch that definition?" is the next game.

Does a human with pen and paper count? Does a human with a computer count? Does a genetically modified human qualify? Mnemonic enhancers? Transferred memories of experience? How modified can you go? What about an evolutionary change that would, by a definition in biology, make the species non-human? Do they still count?

These are important traits for measuring this assumption. If you rule them all out, or allow all of them, the scope changes.

You assume that there is no special reason for assuming that the universe only contains things we can make successful models of.

You're presuming something that I don't need to. I have not introduced that assumption. I'm not arguing with you so much as trying to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I assume the opposite, that there is no special reason for assuming that the universe contains things we can't make a model of. If sufficient evidence is offered, I will revise my assumption. Until then, I think my stance is more useful then the opposite one.

Ok, I don't think any of this is useful. Hense why in my first post I said this was essentially going to be a quagmire.

Even if I were to accept the concept there are things humans can't understand, my second point would still stand:

I'm not going to touch the second 'assumption' with a hundred foot pole. I don't care one bit about the god angle. Whether it stands or not is rather irrelevant to the first assumption.

[panther.jd]

Now hold up. You can't go that far yet. That's where the NEXT question comes from. You jump the gun to much. "How do you define human? How far are you willing to stretch that definition?" is the next game.

Does a human with pen and paper count? Does a human with a computer count? Does a genetically modified human qualify? Mnemonic enhancers? Transferred memories of experience? How modified can you go? What about an evolutionary change that would, by a definition in biology, make the species non-human? Do they still count?

These are important traits for measuring this assumption. If you rule them all out, or allow all of them, the scope changes.Humans, as in human kind the collective group and the tools they have made. Genetically modified humans, the next species etc do not seem to be currently available, but I would say that if such does come to exist they could be better at understanding than what is possible now.

[panther.jd]

Hey, now that I think about it, all I said in the first post was that assuming that things exist that humans can't understand is an unfounded assumption. I didn't even say that humans could understand everything in the first post. O well, interesting side topic anyway.

[Varaj]

Hey, now that I think about it, all I said in the first post was that assuming that things exist that humans can't understand is an unfounded assumption. I didn't even say that humans could understand everything in the first post. O well, interesting side topic anyway.

Religion is kind of based on unfounded assumptions. Not sure why the unfounded assumption that humans can't truly understand God is different than the unfounded assumption there is a God. ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hey, now that I think about it, all I said in the first post was that assuming that things exist that humans can't understand is an unfounded assumption. I didn't even say that humans could understand everything in the first post. O well, interesting side topic anyway.

Not to be too pedantic, doesn't it depend on what you mean by "understand"? We can't currently intuitively understand quantum physics, but we understand it technically and mathematically sufficiently to make it do amazing things. Yes, Richard Freyerman said that if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand "quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory"; but he also pointed out that quantum yields predictions of such startling accuracy that they're the equivalent to predicting the distance between the distance between LA and New York to the accuracy of the breadth of a human hair.

As primates that evolved in "middle world" our direct sense organs aren't calibrated to perceive the very big or very small and our brains aren't calibrated to intuitively understand these things. But that's like saying that humans can't fly. Yes they can, if you have the "prosthesis" of an aircraft. Mathematics and logic and the scientific method are our intellectual prostheses and they've proved themselves to be startlingly powerful.

[Varaj]

Not to be too pedantic, doesn't it depend on what you mean by "understand"? We can't currently intuitively understand quantum physics, but we understand it technically and mathematically sufficiently to make it do amazing things. Yes, Richard Freyerman said that if you think you udnerstand quantum theory, you don't udnerstand q

Interestingly enough current quantum theory requires either a god or a multiverse. The math doesn't care which.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Interestingly enough current quantum theory requires either a god or a multiverse. The math doesn't care which.

I think I understand why it might require a multiverse, but why would it require a God? Are we saying there needs to be "universal observer" or something?

[Varaj]

I think I understand why it might require a multiverse, but why would it require a God? Are we saying there needs to be "universal observer" or something?

Yup, doesn't have to be an intelligent god, just a universal observer.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yup, doesn't have to be an intelligent god, just a universal observer.

But doesn't that mean it has to be at least conscious?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

If it the universal observer has to be conscious, then I think it's pretty clearly less likely than the multiverse hypothesis, for "ultimate 747" reasons. Consciousnesses are complex things, which are thus highly unlikely to exist. An infinite chaotic profusion of bubble universes, OTOH, isn't complex in the technical meaning of the term.

Of course, the other possible explanation is simulism. But that just pushes the problem back another level because we then have to explain the physics of the real universe in which this simulated universe is being run. Unless, of course, it's turtles all the way down...

[Varaj]

But doesn't that mean it has to be at least conscious?

I don't believe so.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I don't believe so.

How can something observe without being conscious?

Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the word "observe"?

[Varaj]

How can something observe without being conscious?

Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the word "observe"?

My understanding is the ability to record a measurement is all that is required. And that observer has to be outside the universe.

[AZRogue]

If I hear anything more about the 747 arguement like it's some great revelation I think I'll gouge out my left eye (my right eye has better vision) with a rosary.

[panther.jd]

If I hear anything more about the 747 arguement like it's some great revelation I think I'll gouge out my left eye (my right eye has better vision) with a rosary.Can you post the pics?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

If I hear anything more about the 747 arguement like it's some great revelation I think I'll gouge out my left eye (my right eye has better vision) with a rosary.

Who's speaking of it as a great revelation? It's been around since Hume (and we're still waiting to hear it answered). But, if you're faced with two explanations for the quantum data, one invoking a consciousness (which it seems it doesn't, but it did seem that way at the time I brought it up) and one that doesn't, that old argument (and its evolutionary update) is centrally relevant.

Can you post the pics?

I endorse that message.

My understanding is the ability to record a measurement is all that is required. And that observer has to be outside the universe.

Ok, we've established that molecules can "count", so that's plausible.

BUT, we also have leading researchers who argue that the only difference between a molecule that can count and a human brain is a matter of quantity and networking. In other words, that consciousness is an illusion.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

All of this seems to me to be a long way from the issue of whether negative theology is a crock of shit...

[AZRogue]

Can you post the pics?

Of course, though it may take a while. I can't see shit.

[Xavier Lang]

Yup, doesn't have to be an intelligent god, just a universal observer.

I wonder if Math can be an observer. Or maybe that line of questioning will just hurt my brain and I should stop.

[Eliezer]

Assumption One: That there are things beyond human comprehension.[/B]
It makes the assumption that there are things which NO HUMAN can ever understand. I disagree 100%

It has not been shown that this is the case, that there are things which can not, in principle, ever be understood by any human. I can think of no way to even falsify the principle, nor do I know of any reasonable proof that it is the case. In short, there is no reason to suppose that it is true.


Panther, your concern is a valid one, but my first response on reading this is to recall that one of the huge differences between an adult and a teenager is that the teenager has an enormously tough time understanding that the parent (adult) can know something the teenager doesn't know or that the parent (adult) can know something that the teenager can't appreciate existing let alone not knowing they don't know.

From a logical perspective it was Socrates that declared that the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing. The relevance of this is that religion asks the same thing that Socrates asked in assuming you don't know as much as you think you know about God. For many it is supposed to be a revelatory process. More than one person has exclaimed a sentiment to the affect that if people would drop their assumptions about God they'd learn a lot more about what he is like.

The assumption that a person can't know something is something I run into all the time. I assume that some people can't understand quantum mechanics, mostly because they don't know enough mathematics. Could they learn the math and then learn the science. Sure, most people are probably capable of it, but it doesn't change the fact that at there current state of learning they can't understand quantum mechanics. Same thing happens with teenagers except they are blind to the things they don't know in many situations and are unaware that such a body of knowledge exists.

So from a theistic standpoint the same standard applies. Some knowledge is pre-requisite to understanding and knowing god.

But like I said at the beginning, the assumptions you deal with are ones that don't apply to my theology in the spirit you've presented them.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

My problem with negative theology is that it seems to me, on what I've read so far, to be either equivalent to functional atheism or it's a dishonest dodge.

Read more

Moreover, how does one get from negative theology to, for example, the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Well CS Lewis does it in the second half of Miracles (you can skim through much of the first half, he's attempting a sociological argument for the existence of God, which the New Atheists, collectively, have quite neatly refuted).

"Honest to God" is another famous treatment, but I'd need to re-read it if you want to press me on its arguments

Why is it a dodge? Because very few "theisms" are purely based on "negative theology". They always have positive beliefs about God. Negative theology is the fortress of sophistry into which the theist retreats when pressed by scepticism.

In chapter 10 of Miracles, Lewis argues that the negative theology comes first. We experience God as something completely "other" and then use the positive metaphors to describe our experiences to each other. The distinction between literal and metaphorical is a modern development in language (and remember he was a linguist before he was a Christian)

When the scepticism goes away, the theist opens up the gates and begins frolicking in the meadows of positive theology once again.

Wrong-diddily-wrong-wrong. Any positive statements about God are metaphors

Positive theology is usually called dogmatic theology and is usually used to describe the formal examination of doctrinal statements about a God whose existence is assumed. Is this the sense in which you're using the phrase?

That would be a very misleading definition of theology.

From theos and logos. "Words about God". Talking about transcendence

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hastur, I notice you failed to quote or address the critical passage from my post. Let me put it another way: Give me a statement of "negative theology" with which a practical atheist could disagree. So far, I haven't found one.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Give me a statement of "negative theology" with which a practical atheist could disagree. So far, I haven't found one.

Jehovah: "I am the one who is."

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Jehovah: "I am the one who is."

How is that negative theology? It looks like a *positive* statement to me.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

How is that negative theology? It looks like a *positive* statement to me.

Funny, that wasn't the response I was expecting.

I've always seen Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) and other Tetragrammaton-related terms described as negative descriptions, but I'm right at my limit of my knowledge here. I want to look at the Jewish roots of my faith in more detail, but that's going to have to wait for a couple of months

To backtrack a little, I'm pretty sure that you don't agree really with statements such as "God is not ignorant" because you don't believe in God - the word has no meaning to you. It think it really depends on what the meaning of "is" is :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Funny, that wasn't the response I was expecting.

I've always seen Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) and other Tetragrammaton-related terms described as negative descriptions, but I'm right at my limit of my knowledge here. I want to look at the Jewish roots of my faith in more detail, but that's going to have to wait for a couple of months

To backtrack a little, I'm pretty sure that you don't agree really with statements such as "God is not ignorant" because you don't believe in God - the word has no meaning to you. It think it really depends on what the meaning of "is" is :)

If so, then your "negative theology" is really just a disguised positive theology. You're making a positive statement about God hidden as an implication in your negative statement. I can agree that the government officials who faked the moon landing are "not stupid" because I think they were not anything. What you say is that's not fair because its implicit in your statement that there really is a God. At which point I say "gotcha".

If all you have is negative theology, you aren't disagreeing with atheists. If you do have more, no matter how implicit, you have to face the argument. No frolicing in the meadow for you anymore, this siege is permanent.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

You're making a positive statement about God hidden as an implication in your negative statement.

Well duh! The fact that you can only describe God using metaphor is scarcely a revelation. Any positive statements about God are paradoxes. You have to keep in mind when saying that God is like something that He is also unlike it - "The Lord is my Shepherd" doesn't mean He's got a crook and a herd of woolly things that go "bah".

This is all very undergraduate stuff, Atticus. You live in a university town, so picking up an introductory text on theology wouldn't be a chore. Your education is not really my responsibility

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Well duh! The fact that you can only describe God using metaphor is scarcely a revelation. Any positive statements about God are paradoxes. You have to keep in mind when saying that God is like something that He is also unlike it - "The Lord is my Shepherd" doesn't mean He's got a crook and a herd of woolly things that go "bah".


Then you can't appeal to negative theology to sidestep arguments against God (like the 747). No. More. Frolicking.

[Special K]

I can't wait until the atheist siege on religion finally succeeds so we can sit back and enjoy the spoils of victory.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I can't wait until the atheist siege on religion finally succeeds so we can sit back and enjoy the spoils of victory.

I think we can all agree that that is where my analogy breaks down.

[Varaj]

I think we can all agree that that is where my analogy breaks down.

Does that mean no pillaging? :(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Does that mean no pillaging? :(

No pillaging, no breaching the walls, no attacks. We're just going to sit there outside the walls and makes sure they stay inside. :)

[Varaj]

No pillaging, no breaching the walls, no attacks. We're just going to sit there outside the walls and makes sure they stay inside. :)

Well damn. I'm confused on what side of the wall I should be on. I'm a very spiritual man* but don't want faith used in public policy making.

*But my faith may actually be ok with new atheists since I go with the universe has/will evolved a god not that god made the universe.

*More or less an animist.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Well damn. I'm confused on what side of the wall I should be on. I'm a very spiritual man* but don't want faith used in public policy making.

*But my faith may actually be ok with new atheists since I go with the universe has/will evolved a god not that god made the universe.

*More or less an animist.

That makes you a Sponizian pantheist (which Dawkins has no problem) or an Einsteinian deist (ditto).

[AZRogue]

I haven't been able to find much on the subject, but what I did find does make me think that I probably am very close to a Jeffersonian deist. Hopefully I can find more literature on the subject.

[panther.jd]

After carefully thinking this over, I have come to the conclusion that negative theology is something that people believe in by faith (that is faith as in the without evidence meaning).

No one explained or presented any evidence that shows that the premises of negative theology are necessarily true. Nor I have I found any such evidence.

As far as I can tell, believing in negative theology is equivalent to believing in any other religious precept, in that it is an act of faith.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

After carefully thinking this over, I have come to the conclusion that negative theology is something that people believe in by faith (that is faith as in the without evidence meaning).

No one explained or presented any evidence that shows that the premises of negative theology are necessarily true. Nor I have I found any such evidence.

As far as I can tell, believing in negative theology is equivalent to believing in any other religious precept, in that it is an act of faith.

By faith I take it you mean a belief held without evidence or or on insufficient evidence?

If so, I agree - but they seem very reluctant to admit that.

[Special K]

I disagree. Most believers seem all-too-ready to admit that the belief in God is one based on faith.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I disagree. Most believers seem all-too-ready to admit that the belief in God is one based on faith.

Except they don't define faith as "belief without evidence or or on insufficient evidence". Many seem reluctant to face up to the consequences of that. r perhaps my long running debates with Hastur have made me see him as representative when he is not.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Except they don't define faith as "belief without evidence or or on insufficient evidence". Many seem reluctant to face up to the consequences of that. r perhaps my long running debates with Hastur have made me see him as representative when he is not.

Hey! Keep it in the right thread!

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Here's a Google book search link (http://books.google.com/books?id=tHlY94UWi3UC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=Kataphatic+theology&source=web&ots=v1y_AgbsZu&sig=kbb4YCvK7hXOpL6h2eecdRyrc0U#PPA193,M1) that leads to an actual theological textbook (so you don't have to sully your hands by picking one up, Atticus) on the differences between positive and negative theology (or to use the proper terms apophatic and kataphatic)

I hope it's helpful