Mordecai Kaplan and Transnaturalism (ritual, reject, mystic, attend, myth)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JonM

It's sort of the definition of the scientific method.

No, it is not, but that is not relevant to this thread.

Originally Posted by JonM

I think it's a semantic difference. My faith is that God gave us powers of reason with which we can gain an ever-increasing understanding of Him, and your faith is that our ability to reason will give us an ever-increasing understanding of our corporeal reality. I really think that's just a vocabulary difference. The panentheistic God is our corporeal reality, including our powers of reason which we use to understand Him/it.

God talk is either superfluous or meaningful - even if only psychologically meaningful.

Furthermore, one filters ones perceptions through whatever Meta-narrative one chooses. It is not by accident that your God-talk leads you to speak of "Jewish contact with the divine" and your incredible statement that

This is the first event of this kind that I have ever had, and you and I can explain it away all we want, but I would never have been able to pull something like that out of my subconscious.

My guess is that if I poke and prod long enough I'll discover a deeply embedded teleology.

[JonM]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

God talk is either superfluous or meaningful - even if only psychologically meaningful.

Furthermore, one filters ones perceptions through whatever Meta-narrative one chooses. It is not by accident that your God-talk leads you to speak of "Jewish contact with the divine" and your incredible statement that

This is the first event of this kind that I have ever had, and you and I can explain it away all we want, but I would never have been able to pull something like that out of my subconscious.

I agree. Like I said, I believe the difference between you and me is semantic. I find that my "God-talk" is more useful to me for purely natural, rational reasons than my previous narratives, and you disagree.

As for the incredibility of my statement, due to the nature of my understanding of God, my claim is no more incredible than any hard to believe but rationally explicable claim, like if you were to tell me that you were actually Brad Pitt in real life. My God is not supernatural. I don't believe in supernatural. I believe in God, and the God I believe in is supremely natural. Thus, the explanation that God sent me an angel in my dream is as rational to me, based on my life experience, as your explanation that it emerged from my subconscious is to you.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

My guess is that if I poke and prod long enough I'll discover a deeply embedded teleology.

I don't think the poking and prodding is really necessary. I'll just tell you: I believe in God because I have a deeply embedded teleology. It's based on my rational understanding of the Universe, as your naturalistic understanding is based on yours. I'm not poking and prodding at you to find out where your understanding came from. I believe you.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JonM

Like I said, I believe the difference between you and me is semantic. I find that my "God-talk" is more useful to me for purely natural, rational reasons ...

Originally Posted by JonM

I don't think the poking and prodding is really necessary. I'll just tell you: I believe in God because I have a deeply embedded teleology.

On the basis of this (and this alone) the difference between you and I is fundamental. In my opinion, you abuse naturalism, distorting it to accomodate your teleology.

[JonM]

Well, perhaps transnaturalism feels like distortion and abuse to naturalists, but to me, the only difference is that I call the fact that the Universe is the way it is evidence of ultimately incomprehensible divine purpose, and you call it ultimately incomprehensible... er... not-divine purpose? The working out of observable scientific phenomena on an infinite scale? Total chaos? Something. Something I am inspired to call God, and something you are not inspired to call God, but ultimately the same thing.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JonM

Something. Something I am inspired to call God, and something you are not inspired to call God, but ultimately the same thing.

NO, JonM, it is not at all the same thing. Yours is a theology open to divine intervention and, thereby, no more naturalist than that which relies on magical spirits. So, for example ...

Teleology stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism, and both ask questions separate from the questions of science. While reductionist science investigates natural laws and phenomena, Philosophical naturalism and teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an organizing principle behind those natural laws and phenonema. Philosophical naturalism asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts that there are. [Wikipedia]

The difference between naturalistic and supernaturalistic views in Western philosophy might best be understood by noting that the former favors mechanistic explanations, while the latter favors teleological ones. Mechanistic explanations are dysteleological, i.e., they make no reference to purposes or design, except metaphorically as in biology (e.g., the heart was designed to pump blood). [Skeptics Dictionary]

Your worldview no doubt worls for you. It may even be correct. It still remains a theology in naturalist drag.

[JonM]

Okay then. I was beginning to grow afraid of agreeing with you. Of course its a theology. I believe in God. Do you have these conversations with every theist on Religious Forums?

[Feathers in Hair]

Hi, guys! Just to step in with a friendly reminder, please keep the debate in the debate section. (Also, Religious Forums is proud to offer debate and discussion to everyone, including those who are not theists.)

[JonM]

Oh, we're done. Don't worry. If I can't expect my beliefs to be granted to me, I'm done debating.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JonM

How familiar are you with Spinoza's epistemology?

Originally Posted by JonM

Well, he's also the Jewish founder of panentheism. He makes an argument similar to mine (though obviously way better) that is an early form of transnaturalism.

Originally Posted by JonM

I believe in God because I have a deeply embedded teleology.

Spinoza's Refutation of Teleology

by Sam Ghandchi

I. Introduction

Spinoza's refutation of teleology is one of the characteristic features of his metaphysics which differentiates him from the Eastern pantheists. Unfortunately, this fact has not received enough attention from commentators who have tried to compare his philosophy with Eastern pantheism. The first part of this paper focuses on Spinoza's arguments against the main sources of teleology in the thought of Eastern mystics. It is interesting to see how Spinoza's position, gives rise to rationalism, rather than mysticism, in his thought. The next three parts of this paper examine the second, first, and third points of Spinoza's appraisal of final causes. Spinoza writes:

"Now all the prejudices which I intend to mention here turn on this one point, the widespread belief among men that all things in Nature are like themselves in acting with an end in view. Indeed, they hold it as certain that God himself directs everything for man's sake and has made man so that he should worship God. So this is the first point I shall consider, seeking the reason why most people are victims of this prejudice and why all are so naturally disposed to accept it. Secondly, I shall demonstrate its falsity; and lastly I shall show how it has been the source of misconceptions about good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like [Ibid., p.57]." [my emphasis- S.G.]

The final part of this paper discusses Spinoza's alternative for encountering the philosophical dilemmas which were formerly dealt with by final causes. His doctrine of God's fatalistic necessity is examined in that section.
Spinoza

Originally Posted by JonM

If I can't expect my beliefs to be granted to me, I'm done debating.

No one is refusing to grant you your beliefs, no matter how divergent from naturalism and/or Spinoza.