quote:

---

I wonder if our whole Western approach to these GOD questions is just off!? I'm not advocating we discard reason or cease to persist in asking rational questions, but rather, I'm wondering if there isn't a more balanced way to approach these questions...and even question our own questions.

---

Could you do me a favor and give your person view of the "balanced" way?


Feeling gully,


PS: Just as a facile answer to the subject question: No, reason is not sufficient for knowing God. If that were the case then God definitely wouldn't be a person in any sense of the word. Person-to-person relations by their very nature go beyond rationality.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.



Edited by - mephi2K on 01/17/2002 7:40:22 PM

quote:

---

that sounds very different from the Eastern Orthodox things I've read

---

quote:

---

When you use the term "mystical" do you mean mystical like Deepak Chopra or mystical like the Kabalists or mystical like the Buddhists?

---

quote:

---

And yet we persist in trying to conceive of God and "pin God down" rationally. The thread "Evil: Theodicy in All It's Forms" seems to demonstate this problem, as our reason breaks down in trying to explain and conceive of God in such terms.

---

quote:

---

In mathematics, when a finite equation is graphed such that it intersects with an equation containing an infinite component, that number is an "irrational" number...ie, one that cannot exist

---

quote:

---

We are in essential agreement here – but I’m then wondering why you think the "law of non-contradiction" is "overly western." The Incarnation is not a contradiciton, because we can articulate a definition of God that doesn’t rule out being a human, and a definition of human that does not rule out being God. Neither is the Trinity a contradiction, because we are not saying "there is one and three gods" but "there is one God who exists in three persons" – and can specify the distinction between "God" and "person" in this sentence. Neither is a contradiction to say that a photon is both a wave and a particle, for we can specify the differing conditions under which it exemplifies wave-like characteristics and particle-like characteristics.

Yet all these a are paradoxes, for while the two terms involved don’t logically cancel each other out, neither do we have a clear understanding of how they fit together.

---

and...

quote:

---

The law of non-contradiction can’t comprehend all of reality, to be sure. But that doesn’t mean that the reality it can’t encompass is contradictory, any more than the fact that I can’t see all sides of a mountain at once entails that the sides I can’t at present view are non-mountainous. Follow?

---

I noticed how you separated contradictions from paradoxes. PLEASE tell me that you see the very important implications. If what you are saying is true, then it really comes down to PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT REALITY. One man's contradiction is another man's "paradox", GIVEN the presuppositional ideas held by each. In my Antimony post I say this:

"When discussing the ideas of mystery, paradox, antimony, and contradiction, like beauty, IT'S ALL ULTIMATELY IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER!"

What I feel is REALLY interesting is that, when it comes down to it, your argumentation is the same all around. For free will. Warfare worldview. Everything. You even apply it to the Law of Non-Contradiction! Wow. Your line of thinking is this...

"Sure, we can accept THAT presupposition, but what's to stop us from accepting THIS one...especially when THIS one may give us more explanatory power for things later."

Really think about our interactions. This is what it's come down to the majority of the time. But the problem is that the acceptance and/or denial of certain presuppositions does NOT take place in a vaccuum. There are often many reasons why some people will accept certain presupps and deny others. And RARELY is this highly subjective part of the whole discussion brought out. I believe our personalities, experiences, and other stuff REALLY come to bear on this stuff. Don't believe me? Just ask 10 random people to tell you what "love" entails. Not only that but the "evidence" that is used to give "explanatory power" is often based on questions that ARISE from the very presuppositions being held in the first place. Can we say "circularity"?


So, if rationality as a WHOLE can be seen in some type of "foundationalist" light (not the narrow Enlightenment type) where presuppositions are king, how can we honestly deal with the "mystery vs contradiction" idea in theological discussion...where it is so prevalent? What do you think, Doc?


This felt good.

Later,


Edited by - mephi2K on 01/21/2002 12:19:42 PM