Science proves apophatic theology

[pam69ur]

it is arued in this book that science proves apophatic theologies claims that god/reality are ineffable

PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES IN MYSTICAL THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...y/theology.pdf

Mystical theology and science share a common understanding in regard to the limitations and hindrance of language in unlocking reality. Both would agree that language falsifies reality. It falsifies it by imposing limits to the real. It falsifies it by imposing human categories and classifications to the real. For both realities is beyond words and human concepts. Reality transcends language. Language in fact hinders a true understanding of the real. What language does is create what the Hindus’ call Maya. Namely a conventional reality based upon language -a world of appearances and forms of illusion or deception generated by a falsifying language which an unenlightened mind takes as the only reality. For the physicist Bohr language is a barrier to understanding reality Dante like Lao Tzu, Pseudo-Dionysius St Augustine (354-430), St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) Zen and many forms of Eastern mysticism knew the simultaneous inapplicability and inevitability of human language when talking of reality or God and his attributes and domains. Whether the reality as investigated by science is really just another name for God or the reality investigated by science is just a reality and not the God of religion. In other words is God just another name for reality or is reality just another name for God is by the by. What is important is this reality/God as understood by both science and theology is beyond the ability of human language –and thus intellect to grasp

[Aristoddler]

If god and reality are ineffable...then I guess there's nothing to talk about.

Sometimes, I find myself doubting the intellect of man when he reasons these things.
Sometimes, I find that these things are best left unreasonable.

[boagie]

Hi guys

The lanuage of many traditional western religions through lanuage have a pretty clear impression of God it seems to me,he has all the characteristics of a not to pleasant humanity.The one thing this type of religion does to great effect is to close the door on wonder,when you have ceased to wonder at the mystery of the world and the wonder of your own being it seems to me spirituality is lost.

[Peter]

Both Kant and his successor Schopenhauer argued that ultimate reality is beyond our experience and beyond the possibility of knowledge, though they did not discuss this in terms of language but rather as "categories of understanding".

A basic point is that if you postulate an ultimate reality which is beyond our reach then it is just that - beyond our reach. Meanwhile we have to get on with living our lives in the reality which we know and which is within our reach. As a matter of survival we are forced to build up a knowledge of reality as it is known to the senses and for this task the methods of science are unquestionably superior to those of theology.

Peter

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Peter

A basic point is that if you postulate an ultimate reality which is beyond our reach then it is just that - beyond our reach. Meanwhile we have to get on with living our lives in the reality which we know and which is within our reach. As a matter of survival we are forced to build up a knowledge of reality as it is known to the senses and for this task the methods of science are unquestionably superior to those of theology.
Peter

Hi peter. I agree that what you said makes plenty of sense. I'm not trying to say one way or another right now, but I just wanted to point out that science will only be proved "unquestionably superior" if indeed there is no God/Creator, or he doesn't expect us to believe in him. This doesn't prove you wrong of course, it's just the other side of the coin.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Hi peter. I agree that what you said makes plenty of sense. I'm not trying to say one way or another right now, but I just wanted to point out that science will only be proved "unquestionably superior" if indeed there is no God/Creator, or he doesn't expect us to believe in him. This doesn't prove you wrong of course, it's just the other side of the coin.

Thanks for the comment, NeitherExtreme. I don't think I can go along with it. I said that the methods of science are unquestionably superior for the purpose of building up knowledge of the world which is revealed to us by the senses and in which we live. You could believe in a transcendant God while accepting that investigation of the physical world is best done using the methods of science.

Peter

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Peter

Thanks for the comment, NeitherExtreme. I don't think I can go along with it. I said that the methods of science are unquestionably superior for the purpose of building up knowledge of the world which is revealed to us by the senses and in which we live. You could believe in a transcendant God while accepting that investigation of the physical world is best done using the methods of science.

Peter

Point taken. I guess I should have said that science that excludes the possiblity of "an ultimate reality which is beyond our reach" is in jepordy of comming to wrong conclusions if there is such a reality. I personally think that anyone's interpretation of "fact" will be influenced by some "unprovable" assumtions that make up their world-view. I think this is just an inescapable part of the human experience.

For what its worth, this "apophatic thoelogy" seems to be guilty of some other extreme, and makes precious little sense to me...

[Peter]

Anyone who "excludes the possibility of an ultimate reality which is beyond our reach" is not engaged in science but in some kind of dogmatism. Ultimate reality may be beyond our reach (ie understanding) or it may not. At present we cannot be sure since we lack evidence. My own inclination is to expect that there are elements of reality which are beyond our comprehension if only because our brains and minds evolved to fulfill certain functions and are therefore likely to be unsuited to understanding events and processes which are remote from us. In fact, in one respect we may already have reached the frontier of what is comprehensible - in relation to quantum physics. No one really understands some of the more exotic findings of this discipline (eg that the same electron can pass through two spatially separated gaps in a screen at the same time; that subatomic particles appear to take up definite positions only when they are observed; that spatially separated particles appear to maintain some kind of non-spatial "entanglement"). It appears to me that those engaged in quantum physics merely note their findings rather than understand them.

On the other hand, as a prerequisite for undertaking any quest for knowledge we need to entertain at least the hope that the subject matter will prove to be comprehensible - otherwise there would be little point in doing philosophy and science rather than crossword puzzles! The best tactic, I would suggest, is to assume that reality is comprehensible until it is found to be otherwise.

Talking of "unprovable assumptions", I have found that those who proclaim loudly that ultimate reality is beyond our understanding are often pretty quick to make definite assertions about it - if not a grey old man with a beard then at least that it consists of an intelligent designer prone to intervening in the processes of the universe. There seems to be a strong urge to fill in any gap in our knowledge with an anthropomorphic projection of our own priorities and ways of thinking. We should resist this urge until evidence becomes available. It is better to admit our ignorance than to proclaim an error.

Peter

[Doorsopen]

Language defines reality. According to every world religion it CREATES reality. We construct our understanding by defining sets of phenomenon. It seems that transient states of being become manifest reality merely by perception:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." John 1:1

"Every creature is a word of God" Meister Eckhart

"... the name is nothing but a changing combination of physical and psychical phenomena, and has no real existence in itself." - from 'The Five Groups of Existence, Buddha, The Word 500 BC

"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them." from the Koran (17:36)

FINALLY:
And the Lord said, behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they will begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."



PS Shame on Boagie for naysaying the status of spirituality! Religion has a really bad rep at the moment (perhaps with just cause) but I assure him transcendence is happening without the church.

PPS
Can anyone refer me to a discussion concerning the enormous empty space that has been discovered in the Universe? Woud like to explore the concept and the nature of the space that encloses a void--- seems like a good place to explore the threshold between existence and non-existence.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Peter

Talking of "unprovable assumptions", I have found that those who proclaim loudly that ultimate reality is beyond our understanding are often pretty quick to make definite assertions about it - if not a grey old man with a beard then at least that it consists of an intelligent designer prone to intervening in the processes of the universe. There seems to be a strong urge to fill in any gap in our knowledge with an anthropomorphic projection of our own priorities and ways of thinking. We should resist this urge until evidence becomes available. It is better to admit our ignorance than to proclaim an error.

Hehe, you would probalby laugh if you knew all the scenerios I've imagined to explain the nature of the "outside source" (as I call it during discussions such as this) that must have influenced our universe, based on the little that we "know" about it. IMO, one of the funnier and more interesting scenerios that I've thought of is that our whole universes could be a science experiment on Entropy, being designed by some powerful scientists (or maybe just young students) who exist in a universe not controlled by entropy. On the more serious side, there was a time when I felt that the most logical solution that I could come to was that there was an omnipotent being who was pure evil, and "good" was only introduced so that pain could be more clearly experienced, and that this being was behind all religions and using them to confuse humanity.

I have indeed come to some beliefs (things I actually believe), and these have been based on both observation and experience. At the same time, I realize that they are not imperically provable.

Here's a few ideas i've had, of course based on the idea that nature could not have created the present universe in general, and life in particular:

If there is an "outside source" that in essence created the universe and life, it must be very powerful, and fully capable of making itself known in any way that it chooses. The fact that this source (for the most part IMO) does not clearly (imperically) present itself most likely means that it is either:
-indifferent towards us (unlikely IMO if it created us)
-that it dislikes us (in which case we are all in trouble)
-that it is studying us (meaning we are basically lab rats)
-that it wants us to seek after the knowledge of it (which IMO perfectly fits with our desire to seek for truth. IMO this scenerio would make perfect sense if this "source" created us).