Posted on 11/14/2004 8:45:23 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
Great insight, marron. It strikes me as quite similar to Newton's insight regarding the sensorium Dei.
Perhaps these "unchanging rules" have no meaning outside of 4D spacetime because they are the means of 4D spacetime coming into existence, the principles that cause space, time and matter to come into existence. In other words, they are designed as the principles by which the world is incarnated. In other words, they are "prior" to spacetime; without a physical universe in which to express, they have no meaning for us; for without them, we would not be here in the first place to have an opinion of the matter. I don't know if that makes any sense! :^)
But now we are getting into the thorny problem of "anthropocentrism," aren't we? I'm too tuckered out to tackle that one tonight. Suffice it to say here that I don't know what conceivable alternative to anthropomorphism -- which scientists love to "tsk-tsk" -- there is.
Thank you oh so much for your perceptive reply, marron!
Ping to #122!
The analogy of mind to nature is illustrated by space and time; it is often confused with the analogy of mankind to divinity. Plato and Augustine sometimes seem to confuse the two--perhaps Augustine more so--by adopting mathematics as analogous to both.
A step out of this quagmire is to recognize the kinds of analogies that are involved. The ontological argument is fair as far as it goes, but it only points to the creative design. It's an induction shared by Solomon and Aristotle alike and was appealing to Philo as Logos doctrine. Does it go much further, by itself and apart from any other addition?
Democritus was one of the first to indicate some analogy from the outside order to an interior within humankind: a microcosmos as image of the macrocosmos. Often these arguments from analogy were based on a kinship or commonality (so with Plato). The nature analogy was favored by the Stoics. Later in the Greek east Gregory of Nyssa, following the Platonic distinction between the physic and pneumatic parts of the human soul, admits this nature analogy of the micro-macro only to a point:
How mean and how unworthy of the majesty of man are the fancies of some heathen writers, who magnify humanity, as they suposed, by their comparison of it to this world! for they say that man is a little world, composed of the same elements with the universe. Those who bestow on human nature such praise as this by a high-sounding name, forget that they are dignifying man with the attributes of the gnat and the mouse: for they too are composed of these four elements,--because assuredly about the animated nature of every existing thing we behold a part, greater or less, of these elements without which it is not natural that any sensitive being should exist.
And yet at the other end, theological conceptions would fare no better. God was the antinomy of creation, the negation of being etc. FWIW
Hello cornelis! Truly I'm glad to see you again, it's been a while.
WRT the above italics: The statement does not immediately convey meaning for me; suggesting that I'm going to have to think on it for a bit more. Yet certainly, it is most provocative. And it seems to fit very well into this discussion.
When I referred to anthropocentrism in the earlier post, my reference was to the view of modern science regarding certain epistemological issues potentially affecting the integrity of its method. One gathers that in some scientific quarters, anthropocentrist thinking is considered a very bad methodological error, or at least very bad form. Yet it seems anthropocentrism is practically unavoidable, since all thinking of which we are aware is taking place in the human mind, including all scientific thinking. The elucidation of natural law depends on human observation and reasoning. I don't see any practical way to "take the man out" in such situations.
On the other hand, it is said that our universe gives the appearance, at least, of having been "fine-tuned" for the purpose of generating and supporting intelligent, carbon-based lifeforms such as we are. That'll give the materialists the hives every time; but there are people walking around today who notice such things, and say so.
Which is to say that, at the scale of man and at the scale of the universe, anthropocentrism seems somehow strangely bound up with natural reality. It would be very interesting to explore these points further.
And so I thank you for providing a potentially new "window" from which to view these matters. Thank you so much for your fine post, cornelis.
The fact that we are all here in the now, means that God's plan is still in motion. We've been given a purpose by God, it is our job to serve out His purpose granted to us by Him, even if that purpose is to help our fellow man.
Expanding further on your supposing. Just suppose God is a black female. That would ruffle the feathers of quite a few racist mysoginistic pigs.
Yes, please realize pbrown and I were having a little fun at the time of my answer. Everyone of us is in creation by His Will, not ours. Our only happiness will come by being in harmony with His Will
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.