Oh I certainly agree with you there, kosta50! Indeed, it turns out you and I really don't disagree about much.
But this "closure" business: I am pretty sure there is none to be had! First of all, there is no "certainty" in a contingent world. Secondly, and of vastly greater importance, is the seeming fact that religion and theology address precisely those questions that must ever remain "open": That is, the relations that obtain between God and man, world and society, which comprehend the eternal questions that man has asked since the dawn of humanity. Science and unaided reason are no helps in this domain.
I am a devoted student of Eric Voegelin, who says that truth is never a final possession of mankind, but always an open, on-going quest in which all the generations of man -- past, present, and future -- participate.
Ptolemy in his day represented a very great advance. With the advent of improved observational tools, his work has subsequently been built upon, with revisions, with the result of greater precision and accuracy of scientific measurement. Yet in all likelihood, there will be other advances in the future, built on the stage of the present scientific accomplishments. Just as was the case with Ptolemy, who was after all a leading scientist of his time....
You wrote: "Your complementary theory, besides being based on human perceptions and logic, only indicates that we cannot grasp the Creation." We cannot grasp it "once and for all," as if it were already "completed" in time. It is not: the Creation plays out in a temporal process, which is to say it has a future about which we presently know little if anything.
But the credit for the complementary theory goes to Bohr. That's his brainchild! Though I have taken it very much to heart, and look for complementarities everywhere these days. :^) It's actually been quite liberating -- as Bohr's and Einstein's great biographer, Abraham Pais said it was ("Personally I have found the complementary way of thinking liberating.") Hey, it sure beats having to think like a digital machine! ("Yes/No, true/false, black/white, 0/1.")
All complementarity really says is although you can know the state of two apparently mutually-exclusive things that together form a system, you cannot know them both at one and the same time. In physics, this plays out into Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (or as Bohr preferred to call it, the indeterminacy principle). Following Bohr, I do not believe that the complementarity relations apply only to physics, but are actually quite general in nature. Indeed, Bohr saw applications in psychology, biology, and anthropology (for starters).
You wrote:
It really doesn't matter what we grasp, for none of it is of any consequence to the Creation. We are a bunch of primates with souls, wholly incapable of intellectually absorbing what we are faced with, with or without Spirit.I do disagree with you here, kosta!!! Just because we can't see the whole ball of wax entire, doesn't mean we can't know anything about the whole ball of wax (which is actually a work in progress, so to speak). And I imagine that what and how we think is amazingly consequential to the unfoldment of divine reality....
It would take a book to explain that. But then, my very dear friend Alamo-Girl and I are working on one, working title: "God and the Observer problem." God willing, we'll finish it some day. :^)
It's been delightful chatting with you, kosta! Thank you so much for writing!
But this "closure" business: I am pretty sure there is none to be had! First of all, there is no "certainty" in a contingent world. Secondly, and of vastly greater importance, is the seeming fact that religion and theology address precisely those questions that must ever remain "open"
Only because they remain imperfect. Certainty is very much present in the contingent world: our intelligence and knowledge and perceptive abilities are finite; they may be greatly advanced, but still finite; in other words: finality is our certainty.
I am a devoted student of Eric Voegelin, who says that truth is never a final possession of mankind
My point exactly. Which is why we can only "approach" God by denial; we "know" what God is not more than what He is.
By asserting cataphatic (positive) statements of God, we find complimentary descriptions as open-ended approximations and not as facts.
All complementarity really says is although you can know the state of two apparently mutually-exclusive things that together form a system, you cannot know them both at one and the same time
That shows our finite intellect and knowledge. But even the two models which are "mutually exclusive" are that way only in our limited brains. This is where the spiritual and not noëtic approach takes over in the ascent to God.
I do disagree with you here, kosta!!! Just because we can't see the whole ball of wax entire, doesn't mean we can't know anything about the whole ball of wax
I say that we know nothing of what heaven is like. We know nothing outside of basic astronomical facts. We know not the worlds that exist nor will we ever know them in life on earth.
The only way we can talk about God is through anthropomorphism and spiritual "revelations" that are almost impossible to narrate.
And I imagine that what and how we think is amazingly consequential to the unfoldment of divine reality
I don't think so. That would make us essential elements in God's plan. Our rejection of God only hurts us, not God's plan. God is impartial, perfect Judge.
It would take a book to explain that. But then, my very dear friend Alamo-Girl and I are working on one, working title: "God and the Observer problem." God willing, we'll finish it some day Thanks again on your correspondence.
Well, hurry up and both of you autograph one for me! :)