Indeed, dear sister in Christ. And yet the "constraints of Christianity" are designed to help man, to protect his liberty, and to preserve his immortal soul as he traverses the "valley of the shadow of Death" in his mortal life....
Dear spirited, I think the "rejection" you so wonderfully describe in this essay/post may have an even deeper root: It is rejection of the human condition, even of human nature itself. Deep down, these rejectors resent God for making them as they are — i.e., as not-gods. That is to say, they resent being subject to limits.
BroJoeK uses the term "special revelation" in a manner differently than I do. I think he means the transmission of a doctrine. But when I use this term, I am pointing to the "immediate experiences" sphere of apperceptive reality.
The immediate experiences presupposed in Aristotelian metaphysics are not difficult to find in the classic sources, if one looks for them; but ... I am afraid, they will come as an anticlimax because of their apparent simplicity. For we find ourselves referred back to nothing more formidable than the experiences of finiteness and creatureliness in our existence, of being creatures of a day as the poets call man, of being born and bound to die, of dissatisfaction with a state experienced as imperfect, of apprehension of a perfection that is not of this world but is the privilege of the gods, of possible fulfillment in a state beyond this world.... — Eric Voegelin, "On Debate and Existence," 1967.I do believe there are some people who resent the fact that they are not, and cannot be, the "maker" of themselves. Nobody asks to be born. Nobody asks to die. And in-between,
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic "Look and see if this is not the case" does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — Ellis Sandoz, 1990I gather that when BroJoeK defines science as "natural explanations for natural phenomena," all non-sensory experiences are banned. But a consistent application of this principle would mean that all products of non-sensory experience — such as the very idea of physical or natural law, or the various scientific theories — must also be banned.
(What does that do to Darwin's theory?)
For it seems that "the human mind" is not detectible by means of sense perception: It "naturally" belongs to the "non-sensory realm" — which BroJoeK seems to suggest is none of science's business.
No wonder we have such difficulty trying to understand one another!
...[W]e all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debates with ideologists — whether communists of intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we have all discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence — with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion [that would be you, dear BroJoeK and dear tacticalogic] did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses ... when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared....Sounds like the Devil's work to me!!![This situation reflects] well-propagated errors which threaten to disintegrate the order of society by disintegrating the order of existence in everyman personally. [Voegelin, op cit.; Emphasis added.]
Thank you so very much, dear spirited, for your deep, ongoing investigation into the phenomenon of the Second Reality. I think you are entirely right to find at the basis of any Second Reality some form of gnostic thinking.
It seems to me that gnostic thinking is the perfection of solipsism.... FWIW
Thank you so very much for your splendid essay/post, dear spirited irish!
First of all, I never used the term "special revelation" until after you introduced it through a quote in your post #1,261.
Then, as I responded in post #1,271:
Yes, the definition of your term "special revelation" was never spelled out, but I challenge you: there is no definition you can devise which qualifies as "natural science".
Again, your own "special revelations" may be entirely true and valid, but by definition, they are not scientific.
betty boop: "I gather that when BroJoeK defines science as "natural explanations for natural phenomena," all non-sensory experiences are banned.
But a consistent application of this principle would mean that all products of non-sensory experience — such as the very idea of physical or natural law, or the various scientific theories — must also be banned."
You see, Ms boop, you are indeed very clever, so clever you can argue yourself right out of existence, if you so wished.
Therefore, I don't buy the idea that your apparent inability to grasp a simple concept -- like the distinction between "natural" and "super-natural" is anything other than a deliberate pose.
You don't wish to acknowledge it, and therefore pretend not to understand it, right?
The truth of this matter is that your argument here is sheer sophistry, and you well know it.
In fact, the word "science" is defined as "natural explanations for natural processes" and so by definition, scientific facts, laws, hypotheses and theories are all part of science.
So, the real question here is: why would you even attempt a way-too-clever argument against science?
betty boop: "For it seems that "the human mind" is not detectible by means of sense perception:
It "naturally" belongs to the "non-sensory realm" — which BroJoeK seems to suggest is none of science's business."
Indeed, for centuries that's exactly how the human mind was considered -- as outside the realm of natural-science.
Today, some of that same sense still remains, albeit science has studied the human brain every which way conceivable.
So today science can tell us quite a lot about the human brain, though the question of what, exactly, is "mind", is, so far as I've ever seen, as unanswered as it ever was scientifically.
betty boop quoting: "...Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion [that would be you, dear BroJoeK and dear tacticalogic] did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted...."
Ms boop, I'll say to you as I have to Ms irish and YHAOS, it's a sin in any religion to make false accusations, and much as it thrills & excites you to do so, by that same degree will you suffer in eternity for it.
You need to stop.
betty boop: "Sounds like the Devil's work to me!!!"
Lying and false accusations are the Devil's work.
So why are you doing it, FRiend?