A Better Obama Video
One Cheer for Obama

An Ontological Intuition

 As I never tire of saying, I am not a philosopher or theologian. But to the extent that I understand it, I’ve always thought St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God strange, intriguing, and unconvincing. I didn’t know until this morning that Anselm’s is not the only ontological argument, and that they all arrive by different paths at the conclusion that if we can conceive of God he must exist. When I say this seems unconvincing to me I mean in the literal sense that it didn’t convince me and I found it unlikely that it would convince anyone else.

Lately, though, I’ve been meditating on something that may be a sort of intuitive counterpart to the ontological argument: Is it possible to grasp, fully, the idea of God as Christian revelation, theology, and devotion understand him, and not believe in him? I’ve begun to suspect that it is not.



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I believe there should be an Anthropological Argument. The fact that almost every culture, no matter how remote, has had some belief in supernatural being(s) with supernatural powers, is the most compelling argument I find.

It certainly proves we're wired that way, if nothing else. And makes the New Atheist project look pretty hopeless.

"Is it possible to grasp, fully, the idea of God as Christian revelation, theology, and devotion understand him, and not believe in him? I’ve begun to suspect that it is not."

This is something like the argument D.B. Hart puts forward in The Experience of God, although he doesn't limit it to Christianity, but draws from all theisms. In that sense it's also anthropological, since it incorporates elements of what all believing people have tended to hold in common. Ditto Scruton's The Face of God, although it's more "personalist" in its approach.

I've read the Hart book, and really liked it, but that isn't the aspect I noticed so much as the refutation of materialism and atheism. Has Scruton become actively theist? I thought he was more in the respectful skeptical class.

Though now that I think about it, yeah, Hart does say something like that.

Scruton seems to have come back to theism in recent years, and although it doesn't seem to be a particularly detailed or robust version (yet), he has apparently rejoined the Anglican church of his youth. Even though I think his take is still basically a Kantian one, I did like his last two or three books on "religious" subjects very much. I read the Hart book and two of Scruton's books right around the same time and thought it would be very interesting to hear a conversation between them on the subject.

So surprised to see my earlier post here. I was looking for additional info re: the term and hadn't remembered seeing anything previosly. If I'm not mistaken I believe I picked it up from Fritjof Capra's conversation with The Gregory in his book Uncommon Wisdom. I intended on using the term in a hypothesis I've been working on and off on for last 25 yrs. Which I was planning to call The Grand Metaphysical Theory of Poker

Which springs from the assertion of Poker being a metaphor for life, itself. Capra's conversation with Gregory Bateson also introduced me to Systems Theory and in turn Emergence and Spontaneous Order. Which Adam Smith called The Invisible hand in his seminal piece on Free Market economy.

As an avid Poker player for the last 40 yrs. I have observed some rather strange phenomena in re: bad beat scenarios which are so uncanny as to defy all logic and reason. Which seem to be intimately assoc. with an old aphoristic expression that "the poker god protects drunks beginners and all in hands.

As well as the retort in such scenarios that "they must have got a phone call" (on the hand) which I always assumed as having come from the poker god. In my hypothesis I posit that certain entities of our reality (including poker) display self-organizing emergent properties whose ultimate goal(s) being self-perpetuation, are what lies at the heart of a lot of the unexplained phenomena in this rather self-contradictory world of many things.

Synergy being the common bond here, has been described as being The Universal Constructive Principle of Nature in Science and The Divine Principle of Cooperation in Theology; particularly with respects to the Christian Soteriological Doctrine of Synergism. The attic greek root synergos meaning working together, is also related to the fact that Christianity is a syncretic system of beliefs.

And if you follow the whole stream of consciousness of which, it goes on to E Pluribus Unum (from one into many) and Democracy. The poker metaphor also relates to "As Above So Below" from The Emerald Tablet, I believe, and both the microcosm and macrocosm, as well. And of course it also relates to Unity, which as both a fatalist and student of design and purpose, I posit as being mans ultimate (teleological) destiny or final end.

Martin Luther and Protestantism as a whole assert(s) that The Bible with the aid of The Holy Spirit can be understood by any reader or hearer w/o any specialized instruction or training. Which was the oppositional response to The Catholic Church's move towards Rationalism.
As a Protestant myself,I find the assertion to be completely absurd, as that would negate the necessity for such things as Biblical Scholars, and Exegetical Theologians, and such.

And with regards to that point, their line of reasoning would follow suit with throwing the baby out with the bath water. The key to understanding their reasoning however is not as fatal as it appears. And is both revealed and concealed within the Latin quotation "Ad Captandum Vulgas" (in order to please the mob)
as E Pluribus Unum implies all of us, as Madame Secretary pointed out quite eloquently in the episode of the same name.

Synergy is all about the tendency of certain things to take on an existence that is greater than the sum total of their equal, separate. and different parts. If you "follow the white rabbit" and do your due diligence by doing all the requisite research and study on everything I mention here, it will all become both obvious and apparent. Most of which is all relative to this thing we call the law of opposites. which all about the both, the poverty of the spirit (to quote MLK in his "I Have a Dream" speech) and the lack of inquiring minds within our species.

oops, sorry about not proofreading and correcting my mistakes on that last entry. anyway, I read the dictionary as if it were the key to understanding everything (which it is) for a couple of years before studying anything. it's really like the secret book of concepts, and something that most would never think to do. it goes hand in hand with the biggest issue of concern confronting The Unity of Science. finding a common nomenclature. many different fields have shared words with different meanings. big hurdle to overcome. prevents any real common dialogue from taking place.

the fact that nobody ever really tho't about reading the dictionary means that everybody has their own definition of everything. it's all in the book. fact is every sentient being has their own separate reality contained within. you can find that fact too, by reading the right stuff. reading is fundamental. (to many equations). literature, along with art, history, and the humanities is essential to understanding. study psychology and you'll all about everyone's cognitive biases. study sociology and learn all about cultural influences and affects. study Transpersonal Psychology and you'll be able to figure out how all those really dedicated people who lived hundreds and hundreds and even thousands upon thousands of years ago could be so smarter and wiser than people today. it's all about doing things for the right reasons (intentionality).

if you follow the stream of all that which is relative to being human (in the dictionary), you'll find that most people aren't (unfortunately) a lot of it relates to The (4) Cardinal Principles. add three more and you get the (7) Theological or Heavenly Principles. but the whole (comprehensive) stream concerning what is to be human is surprisingly lengthy, in of itself.

there are actually several (phenomenological) philosophical schools of thought that have long since been stressing the importance of adding the correct human feelings into any and every equation. I like Rudolf Steiner's best. Synergetics is a good one too. I just recently came upon Herman Lotze in my journey's. He might have actually figured it all out for us.

Devisiveness has been around forever. everybody opposes everybody. This guys a quack, that guys a quack.This guys a heretic. That guys a heretic. Oh that's just pseudoscience. blah blah blah. and that's where the law of opposites comes in. and there's more than one of those too. so be careful. you have to figure it for yourself. (freethinker) It's kind of an ingenius design, actually. It's kind of like somebody up there already knew. already anticipated it all.

The road to hell is paved with many good intentions. Holism got it right. It takes all parts to make a whole, means that you can't have one without the other, and that no part is any more nor any less significant than the other, as well. People keep choosing sides and squaring off against each other instead of coming together and exchanging ideas. Eclecticism goes by the maxim; choosing the best; and is actually defined as: a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm, but draws instead from multiple theories, concepts, priciples, and ideas. And that's where I took my cue from.

Ethics is big too. Consequentialism. Distributive Justice. Ethical Altruism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Compte's Altruism: as The First Principle of Morality, and the regulative supremacy of social sympathy over the self-regarding instincts. Self-regarding instincts is the bain of all mankind. It's what Spontaneous Order is all about. Groups of self-regarding individuals united by their common interests. That's what drives The Free Market Economy and Capitalism.
External rewards. People driven by selfishness and greed. It's the difference between Intrinsically motivated people who do things for either the love of what their doing, or for altruistic (humanitarian) reasons. Versus those who are Extrinsically motivated, those who seek external like fame and fortune. They say you gotta pay me, man.

oops, add rewards there between external and like. Part of my hypothesis deals the concept of nous; Greek for the human intellect, but also more importantly for the ability to actually recognize the truth when you see it, or the ability to be able pick out what little truth there might be in something. Which is really important since there is a little bit of truth in everything. I think I have that. I noticed it when I was studying the dictionary for all those years. Certain concepts just kind of jumped out at me. Jumped right off the page, if you will. It was the impetus for all my studies. I thought, you know what, I bet I could figure out what's wrong with this picture. And so I began searching for the answers.

Now I see concepts that are vital and integral to the equation everywhere I look. I hear it in love songs. I see and hear it in films. It's in the air, it's everywhere. It's been there all the time, I just couldn't see it before. Artists have the real gifts. Artists like musicians, film producers, actors, and writers especially. Writers are like the man behind the curtain from The Wizard of Oz. They have the real gift of sight. They're like The Ghost in The Machine. A lot of actors and even directors ae more like the rest of us one-trick-ponies. We don't know how to interpret things the way that some of these really gifted writers do. We're all designed for something. Everybody's got something to contribute. You just gotta' find what that is.

I need to apologize for all the omissions I've made here today. I've typed out some really good stuff previously that I really took my time with and proofread and all that, but then when I hit "post" I got a message that said that the time had expired. So I'm feeling kinda' rushed as if I'm up against a deadline or something. So please forgive me for being such a dingleberry. I'm also working mostly from memory. I have several years worth of notes from all the research I've done, but the nature of the internet with all the various different link-ups etc. is such that my notes are all over the map, so to speak. And given that I'm working against the clock, I don't really have enough time to go through them all in order to be as thorough as I should be. The interconnected web of interrelated concepts that I'm working with can also come across as if I'm just throwing a lot of nonsequiturs together if I'm not careful.

the search for additional information on ontological intuition(s) is what brought me here both this time as well as back when I made my original posting, in case I didn't make that clear enough before. and I don't think anyone but anthropologists actually use that term, but I believe it to be the best descriptive term for what Plato was referring to in his Theory of Innatism; which is the belief that man is inherently gifted from birth by the creator with certain apriori knowledge that lies dormant somewhere within the recesses of his mind until it is actualized into being through a process that is dependent upon a sensory experience.

the author of this website began by stating for one; that he did not find St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for The Existence of God to be all that compelling. (a position that I happen to agree with) and he also stated for another that there were other Ontological Arguments for The Existence of God, as well. Which is true (and the most well-known of which being that of Thomas Aquinas, also known as St. Thomas)

There are a couple of other well-known Arguments for The Existence of God, as well. The Cosmological Argument, and The Teleological Argument. Besides Thomas Aquinas's, the other most well-known is that of St. Augustine's. one of these two, not sure which one without taking more time to check than I have right now, has all three. There are actually (5) total, and they are all Logical arguments. But I do believe that the first (3) mentioned are the only ones that were developed and approved by The (catholic) Church.

I've studied the first (3) and didn't really like any of them, which is why I stated in my original post here that I thought there should be an Anthropological Argument based on the fact that anthropological studies have concluded that almost every civilization that has ever existed, no matter how remote and cut-off from the rest of the world, all had a belief in some form of god(s). Which to me seems far more convincing.

My reasoning hinges upon the fact that, as I previously stated, all of those arguments are based upon logic; and I have a real problem understanding logic myself, as it seems to rely upon a lot of mathematical formulations, which was my worst subject in school. And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that The Church administers to would have just as much difficulty understanding it as I do. So quite obviously these arguments are designed to defend The Church against logical arguments to the contrary.

Rather than being designed for the purpose of trying to attract more people to the faith.

Which The Anthropological Argument would probably be far more effective towards.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)