Reason and Revelation - Revision history

David Persyn: branding

2011-07-26T21:06:23Z

branding

David Persyn: Protected "Reason and Revelation" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2011-07-16T17:30:57Z

Protected "Reason and Revelation" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

David Persyn: /* Four Sets of Evidence */ undo format experiment

2011-07-16T16:03:04Z

‎Four Sets of Evidence: undo format experiment

David Persyn: /* Four Sets of Evidence */ format experiment

2011-07-16T16:02:16Z

‎Four Sets of Evidence: format experiment

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ remove temp unlinked footnotes

2011-07-16T16:00:34Z

‎Footnotes: remove temp unlinked footnotes

David Persyn: /* Six Questions Toward Emmanuel */ footnote and format

2011-07-16T15:59:28Z

‎Six Questions Toward Emmanuel: footnote and format

David Persyn: /* Six Questions Toward Emmanuel */ footnote and format

2011-07-16T15:56:16Z

‎Six Questions Toward Emmanuel: footnote and format

David Persyn: /* A Definition of Love (Agapē) */

2011-07-16T15:53:16Z

‎A Definition of Love (Agapē)

David Persyn: /* Four Sets of Evidence */ footnote added

2011-07-16T15:51:20Z

‎Four Sets of Evidence: footnote added

David Persyn: Establish page and its content

2011-07-16T14:58:38Z

Establish page and its content

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 26 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~MOERF – GOD Unit~~ J	+	The Magis God Wiki: Reason and Revelation

	Does Reason Need Revelation?		Does Reason Need Revelation?

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 We have discussed four major sets of evidence for the existence of God (defined as a transcendent intelligent Creator):
-<blockquote>1.	The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),
+.	The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),
 .	The evidence for “an absolutely unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple creator of all else that is” necessitated by a logical proof (UNIT F, Section II),
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 .	Evidence for a timeless Creator of time from a proof coming from the philosophy of mathematics (UNIT G), and
-.	Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).</blockquote>
+.	Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).
 These four sets of evidence are very different in their origin and nature, and so they corroborate one another.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 We have discussed four major sets of evidence for the existence of God (defined as a transcendent intelligent Creator):
-.	The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),
+<blockquote>1.	The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),
 .	The evidence for “an absolutely unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple creator of all else that is” necessitated by a logical proof (UNIT F, Section II),
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 .	Evidence for a timeless Creator of time from a proof coming from the philosophy of mathematics (UNIT G), and
-.	Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).
+.	Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).</blockquote>
 These four sets of evidence are very different in their origin and nature, and so they corroborate one another.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 16 July 2011
Line 192:		Line 192:

	<references />		<references />
−
−
−	~~See Eliade 1987, 1991, 1996.~~
−
−	Plato’s classical work on love is the Symposium, but large sections of the Phaedrus and the Timaeus (Plato 1961) are also dedicated to this theme. Jesus’ emphasis on agapē transformed Western culture, giving rise to tractates on love from both philosophers (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) and practitioners (such as St. Francis of Assisi). These reflections have been combined with insights from psychology and contemporary anthropology in the contemporary period. C.S. Lewis gives an excellent exposition of agapē in contrast to the other three notions of love in his well known work, The Four Loves (Lewis 1960). There are two truly outstanding volumes on the nature of agapē: D’Arcy 1956 and Pieper 1974. Other excellent works on agapē are Suenens 1962, Lepp 1963, and Johann 1966.
−
−	These concepts from contemporary physics are explained in my manuscript, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Philosophy and Physics. They are also explained in several articles. See, for example, Spitzer 2003.
−
−	~~The simple and complete explanations of “unconditional Love in the Creator” may be combined to reveal God’s intention to fulfill our desire for unconditional Love:~~
−
−	~~A) The Cause of the awareness of and desire for unconditional Love cannot be capable of only conditioned love. Therefore, It would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.~~
−
−	B) If the Cause of our awareness of and desire for unconditional love is truly capable of unconditional Love, then He would not have created us with this awareness and desire only to frustrate it (for this would contradict the nature of Unconditional Love).
−
−	~~C) Therefore, the unconditionally loving Creator of our awareness of and desire for unconditional Love intends to fulfill that desire unconditionally.~~

@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 A simple response to this question might run as follows:  if we assume that the Creator does not intend to frustrate this desire for unconditional Love within all of us, it would seem that His creation of the desire would imply an intention to fulfill it, which would, in turn, imply the very presence of this quality within Him. This would mean that the Creator of the desire for unconditional Love is (as the only possible fulfillment of that desire) Himself Unconditional Love.  The reader here is only affirming the inconsistency of a “Creator incapable of unconditional Love” creating a being with the desire for perfect and unconditional Love.  This is sufficient for affirming the presence of unconditional Love in the Creator.
-A more complete explanation might begin with the origin of the desire for perfect and unconditional Love.  The awareness of unconditional Love (which arouses the desire for unconditional Love) seems to be beyond any specifically known or concretely experienced love, for it seems to cause dissatisfaction with every conditioned love we have known or experienced.  How can we have an awareness of love that we have neither known nor experienced?  How can we even extrapolate to it if we do not know where we are going?  The inability of philosophers to give a purely naturalistic answer to these questions has led them to associate the “tacit awareness of unconditional Love” with the “felt presence of Unconditional Love Itself.”  Unconditional Love Itself would therefore seem to be the cause of our awareness of It and also our desire for It.  Inasmuch as Unconditional Love Itself transcends all conditioned (and human) manifestations of love, it might fairly be associated with the Creator.  The Creator would then be associated with our human awareness of and desire for unconditional Love.  Therefore, it seems that the Creator would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.
+A more complete explanation might begin with the origin of the desire for perfect and unconditional Love.  The awareness of unconditional Love (which arouses the desire for unconditional Love) seems to be beyond any specifically known or concretely experienced love, for it seems to cause dissatisfaction with every conditioned love we have known or experienced.  How can we have an awareness of love that we have neither known nor experienced?  How can we even extrapolate to it if we do not know where we are going?  The inability of philosophers to give a purely naturalistic answer to these questions has led them to associate the “tacit awareness of unconditional Love” with the “felt presence of Unconditional Love Itself.”  Unconditional Love Itself would therefore seem to be the cause of our awareness of It and also our desire for It.  Inasmuch as Unconditional Love Itself transcends all conditioned (and human) manifestations of love, it might fairly be associated with the Creator.  The Creator would then be associated with our human awareness of and desire for unconditional Love.  Therefore, it seems that the Creator would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.<ref>The simple and complete explanations of “unconditional Love in the Creator” may be combined to reveal God’s intention to fulfill our desire for unconditional Love:
 ) If the Creator is Unconditional Love, would He want to enter into a relationship with us of intense empathy, that is, would He want to be Emmanuel (“God with us”)?

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:30, 16 July 2011
(No difference)

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 == Six Questions Toward Emmanuel ==
-When I was teaching at Georgetown University, I was privileged to direct a physics and philosophy student on an Ignatian retreat.  He was exceptionally bright and good-willed, and had the capacity to express what was on his mind in a very straightforward way.  At the beginning of our first conference he said, “Could I ask you something very elementary which has been bothering me for several years?  I don’t have any real problem with the idea of a Creator, because I believe that finitude is intrinsic to time and the origin of the universe will ultimately have to have a cause beyond a universal singularity.   God is not a question for me.  But it’s this Jesus thing.  I’m not sure I see the need for Jesus and I’m not sure I really get it.  Can’t we just stick with a ‘Creator outside of space-time asymmetry’?”
+When I was teaching at Georgetown University, I was privileged to direct a physics and philosophy student on an Ignatian retreat.  He was exceptionally bright and good-willed, and had the capacity to express what was on his mind in a very straightforward way.  At the beginning of our first conference he said, “Could I ask you something very elementary which has been bothering me for several years?  I don’t have any real problem with the idea of a Creator, because I believe that finitude is intrinsic to time and the origin of the universe will ultimately have to have a cause beyond a universal singularity.<ref>These concepts from contemporary physics are explained in my manuscript, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Philosophy and Physics. They are also explained in several articles. See, for example, Spitzer 2003.</ref>  ''God'' is not a question for me.  But it’s this Jesus thing.  I’m not sure I see the need for Jesus and I’m not sure I really get it.  Can’t we just stick with a ‘Creator outside of space-time asymmetry’?”
 I thought about it for a couple of minutes and said to him, “The ‘Jesus thing’ is about the unconditional Love of God.  It is about God wanting to be with us in a perfect act of empathy; about God wanting to save us unconditionally and to bring us to His own life of unconditional Love.  A Creator alone, indeed, even a Creator with infinite power, could be tantamount to Aristotle’s God.  Once he has fulfilled His purpose of ultimate, efficient, and final causation, He is detached from the affairs of rather base and uninteresting human beings.  The God of Jesus Christ is about the desire to be intimately involved in the affairs of human beings made in His image and destined for His eternity – and that makes all the difference.”
@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 The rest of this book will be devoted to showing the remarkable similarity between the above reasoning about God’s unconditional Love and Jesus’ appearance in our midst.  The reader will then have a background to better answer the question, “Is Jesus the One?  Is Jesus Emmanuel – the Unconditional Love of God with us?”
 == Footnotes ==

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 == A Definition of Love (Agapē) ==
-We might begin by distinguishing the four Greek words for love that have been the subject of volumes since the time of Plato:  storge, philia, eros, and agapē.   Storge may be translated as affection.  It is a spontaneous emotional response to someone or something we find to be outwardly lovable, delightful, or cute.  Children immediately elicit affection (when they are in a good mood).  The smile of a cherished friend or even a pet can elicit this spontaneous emotional response.  This response can be quite fleeting or, in the case of parents, enduring.  It is fundamentally emotional, lacks depth, does not necessarily result in action or commitment, and may not elicit the same response from others.  It is dependent upon mood, and a perception of the lovableness, delightfulness, cuteness, or need of another.  As will be seen, agapē is quite different from affection.  Though affection may accompany agapē,  agapē is not dependent on it.
+We might begin by distinguishing the four Greek words for love that have been the subject of volumes since the time of Plato:  storge, philia, eros, and agapē.<ref>Plato’s classical work on love is the Symposium, but large sections of the Phaedrus and the Timaeus (Plato 1961) are also dedicated to this theme. Jesus’ emphasis on agapē transformed Western culture, giving rise to tractates on love from both philosophers (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) and practitioners (such as St. Francis of Assisi). These reflections have been combined with insights from psychology and contemporary anthropology in the contemporary period. C.S. Lewis gives an excellent exposition of agapē in contrast to the other three notions of love in his well known work, The Four Loves (Lewis 1960). There are two truly outstanding volumes on the nature of agapē: D’Arcy 1956 and Pieper 1974. Other excellent works on agapē are Suenens 1962, Lepp 1963, and Johann 1966</ref>  Storge may be translated as affection.  It is a spontaneous emotional response to someone or something we find to be outwardly lovable, delightful, or cute.  Children immediately elicit affection (when they are in a good mood).  The smile of a cherished friend or even a pet can elicit this spontaneous emotional response.  This response can be quite fleeting or, in the case of parents, enduring.  It is fundamentally emotional, lacks depth, does not necessarily result in action or commitment, and may not elicit the same response from others.  It is dependent upon mood, and a perception of the lovableness, delightfulness, cuteness, or need of another.  As will be seen, agapē is quite different from affection.  Though affection may accompany agapē,  agapē is not dependent on it.
 Philia (friendship) expects mutuality or reciprocity, and when it occurs it is open to various degrees of commitment and depth.  So, for example, if I commit myself more to my friend (perhaps through time, shared concern, physical energy, psychic energy, or even my future) it acts as an invitation to my friend to make a commitment on a similar level back to me.  If reciprocal commitment occurs, the friendship grows in depth.  This depth reaches its natural limit only when both parties have committed themselves totally to each other, but depth can increase only as much as each party is willing to reciprocate.

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 The fourth need (specifics about inspiration, providence, and suffering) is beyond the domain of reason.  Though reason can point to the existence, goodness, and love of God, it cannot derive from this how God works to inspire us, guide us, and redeem our suffering.  These areas are essential for the way in which we view ourselves and live our lives.  Does God bring good out of our suffering – for us, others, or the community?  How does God work?  What is His ultimate goal in redeeming suffering?  Is suffering inconsistent or consistent with God’s love?  Is it devoid of meaning or does it us lead us to deeper virtue, meaning, and love?  Does God inspire us?  Does He give us interior experiences of Himself – His joy, home, or love?  Does God guide us?  If so, how does He guide us?  What are the signs of that guidance?   How can we best follow those signs?  Does He guide us in conjunction with others?  Does He form a “conspiracy” of grace around us?  All of these questions are beyond the domain of reason – they cannot be experienced from the world or deduced from first principles.  If we are to get answers we will have to turn to a source of revelation, and put our faith in it.  When we do, the proof of the pudding should be in the tasting; for authentic teaching in this area should bear fruit – in the long term.
-With respect to the fifth need (the need for religious community), there is considerable evidence that religious community supports the faith and worship of individual members, forms a common ethos through which God can act and teach, and creates a common “face” through which the group can interact with the world.   Yet how can a religious community do all these things without making reference to the other four areas of revelation mentioned above.  Now inasmuch as these other four areas of revelation are integral to religious community, and inasmuch as they are beyond the domain of reason, then there will be dimensions of religious community which can only come from a common source of revelation.  This common source will have to set up structures, authority, and designate the custodians of the group, its ethos, and its common teaching (doctrine).   Evidently, joining a religious community has a very significant impact on the way we view ourselves and live our lives.  If we have faith, this decision will be one of the most important we make, and is likely to shape our journey into the eternal.
+With respect to the fifth need (the need for religious community), there is considerable evidence that religious community supports the faith and worship of individual members, forms a common ethos through which God can act and teach, and creates a common “face” through which the group can interact with the world.<ref>See Eliade 1987, 1991, 1996.</ref>  Yet how can a religious community do all these things without making reference to the other four areas of revelation mentioned above.  Now inasmuch as these other four areas of revelation are integral to religious community, and inasmuch as they are beyond the domain of reason, then there will be dimensions of religious community which can only come from a common source of revelation.  This common source will have to set up structures, authority, and designate the custodians of the group, its ethos, and its common teaching (doctrine).   Evidently, joining a religious community has a very significant impact on the way we view ourselves and live our lives.  If we have faith, this decision will be one of the most important we make, and is likely to shape our journey into the eternal.
 The above five needs go beyond the scope of reason.  Even if one affirms the goodness and love of God in the transcendentals and the specifics of near-death experiences, (e.g. encountering a loving white light or Jesus), one still does not have a clear sense of any of these five important areas of knowledge.  Yet each of these areas is exceedingly important in living an authentic, good, and loving life.
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 So what can we do to avoid this?  We must once again use the critical tools of reason, and also the intuitive tools of the heart, to find the source of revelation which fits the requirements of both.
 Where can we begin such an enterprise?  I would submit that it could begin with exploring the nature of love; for as will be seen, this one power holds out the possibility of being purely positive, the meaning of life, the source of peaceful coexistence with others, and the fulfillment of human authenticity and joy.  In my view, there is no other power or virtue which holds out this potential, and so I believe that it can lead us to the source of revelation and the heart of God.  In order to explore this great potential, we will want to begin with probing its essential characteristics.
 == A Definition of Love (Agapē) ==