samr

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chestertone. (I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity). As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god. This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general. I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

The word "mystery," in this context, can mean (a) something we don't currently understand, or (b) something we will never understand.

Which meaning are you using?

Ghs

Neither, I think that for some Christian thinkers it doesn't carry primarily a cognitive sense, but carries primarily an existential one.

An "existential" sense is that one that speaks directly to a person's "sense of life" in the Randian sense. It is more than merely emotional. I don't think that the sense with which Rand looked at the scycrapers of New York and wept is merely emotional. (A person could feel momentarily emotional attraction for someone. But if that wouldn't be deep, that wouldn't be "existential"). Existential is deeper than merely emotional.

I think that in the "Brave New World", if you remember it, the main character, mourns that sex has lost its mystery in the "modern society", that sex is "merely physical". Maybe he doesn't use that term actually, that's my way of putting it.

Or again, "The insoluble mystery" (story number eight) by Chesterton is indeed an apologetic work on christianity (as it seems to me) - then what is the argument it makes? I think it argues that there is some "sense of sacredness" without which questions like "Why not desecrate a corpse?" cannot be answered. So "sacredness" is an emphasis on values, in this context.

I think that most atheists whom I have read miss this important sense of "faith". But having said this, I must really shut up. I sense that atheists don't get something about religion, and then a missionary zeal arises in me (not really being a religious person myself).

I have read your book "The case against god", though some time ago, and not with the attention it deserves.

Samr,

Welcome to OL.

I have my own take on this problem.

Check your premise. You are making an implicit assumption that man is one thing and reality is another, that there is some way to get down to the most fundamental conceptual level and there will still be a division. A starting point, so to speak.

Try a different assumption: we are made out of the same stuff the rest of the universe is--including our perception and abstraction faculties. Thus, being made out of the same stuff, they are perfectly suited to process reality for the purposes of the organism they serve (the individual human being).

This means that we don't start out with a blank mind, then start filling it with reality. We start with a mind already full of reality. The separation that later develops is a product of growth, not an innate starting point.

If you want a visual metaphor for this, think about a circle. Where does it start? Basically it starts at any point you wish. But there is one absolute truth--the starting point you choose will also be the end point after you go around the circle.

So what is that point you chose? The start of the circle or the end of it?

It's both. It can't be one without being the other in a complete circle.

In other words, stuff like that exists.

With an ostensive definition, it doesn't matter if you start with the mind, or start with the act of swinging your arm around and saying, "I mean this." The point is that where they meet, it doesn't matter which comes first. One cannot exist without the other and still have you think about it.

If you want another metaphor, think of an ostensive definition in the same manner you do an axiomatic concept--as the existential interface between the mind and the rest of reality. In order to imagine not using it, you have to use it.

This bothered me for the longest time. I became at peace about it once I came up with this explanation.

Your mileage may vary, but it makes perfect sense to me without anything left over.

Michael

Hi.

What you say is really beautiful. It is a beautiful metaphor.

But I have found out that metaphors, even if they "make sense" at the time I read them, and even though they are beautiful, I am unable to "really believe in them", and to apply them later. I am unable to integrate them to my world-view.

(Thanks).

Hi indeed.

I am Israeli, unemployed, and pretty confused. I am starting the threads in order to clarify my world-view, though I suspect I have more urgent things to do, and clarifcation should come in other ways.

Do you see any solution regarding this specific topic?

It puzzles me - how do we have a concept of vision contrasted with what-we-see, given that we cannot differentiate between them in any specific instance of visual cognition?

From

http://aynrandlexico...definition.html

To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”

That we we cannot do in order to make the distinction between a perception and its object.

Since I can't see without seeing something, and I can't see something without seeing, how can I distinguish between "seeing" and "what I see" using an ostensive definition?

But suppose that one receives from the state more than one pays? For example, a student in a public university that plans to move to another country.

Does he have a right for that?

Same problem. How can the object of touch be distinguished from the perception of touch?

It seems to me that atheist writers nowdays ignore some aspects of religious philosophy, as represented by Aldous Huxley,  G.K. Chestertone.

(I am not sure if Huxley was a christian, but "Brave New World" talks favourably of christianity).

As far as I understand the first two, they both argue that there is a sense of _mystery_ within life, and that this mystery is best understood in the context of a god.

This mystery applies to sex, and to human life in general.

I think that the line of argument that _starts_ from human psychology, and ties it to a god, is a form of reasoning not dealt with, at least in the popular defences of atheism. Am I wrong?

You are right, my post didn't make much sense. I changed my post so it would make sense. In the original I used the term "Ostention", which I have changed to "ostensive defintions".

As defined here

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ostensive_definition.html

It seems reasonable that complex concepts must at the end be reduced to simple ones, at which you can point and say "this is what I mean by this".

BUT, there is a problem with it.

Visual perceptionis how we apprehend the world around us. We see objects. But it is never possible to distinguish between the perception and its object.

Suppose my friend sees my cat. My cat is not the same as the consciousness of my friend seeing one, because my friend can close my eyes, and her perceptions will dissapear, while the cat will not.

But, I am unable to point to a perception separate from its object (one could say that there wouldn't be a perception in such a case), and I cannot point to a visual object without a perception (how?).

What do you think can be done with ostensive definitions regarding this problem?

Do you think that an anarchist has an obligation not to use any of the government's services?