ObjectiveBob Hey, just wanted to say thank you for uploading all of these great videos. After reading David Bentley Hart's "The Experience of God," I realized that I couldn't really maintain my atheism in any meaningful sense in relation to what he meant by the word "God." So, now I am basically trying to understand these pre-modern ideas via these radical orthodoxy authors, which is, at times, quite difficult. It basically, for me, comes down to either trying to understand the pre-modern conception of "God" and the philosophy that comes with it, or just settling for a radical nihilism by default.
bananimal45 Thank you for saying that. I find myself in conversations with atheists occaisionally and though I'm not nearly as articulate as these writers....I do try to express what most secular minded individuals don't seem to notice, the internal inconsistencies of their apparent humanist values on a random material process....it makes for a long day sometimes and I tend to feel outnumbered...It was one of those days today, so thanks. :) Take care.
+bananimal45 I thought Hart's book was very good, I wish you all the best. For me materialism/nihilism just doesn't give a satisfactory account for the invisible essentials: meaning, love and consciousness. These are the fundamentals of our existence I think both as individuals and as a society we need to have satisfactory stories around these. Theism allows meaning, it is a cure for alienation. Everyone has their own way to the divine, currently I'm getting a lot from the Inklings CS Lewis, Tolkien and Owen Barfield, ( George MacDonald too) their approach through both theory and imagination is deeply satisfying to me.
Intriguing. I don't know whether Milbank is completely right, but his ideas are certainly provocative, and he's clearly on the right track toward identifying and resolving the current problems of society. He makes a lot more sense than anyone else I've encountered lately, that's for sure.
+Joseph Öhrman Anyone who appeals to the God of the gaps probably doesn't understand classical theism, since it's compatible with evolution by natural selection. When classical theists say that God is the first cause, they mean that everyone else and everything else depends on Him to sustain it. That's why gaps in the fossil record don't disprove evolution theory. Since everyone else and everything else depends on God to sustain it, natural selection, the gaps, the processes that cause the gaps do, too.
@@williammcenaney9393 Classical theism rocks. I just found out about it and love studying it. Classical theism makes sense and to me is the only account of God that takes what it means to be God seriously.
this is working on an assumption that 'secular' means 'non-religious', which i disagree with. looking at, say, the U.S. constitution, 'secular' means 'without religious bias'.
I am not pleased that you leave it to the commenters to give credit where credit is due for this work. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, funded by Canadian taxpayers, gives Americans a much needed example of what is possible if they could just get over their ridiculous aversion to government.
To me, being secular means that you aren't teaching "A" religion as normative. Secularism is a fusion of philosophy, including religion. Secularism is probably very different in diffferent countries. In America, the First Amendment has big influence on secular institutions like the public schools. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a limit on the ways religion could be described or discussed in schools. Obviously, it is a huge part of social studies and even Language Arts.
Secularism definitely is not "a fusion of philosophy, including religion". Even saying as such shows you're confused on the partitions of philosphy and theology, and especially the secular society we inhabit
Definitely not a God of the gaps. His argument - and all premodern and pre-voluntarist scholastic theology - would be all the “filled” places (I.e. the NOT gaps; filled or ‘hard’, “dense” places; what is empirical) as well as any “gaps” (which really are probably just areas of ignorance) are “IN” God; as is all of creation.
Science is falsifiable. Religion is not. If a scientist or a science cheerleader is proclaiming scientific Truth, strike them down (rhetorically) for being unscientific. It is religion that lays claim to ultimate, immortal Truth, not science. However, when it comes to an ever growing number of human concerns, it is science that seems to have the best, most efficacious answers.
Two problems with what you're saying. 1. Science provides no answers to ethical and moral questions. 2. "Falsifiability" plays only a limited role (though an important one) in scientific inquiry, and it would be impossible to survive without knowledge that was unfalsifiable. Religion is not entirely about knowledge in the first place, but about habits, rituals, patterns of life and sociality, a sense of purpose and meaning, orientation toward what is greater than one's self, and so on. All of these are vital to human existence, but none are "propositions" that could ever be falsified.
@@07lipe077 I have come back to this after 6 months. I wonder if the religious person's insistence that everyone is religious, whether they know it or not, isn't evidence of a lack of confidence. I think the "radical" atheists are similar in that way. If they were more confident, they wouldn't feel the need to attack the foundations of the opposite group. A hundred years ago, Christians and deists met on equal footing when discussing science. Deism has lost more ground, it seems, than Christianity. In the political field, politicians are free to appeal to religion and/or nonreligion in making arguments. There are constituencies for each.
1. They are two realms that question different spheres. I don't care about the "efficacy" of ethical questions in science, as it is both peistemological impossible and irrelevant, for example, when facing a mechanical problem. 2. Whole science rests on axiomatic premises that cannot be falsified. It is the security that basic logic/maths provided. And they are necessary. 3. Terms of mere epistemology (which, by no way, reduces the question): Although there are propositions that can differently settle down a reasonable case for religion that are themselves falsifiable as a whole phenomena (in Chrisianity, as it is historical, there are many), they are not the point. Moreover, what science can possibly falsify are PARADIGMS, not propositions. In fact, some facts against a specific paradigm don't change it, because it is entailed inside socio-economic factors, to offer an example. In conclusion, paradigmatic discussion itself trascends the scientific inquiry, so that methodology rests on, ultimately, also very specific, universal Truths, not experimental.
ObjectiveBob Hey, just wanted to say thank you for uploading all of these great videos. After reading David Bentley Hart's "The Experience of God," I realized that I couldn't really maintain my atheism in any meaningful sense in relation to what he meant by the word "God." So, now I am basically trying to understand these pre-modern ideas via these radical orthodoxy authors, which is, at times, quite difficult. It basically, for me, comes down to either trying to understand the pre-modern conception of "God" and the philosophy that comes with it, or just settling for a radical nihilism by default.
bananimal45 Thank you for saying that. I find myself in conversations with atheists occaisionally and though I'm not nearly as articulate as these writers....I do try to express what most secular minded individuals don't seem to notice, the internal inconsistencies of their apparent humanist values on a random material process....it makes for a long day sometimes and I tend to feel outnumbered...It was one of those days today, so thanks. :) Take care.
Margaret Ann Harvey
Cheers, Margaret. I hope you have a lovely day.
Same to you, have a great night and all the best. :)
+bananimal45 I thought Hart's book was very good, I wish you all the best. For me materialism/nihilism just doesn't give a satisfactory account for the invisible essentials: meaning, love and consciousness. These are the fundamentals of our existence I think both as individuals and as a society we need to have satisfactory stories around these. Theism allows meaning, it is a cure for alienation. Everyone has their own way to the divine, currently I'm getting a lot from the Inklings CS Lewis, Tolkien and Owen Barfield, ( George MacDonald too) their approach through both theory and imagination is deeply satisfying to me.
Keri Ford You cannot go wrong with Lewis.
Intriguing. I don't know whether Milbank is completely right, but his ideas are certainly provocative, and he's clearly on the right track toward identifying and resolving the current problems of society. He makes a lot more sense than anyone else I've encountered lately, that's for sure.
God bless John Milbank
Thank you.
Science, itself becomes the doctrine.
Thanks Bob
Is this from a Canadian radio program? I think I recognize the announcer's voice.
Ah, I was right, I thought this was a CBC program.
@Darren A
Sad you don´t see how, given John's perspective, there is no such thing as God of the Gaps
+Joseph Öhrman Anyone who appeals to the God of the gaps probably doesn't understand classical theism, since it's compatible with evolution by natural selection. When classical theists say that God is the first cause, they mean that everyone else and everything else depends on Him to sustain it. That's why gaps in the fossil record don't disprove evolution theory. Since everyone else and everything else depends on God to sustain it, natural selection, the gaps, the processes that cause the gaps do, too.
@@williammcenaney9393 Classical theism rocks. I just found out about it and love studying it.
Classical theism makes sense and to me is the only account of God that takes what it means to be God seriously.
this is working on an assumption that 'secular' means 'non-religious', which i disagree with. looking at, say, the U.S. constitution, 'secular' means 'without religious bias'.
Humanism is a religion.
I am not pleased that you leave it to the commenters to give credit where credit is due for this work. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, funded by Canadian taxpayers, gives Americans a much needed example of what is possible if they could just get over their ridiculous aversion to government.
That is very well said. As an American, I totally agree.
A rare instance wherein the CBC published something that doesn’t place a traditional idea in a negative light.
As an American I totally agree.
Americans are only adverse to the government that does not reflect what they want.
@@fruitingfungi Really? Hard to debate, but I have never heard that the Repubican party wanted to do anything but shrink it.
I took the cover the picture.
The Enchanted Pipe Smoker nice one!
Fucking great: "The future we have missed".
Curse him. He equates liberalism with fascism and communism at 43:30.
I´d say liberalism is far worse...
To me, being secular means that you aren't teaching "A" religion as normative. Secularism is a fusion of philosophy, including religion. Secularism is probably very different in diffferent countries. In America, the First Amendment has big influence on secular institutions like the public schools. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a limit on the ways religion could be described or discussed in schools. Obviously, it is a huge part of social studies and even Language Arts.
Secularism definitely is not "a fusion of philosophy, including religion". Even saying as such shows you're confused on the partitions of philosphy and theology, and especially the secular society we inhabit
Sad you guys don't see the God of the Gaps in John's basic conclusion.....
What do you mean?
Definitely not a God of the gaps. His argument - and all premodern and pre-voluntarist scholastic theology - would be all the “filled” places (I.e. the NOT gaps; filled or ‘hard’, “dense” places; what is empirical) as well as any “gaps” (which really are probably just areas of ignorance) are “IN” God; as is all of creation.
Curtis Cohen this still assumes that there's a God in the first place.
Nader Abed which is the most logical conclusion, a necessary uncaused first cause
Atheists love shouting "god of the gaps" at everything, without even understanding what they're talking about
Science is falsifiable. Religion is not. If a scientist or a science cheerleader is proclaiming scientific Truth, strike them down (rhetorically) for being unscientific. It is religion that lays claim to ultimate, immortal Truth, not science. However, when it comes to an ever growing number of human concerns, it is science that seems to have the best, most efficacious answers.
Two problems with what you're saying. 1. Science provides no answers to ethical and moral questions. 2. "Falsifiability" plays only a limited role (though an important one) in scientific inquiry, and it would be impossible to survive without knowledge that was unfalsifiable. Religion is not entirely about knowledge in the first place, but about habits, rituals, patterns of life and sociality, a sense of purpose and meaning, orientation toward what is greater than one's self, and so on. All of these are vital to human existence, but none are "propositions" that could ever be falsified.
Say that to cosmology and every other scientific field that relies on comparing models
@@07lipe077 I have come back to this after 6 months. I wonder if the religious person's insistence that everyone is religious, whether they know it or not, isn't evidence of a lack of confidence. I think the "radical" atheists are similar in that way. If they were more confident, they wouldn't feel the need to attack the foundations of the opposite group. A hundred years ago, Christians and deists met on equal footing when discussing science. Deism has lost more ground, it seems, than Christianity. In the political field, politicians are free to appeal to religion and/or nonreligion in making arguments. There are constituencies for each.
1. They are two realms that question different spheres. I don't care about the "efficacy" of ethical questions in science, as it is both peistemological impossible and irrelevant, for example, when facing a mechanical problem.
2. Whole science rests on axiomatic premises that cannot be falsified. It is the security that basic logic/maths provided. And they are necessary.
3. Terms of mere epistemology (which, by no way, reduces the question): Although there are propositions that can differently settle down a reasonable case for religion that are themselves falsifiable as a whole phenomena (in Chrisianity, as it is historical, there are many), they are not the point. Moreover, what science can possibly falsify are PARADIGMS, not propositions. In fact, some facts against a specific paradigm don't change it, because it is entailed inside socio-economic factors, to offer an example. In conclusion, paradigmatic discussion itself trascends the scientific inquiry, so that methodology rests on, ultimately, also very specific, universal Truths, not experimental.
Has milbank ever spoken to a scientist?
If he did he seems to have learned very little.
One minute in, and nearly everything said is factually incorrect. Not a promising start for an "intellectual".
what did he say that is incorrect?
be gone troll
when ppl don't have even the faintest grasp of the logical relationship between empirical and ontological discourses.
He knows dozens of scientists, including me.
Meh, Chesterton wannabe. And Chesterton was an economic illiterate.