Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Reposting this for Everyman, who is evidently having internet issues.

Hope this posts -- am having serious Internet issues. Will say more here when I get decent service back. Although family issues kept me from participating fully in the discussion, I do have a few thoughts on these last lectures I'll try to share if I can!

Meanwhile, good posting to those who do have Internet.

James seems to have landed on Pluralism "in the last analysis". It's not yet clear to me what the difference is between Pluralism and Relativism.

Nemo wrote: "James seems to have landed on Pluralism "in the last analysis". It's not yet clear to me what the difference is between Pluralism and Relativism."

Are you referring to Religious Pluralism or Philosophical or Methodological Pluralism?

Os Guiness seems to put the difference very succintly here.

https://youtu.be/q9Czx0fAic0

Borum wrote: "Os Guiness seems to put the difference very succintly here.

https://youtu.be/q9Czx0fAic0"

In other words, Pluralism says there are many different truths, but relativism says there is no such thing as truth, but only many different opinions.

The question remains: Is it possible to resolve those differences that are in direct conflict with one another?

Religious pluralism, the acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid, promoting coexistence. One of the finest expressions of religious pluralism is:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

http://classroom.monticello.org/teach...

The answer to your question concerning the handling of conflicting differences is probably found somewhere in the judicious exercise of rightful liberty.

In these last lectures, James describes what is often called the "bottom-up" approach to konwledge. We gather data piecemeal, start from the bare experiential facts, and then build systematic knowledge ("over-beliefs") on top of them.

I wonder whether he realized that his psychology and pragmatic philosophy are also "over-beliefs", just like the philosophy and theology that he tried hard to avoid.

David wrote: "...that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. ..."

David -- thanks for your quotation from Jefferson. On face value, seems so plausible.

This weekend the (religious) study group of which I have been a part for several years had their annual barbecue. During our before the meal conversations, one of the women, who has been a serving ordained pastor in one of our nearby communities, told of her efforts to create a community council-like group of the leaders of various religious faiths. (She had provided earlier leadership in interfaith relations, particularly in another community right after 9/11.) She found that the leader (inman?) at the local mosque expressed an inability to meet with her because his faith restricted the eye-to-eye, face-to-face contact that would have been needed. My own reaction at this point is that religious (cultural?) opinions can impact "civil capacities" -- and the options/solutions/work-arounds aren't always obvious. (We incur similar issues on right-to-life/right-to-choose, business services towards or denied selected groups,... One that hadn't occurred to me until recently was the conflicts between the Hippocratic oath of doctors and the state statutes that require medical presence during administration of lethal injections. I owe this later awareness to Atul Gawande in Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance.)

Lily wrote: "David wrote: "...that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civ..."

Not only lethal injections, but procedures like transfusions depend on religious beliefs as well. The last time I was admitted and told the nurse that I was Christian, she asked me if I belonged to Jehovah's witness or any other religion that refuses transfusion. This refusal can mean the choice between life and death in certain critical circumstances.

Lily wrote: "...We incur similar issues on right-to-life/right-to choose..."

The use of language in these controversial ethical issues can be very tricky.. When everything is expressed in terms of "rights", and not "duties" or "obligations", nobody is obligated to safeguard another person's right, the end result is that no rights are safeguarded.

Nemo wrote: ". . .nobody is obligated to safeguard another person's right. . ."

Putting aside any moral or other arguments that contradict such a statement, we all pay a lot of taxes that say differently.

David wrote: "...we all pay a lot of taxes..."

and grumble about it.

Discussions of religious experience seem incomplete without the obligatory arguments for the existence of God. James dismisses them as practically "worthless", but I find his dismissals a little too flippant for such solemn subjects.

http://youtu.be/gyrzhVvg3ws

Nemo wrote: "I find his dismissals a little too flippant for such solemn subjects."

The opening statements from Dr. Kreeft in the video link.

"In once sense I don't think you can prove the existence of God. If you mean by god everything reavealed in scripture, I don't think you can prove that that is true."

That pretty much dismisses an aspect of God in the same way James' claim dismisses the metaphysical attributes of God:

So much for the metaphysical attributes of God! From the point of view of practical religion, the metaphysical monster which they offer to our worship is an absolutely worthless invention of the scholarly mind.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 345). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

I did not get the sense that James dismissal of the metaphysical attributes of God were too quick or flippant at all. He does spend some time providing very precise and concise examples of the convoluted and totally meaningless thinking supporting his claim.

Dr. Kreeft's explanation of the argument from desire seems to come the closest to Jame's claim that God exists because he satisfies man's deepest need to be happy.

Thank you very much for the video link. I like Dr. Kreeft's talks very much and own What Would Socrates Do? The History of Moral Thought and Ethics by him. He was the first to explain Plato's Euthyphro in a way that made sense to me. Every time I listen to him I become more convinced weak atheism is the way to go because in matters of God and religion he will jump a bit too far to a conclusion or a premise, admit to the problems of the argument, or is so fair in his delivery that he will state or allude to some valid objection to the argument.

Nemo wrote: "Discussions of religious experience seem incomplete without the obligatory arguments for the existence of God. James dismisses them as practically "worthless", but I find his dismissals a little to..."

I don't think he dismisses philosophical arguments per se, but he does claim that philosophical and intellectual attempt to explain the existence of God is of secondary importance and should be preceded by the emotional experience. He seemed to place the essence of the religious experience on both the internal individual experience and the emotional aspect, and give only auxillary roles to the external (ecclesiastical) and intellectual experiences.

I think his claim was influenced by the changes in James' modern period of increasing secularization and movement towards man's intellectual reason and science. Perhaps he thought that although the religious life is becoming less secured and involved with man's social life and the existence of God and the veracity of religion is increasingly dissected and analyzed by science, the foundation of religion still lies in the individual emotional experience and should not lose its ground under those influences.

Borum wrote: "He seemed to place the essence of the religious experience on both the internal individual experience and the emotional aspect, and give only auxillary roles to the external (ecclesiastical) and intellectual experiences. "

I agree with your analysis of James, and he made some very good points on the whole.

However, experiences alone don't make a 500+ page book. People have to make sense of them and communicate them to others, therefore the intellectual experiences are indispensable. James also acknowledges that to some extent. That's why I'm a little baffled by his dismissal of the intellectual aspect of religion.

As I see it, philosophy (including theology) is, among other things, mankind's way to make sense of our total experiences of life and reality. It doesn't undermine our emotional or mystical experiences at all, on the contrary, it gives our experiences meaning by bringing them to light, so to speak.

David wrote: "Thank you very much for the video link. I like Dr. Kreeft's talks very much and own What Would Socrates Do? The History of Moral Thought and Ethics by him. He was the first to explain Plato's Euthyphro in a way that made sense to me. Every time I listen to him I become more convinced weak atheism is the way to go"

You're welcome. I haven't read any of Kreeft's books yet, but his Socrates series sounds interesting, especially Socrates Meets Descartes.

I would put a question to you, which Kreeft once asked his debate opponent, "Why atheism? Why not agnosticism?"

Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: "He seemed to place the essence of the religious experience on both the internal individual experience and the emotional aspect, and give only auxillary roles to the external (ecclesia..."

I agree. Although philosophy may not be enough to cause someone to believe or convert, it is one of the main ways to communicate and share our experiences. I think it's one of James' limitations. I think he was too intimidated or wary of the intellectualism of his times from undermining the emotional/spiritual experiences.

Although it's on a completely different level and context, it's sort of like reading Lucretius (or Dante or any other great poems) in a prose or verse translation. Although the verse translation is more 'true' to its original form, it's harder to understand or follow for some people that prefer the more clear prose translation. Although emotional or mystical experiences may be more close to the foundation of religion and the 'actual' experience, some of us need the more lucid and plain version to 'understand' and absorb the whole outline.

Borum wrote: "Although it's on a completely different level and context, it's sort of like reading Lucretius (or Dante or any other great poems) in a prose or verse translation. ."

Nice analogy. :)

Nemo wrote: "I would put a question to you, which Kreeft once asked his debate opponent, "Why atheism? Why not agnosticism?"

The short answer is, the lack of evidence is so overwhelming that even agnosticism cannot be justified.

I found this interesting -

(Henry A. Wallace was FDR's Vice President, and nearly beat Truman for the nomination)

Wallace was raised as a Presbyterian and remained a devout Christian all his life. In college, however, he became increasingly dissatisfied with organized religion after reading William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). Around 1919 he stopped attending the Presbyterian church and spent the next ten years exploring other religious faiths and traditions, including spiritualism and esoteric religion. He later said, "I know I am often called a mystic, and in the years following my leaving the United Presbyterian Church I was probably a practical mystic ... I'd say I was a mystic in the sense that George Washington Carver was – who believed God was in everything and therefore, if you went to God, you could find the answers." Wallace joined the Theosophical Society on June 6, 1925, and that same year helped organize a Des Moines parish of the Liberal Catholic Church, an inclusive Christian denomination with ties to theosophy, but which had no ties to the Roman Catholic Church. He resigned from the Theosophical Society on or before November 23, 1935, and in 1939 formally joined the Episcopal Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A...

David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I would put a question to you, which Kreeft once asked his debate opponent, "Why atheism? Why not agnosticism?"

The short answer is, the lack of evidence is so overwhelming that even ..."

What would you accept as evidence for God?

Nemo wrote: "What would you accept as evidence for God? ..."

Why is there a need for evidence? So what if there is no "God" other than Yahweh -- I am who I am. Are we ready to deny "Being"? What if "creation" is "simply" embedded in the Universe? Does that need deny all the experiences humans have relative to "God" or the Divine? Maybe the alms of the widow or those obeying that pillar of Islam are among the experiences we should consider as "religious." What is the necessary primacy of mystical? James didn't convince me -- either on logic or "feeling."

Are we about to deny the existence of "justice"? Of "freedom"? Are those valid analogous questions? I don't know.

Saw the movie "The Innocents" today. Left me considering several issues about the roles of religion and religious practice. And the possibilities for salvation.

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "What would you accept as evidence for God? ..."

Why is there a need for evidence? So what if there is no "God" other than Yahweh -- I am who I am. Are we ready to deny "Being"? What i..."

Is that the French movie with the nuns?

Borum wrote: "Is that the French movie with the nuns? ..."

Borum -- yes, this one:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/f...

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/7714... -- access to a number of viewpoints on the film

http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movie... -- perhaps the "best" of the sample of reviews I've read so far.

The movie reminded me of the rather more complex "Ida" of a few years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_(film)

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "What would you accept as evidence for God? ..."

Why is there a need for evidence? "

Good question. You're "scientifically trained and oriented" (in your own words), don't you have that need? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

(P.S., If I understand you correctly, you're implicitly asking, what practical difference does it make whether Jesus is God or not? If He didn't bodily resurrect from the dead, does it mean that his moral teachings are invalid? I would like to pursue that line of inquiry further, but as you said earlier, this is not the forum.)

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "What would you accept as evidence for God? ..."

Why is there a need for evidence? So what if there is no "God" other than Yahweh -- I am who I am. Are we ready to deny "Being"? What i..."

I like Pascal's Wager:
(via Wiki)

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)....

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.

Statistically, because of the various definitions of "evidence" of God, I think a 50-50 odds approach as Pascal defined it is highly practical and logical. If God exists, choosing to believe will only benefit, and if God does not exist, nothing changes.

Nemo wrote: "What would you accept as evidence for God?"
Lily wrote: "Why is there a need for evidence?

Excellent questions. To Nemo, don't you think God, if he exists, can figure out way to let us conslusively, universally, uniformly, and finally inform us all of his existence better than he has done in the last 2,600 years? And, no, I do not pretend to subscribe to the "free will" apology. To Lily, Don't you think it is wrong to believe things without evidence? Lets start with Clifford. Because actions are based on beliefs and people have a duty to themselves and others, belief in things without evidence is wrong:

No evidence, therefore, can justify us in believing the truth of a statement which is contrary to, or outside of, the uniformity of nature. If our experience is such that it cannot be filled up consistently with uniformity, all we have a right to conclude is that there is something wrong somewhere; but the possibility of inference is taken away; we must rest in our experience, and not go beyond it at all. If an event really happened which was not a part of the uniformity of nature, it would have two properties: no evidence could give the right to believe it to any except those whose actual experience it was; and no inference worthy of belief could be founded upon it at all. Are we then bound to believe that nature is absolutely and universally uniform? Certainly not, we have no right to believe anything of this kind. The rule only tells us that in forming beliefs which go beyond our experience we may make the assumption that nature is practically uniform so far as we are concerned. Within the range of human action and verification, we may form, by help of this assumption, actual beliefs; beyond it, only those hypotheses which serve for the more accurate asking of questions. To sum up :— We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know. . .It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe.

Clifford, William Kingdon. The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (Great Books in Philosophy) (Kindle Locations 1597-1610). Prometheus Books - A. Kindle Edition.

Thomas Paine saw this even earlier when in his Age of Reason he ironically claimed:

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Janice(JG) wrote: "...If God exists, choosing to believe will only benefit, and if God does not exist, nothing changes. ..."

But, to me, that is kind of scuzzy and not exactly what at least my concept of "God" is about. Something about God seems to call out for humbleness and humility, for thankfulness for the possibility of "greater" than self and humanity per se.

Lily wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "...If God exists, choosing to believe will only benefit, and if God does not exist, nothing changes. ..."

But, to me, that is kind of scuzzy and not exactly what at least my concept of "God" is about. Something about God seems to call out for humbleness and humility, for thankfulness for the possibility of "greater" than self and humanity per se..."

But that's not rational, that's "something about God." I completely agree with you, I feel the same way... but it's a feeling. Pascal was speaking to those who demanded a logical, rational, and scientific approach to the question of whether or not God exists.

Janice(JG) wrote: "But that's not rational,..."

Not sure what is irrational about extrapolating beyond the known, proven rational -- and, of course, continuing to be open to evidence or lack thereof.

There are quite a few problems with Pascal's wager:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%2...

David wrote: "To Nemo, don't you think God, if he exists, can figure out way to let us conslusively, universally, uniformly, and finally inform us all of his existence better than he has done in the last 2,600 years?"

There are a few presumptions underlying that question.

1) If an entity exists, all mankind would have complete and uniform knowledge of it. This is obviously not true. The universe exists, and yet we know very little of it, neither conclusively nor universally, not even close. I would expect the Creator of the universe far more profound than the universe itself.

I believe in objective truth about God, just as I believe in objective truth of the universe, though our knowledge in both are extremely limited and imperfect, and reason itself has its limitations. The challenge of "knowing God' is what makes the life of a believer intellectually satisfying, imo.

Nemo wrote: "The universe exists, and yet we know very little of it, neither conclusively nor universally, not even close"

But we do know quite a bit about it, and as far as we know, none if it is outside the uniformity of nature. It may admittedly stretch the uniformity of nature if we discover something new, but there is no reason to believe we will discover anything outside of it. And at least we know the universe exists.

Nature is full of diversity, as far as the eye can see. So I don't know what is meant exactly by "uniformity of nature". If, as you quoted, "what we do not know is like what we know" by experience. Then religious beliefs that are founded on experience are necessarily true.

Nemo wrote: "I believe in objective truth about God, just as I believe in objective truth of the universe, though our knowledge in both are extremely limited and imperfect, and reason itself has its limitations. The challenge of "knowing God' is what makes the life of a believer intellectually satisfying, imo."

So we both believe in objective truth. One difference we have is that while I accept some limited truths concerning the universe, I see no objective truths for God. Another difference we have is that I do not see limitations in either as a license to pretend to know things we just don't know. The satisfaction from demands like these for the non-believer are:
1. The avoidance of intellectual dishonesty and the required exercise of intellectual honesty.
2. The exercise of freedom to accept truths that are contradictory to religious teachings and interpretations.
3. The resulting resolution of all of the intellectually dissatisfying cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to fit the great wide universe into very small gods of very limited old texts, including James' attempts to do so subjectively in VRE, (there, a legitimate reference to the book to make it relevant) instead of the other way around.

imho. :)

David wrote: "So we both believe in objective truth. One difference we have is that while I accept some limited truths concerning the universe, I see no objective truths for God.."

Again, what would you accept as evidence for God?

Nemo wrote: "I don't know what is meant exactly by "uniformity of nature"

An adequate explanation of the uniformity of nature is too lengthy for this forum. I highly recommend The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays to give you a good start.

Lily wrote: "Borum wrote: "Is that the French movie with the nuns? ..."

Borum -- yes, this one:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/f......"

Thanks. Les Innocentes was given a different title in Korea: Agnus Dei. The review sounds good. I'm looking forward to it.

What we really haven't talked about yet in this current discussion is the intelligibility of the universe. Why is the universe rational to begin with?When we talk of the existence or not-existence of God we have two ways of looking at it, from the philosophical and the scientific perspective. James doesn't really talk of either. He was more concerned with personal experiences. the rational understanding of the universe occurs only in Judeo-Christian thought.

There are people, like Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith, who very seriously delve into the scientific side of this subject. There is actually a mathematical improbability number that expresses that the universe couldn't have created itself - ex nihilo (out of nothing). It is 10ˆ10ˆ123 (please forgive me if I didn't write this mathematically correct, what I mean is the improbability of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123). That's when I last saw this number (and I do hope I remember it correctly!). This is an unimaginable large number. Now that is very strong scientific evidence that a Creator exists.

How was this number put together? For instance when you look at a carbon atom and see how the 4 electrons are arranged, you can calculate the improbability of this happening just by chance. You'll arrive at virtually zero. Or look at the propensity of water. Why is it at it's most dense at 4 degrees Celcius, or why do you have exactly 1 moth species to pollinate the yucca plant out of all the possible pollinators present on the American Plains? Why is the skin on our eyelids much thinner than on the bottom of our feet? Why do we have liquid water on earth? Why are bird's wings shaped exactly in the physical proportions to make them fly? etc., etc., etc. What is the chance of all of this happening just by chance? The above quoted number is the culmination of all theses kinds of calculations.

David wrote: "To Lily, Don't you think it is wrong to believe things without evidence?..."

Yes, I was being somewhat satiric. But "evidence" to me is both very simple and very complex. It is not the "mystical" that James struggles over, or the thin places in this world that some claim to exist. "Evidence" is in the being of existence, in the birth of a child, in the walk in the woods or along a pristine seashore, in the night sky, in a Cambrian fossil, in the reports from Hubble, in the search for dark matter, .... It is in the experience of humility and of awe within the scope of what our senses and our extensions thereof allow us to comprehend.

I struggle over the concept of "Supernatural." Oft times it seems simply a term for our human lack of understanding at this point in time. As a Christian, I find the concept of a triune God rife with difficulties. But, whether in forums like this or often in small groups with whom I associate, I sense understanding the meaning of presence greater than that of the individuals involved, i.e., the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. I find the concept of the presence of a Holy Spirit not irrelevant.

Lily wrote: "It is in the experience of humility and of awe within the scope of what our senses and our extensions thereof allow us to comprehend. "

What is humility? Is the experience of humility and of awe a kind of mystical experience? (I'm asking because I have no experience of humility, but only know it by hearsay.)

David wrote: "Another difference we have is that I do not see limitations in either as a license to pretend to know things we just don't know. "

If a person is honest and aware of his limitations, he would not assert that God doesn't exist, as if it were a matter of fact, for that is to pretend to know what he doesn't know.

the intellectually dissatisfying cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to fit the great wide universe into very small gods of very limited old texts,

Hmm, if "uniformity of nature" is true, surely size and age don't matter? What is true in the small is also true in the great, what is true for the old is also true for the young?

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "It is in the experience of humility and of awe within the scope of what our senses and our extensions thereof allow us to comprehend. "

What is humility? Is the experience of humility..."

RFLOL! Set up an experiment. Try it!

I think I prefer Evelyn Underhill's exploration and explanations of religious / mystical experiences.

She dismisses William James' pioneering study, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and his "four marks of the mystic state" (ineffability, noetic quality, transcience, and passivity). James had admitted that his own constitution shut him off almost entirely from the enjoyment of mystical states, thus his treatment was purely objective. Underhill substituted (1) mysticism is practical, not theoretical, (2) mysticism is an entirely spiritual activity, (3) the business and method of mysticism is love, and (4) mysticism entails a definite psychological experience. - Wiki

James has not really dealt with the importance of love in his examples, tho' almost all the examples seem to allude to it either boldly or subtly. He sees "happiness" as both a source and a goal, but in truth, it is love that initiates the feeling of happiness.

In her introduction to Songs of Kabir, she says

It is a marked characteristic of mystical literature that the great contemplatives, in their effort to convey to us the nature of their communion with the supersensuous, are inevitably driven to employ some form of sensuous imagery: course and inaccurate as they know such imagery to be, even at the best... Hence their constant declaration that they see the uncreated light, they hear the celestial melody, they taste the sweetness of the Lord, they know an ineffable fragrance, they feel the very contact of love.

Underhill understands these things to be actual evidence of God and communion with God.

Nemo wrote: "I believe in objective truth about God, just as I believe in objective truth of the universe, though our knowledge in both are extremely limited and imperfect, and reason itself has its limitations."

This is a premise of the "God of the gaps" form of the argument from ignorance fallacy, is it not?

P1: (Explicit) There are gaps in understanding of some aspects of the natural world.
P2: (Implicit) Anything we do not understand in nature must be Supernatural/God.
C: Therefore the cause of the gaps in understanding of these aspects of the natural world must be supernatural/God.

Note: P1 and P2 contradict each other because P1 explicitly states we know we do not know everything about the natural world and P2 implies we must know that we know everything there is to know about the natural world. That is a pretty tall order since even an omniscient entity can never know for sure if they know everything.

The puzzling thing to me is how much we know, rather than how little. The consensus scientific explanation for our brains is that they arose by random mutation in a species of savannah apes, and persisted because they helped those apes survive and reproduce on their savannah. Yet our brains can do incredibly much more--describe galaxies incredibly far away, and quarks incredibly small, and the beginning of the Universe 13.2 billion years ago, and the future billions of years ago, not to mention all the poetry, art, music, and literature that all come from our brains, but seem to have to connection at all with helping savannah apes survive and reproduce.

David wrote: "P2: (Implicit) Anything we do not understand in nature must be Supernatural/God..."

That seems nonsense to me -- but maybe that is what you are implying?

If any of you have a copy of Henry James' Golden Bowl with an introduction that includes his brother William's critique thereof, you may find it an interesting read. I was amused because, after VRE, it seems to me William is equally accountable for obfuscation.

David wrote: ""God of the gaps""

The 'God of the gaps' argument is fallacy, no question about it. Even from a faith perspective. It implies that whatever we haven't figured out yet must be the work of a god. Fallacy here is,

a) that we will figure everything out eventually
b) that faith is the same as superstition

We do know that there are limits to what we will ever know, there are things that are beyond our capacity to penetrate, such as what was before the big bang or what is beyond the time horizon. God, therefore, is in the "place" which we will never penetrate through our own abilities, but we know there must be more. This is what Christians mean when they use the word "mystery."

The fallacy can also be rolled out from the opposite direction. Because we know how some things work, such as the krebs cycle or photosynthesis, doesn't automatically imply there is no designer. A very strong argument can be made, because these things are so complex and highly ordered the chances of this happening at random and in the short time we've had life on earth is mathematically absurd.

And, as Roger pointed out, where do all the non-measurable, esoteric things fit in? Beauty, love, art, music, poetry, justice, altruism, etc., etc. These are part of reality too and cannot be explained by the mechanics of evolution.