"Naïve" is a rather imprecise term, and seems to me to be a rather offhanded comment that has little relevance to the point of his lecture. In fact, it seems to me that his comment is that the atheist project is often (certainly not always) working under that "naïve" assumption that if a sufficiently coherent "natural" explanation can be given of the cosmos, then God is, by this method, "explained" away. This may be indeed true for Craig, but not for Hart.
14:30 Ooh, breaking with the Thomists who stake their position in the immateriality of the intellect? Who deny that the "Hard Problem" is hard if one takes the extended Aristotelian conception of "matter?" That's … surprising.
I love this kind of thinking, and I think that the loss of classical ontology,/epistemology/theology is a serious and largely unacknowledged loss for modern, postmodern, and now postpostmodern philosophy. BUT I'm acutely aware that no atheist will be convinced by this lecture. Indeed no one not already inculturated with Hart's premises, will be convinced or even microscopically nudged off their position by Hart's thinking. Indeed they will turn off the talk after a few minutes because they don't think in the same manner as Hart. The way of proceeding which hart takes for granted because of his classical education is not familiar to contemporary people. IOW he is preaching to the choir (he's only going to reach people who can understand a platonic or aristotelian style of argument, a very sparsely populated set), and therefore isn't doing a lot of good for his cause. He'll just give complacency to those already sympathetic to him ("he sure showed those scientific materialists, didn't he??"), but all he showed is, not that the scientific materialists are wrong, but only that they don't live up to his classical philosophical criteria for what constitutes a compelling argument.
Therefore, there's a problem of translation between someone like Hart and those "new atheists" and similar with whom he is intending to dialogue. We need to find a common vocabulary and a more substantial core of common premises and intellectual methodology, in order to make progress in talking to each other. In default of that, we just have the usual acrimonious debate between atheists and believers who both tend to assume bad faith and even stupidity on the part of their interlocutors.
For example, a traditionalist like Hart will find cogent an argument from the idea of (platonic) "participation", or equally, an Aristotelian-Thomistic argument that an infinite regress of causation is untenable, while an atheistic scientist of today will find those arguments unintelligible (not merely "false"). They will find those arguments unintelligible not because of bad faith but because of simple unfamiliarity, and because science doesn't use those kind of intellectual-intuitive arguments. Science moves rather by induction from "hard" observable facts, and by the interplay between theory and observation. Personally, I am friendly to both the classical and the empirical ways of thinking, and I suggest we need to be thus bi-friendly in order to make progress.
Again, I am in favor of arguing in these quasi-platonic ways; but I'm aware that they are invoking the faculty of Intuition, and not merely a scientific intellect. Classically, the intellect was considered not just what's measured by a high IQ, but also the intuitive faculty, and Hart's thinking is a good example of this (for example, in his speaking of the Infinite).
Personally, I would also want to explore further, beyond Hart's invocation of the Absolute, into the apophatic tradition as well, where it's recognized that at some point, the discursive intellect has to actually "shut up", and mystical apprehension can find its rightful place at the table. I love the level where one speaks of the Infinite, and I also love the level where one realizes on can't speak of the infinite at all, precisely because it is in- (not) finite, and therefore beyond words, since words are basically predications and determinations and therefore limitations.
As an Orthodox theologian, I'm sure he's familiar with apophaticism, pseudo-Dionysius, the neo-Platonists from which he drew his thinking, and the fact that all Christian mysticism flows from him, directly or indirectly.
It's interesting that the Platonic academy became Skeptical after the lifetime of Plato, and while that's not strictly synonymous with our current "skepticism," it's not unrelated either, in temper and method. Where I"m going with all of this is that, if classical sensibility can be fast-forwarded beyond Plato and Aristotle to the Neo-platonists and their apophatic sensibility, and to Skepticism both Academic and Pyrrhonian, THERE's where there's a more fruitful nexus for dialogue with contemporary science and naturalism could be located.
"Absolute value?" Is that not an oxymoron? What you are aiming at is a theory of everything, but as such a thing is not known or knowable, you fill in the gap with the term god, not being able to locate nor to observe such a thing. You need to listen to parts 1 and 2 of Dr. John Hagelin's short talks on consciousness and the Unified Field. You are lacking a unified theory or explanation that connects the unmanifest with the manifest.
The more one reduces the subjective quality of experience to the world of objective physical events, the more one loses the sense of the data to be explained; namely, subjective experience. If one cannot find the explanation within the physical order, then one simply shifts their gaze to the immaterial.
I wonder why that shift is so difficult for some to make.
Within this symphony of Hart's sentience is the coalescence of hope in me for the renewal of the mind in him. Rarely do I part his company with such a sense of the inherence of Spirit in his immediate experience. There always seems to be a presence of cynicism that is the very antithesis of Hope in the Spirit. Such is the inspiration of faith that is the gift of the Spirit of God. It is the substance of the hope for Hart in the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Soli Deo Gloria
"There cannot be a physical cause of existence." The debate shouldn't be about Nature vs. Supernature, but about whether there was a cause at all. As far as we know, there has never not been SOMETHING. (I'm not going to attempt to discuss the Big Bang.) A cause of existence presupposes that existence is not infinite in both directions in time. Explanations are needed only if we claim that there was a BEGINNING. Creation myths may be just that: myths. Obviously, we desire to know more and we desire divinity (perfect power, control and happiness). These are in short supply, however, they are available by living according to spiritual principles, which one could call Supernatural or purely natural. See Sam Harris on meditation, for instance.
This is really good (as we've come to expect from DBH), but why don't you post the entire lecture?
"Naïve" is a rather imprecise term, and seems to me to be a rather offhanded comment that has little relevance to the point of his lecture. In fact, it seems to me that his comment is that the atheist project is often (certainly not always) working under that "naïve" assumption that if a sufficiently coherent "natural" explanation can be given of the cosmos, then God is, by this method, "explained" away. This may be indeed true for Craig, but not for Hart.
The worse the professor dresses…the deeper his knowldege, lol
What a totally awesome talk!
"… the ontological poverty of everything physical." What a remarkable way to put it.
14:30 Ooh, breaking with the Thomists who stake their position in the immateriality of the intellect? Who deny that the "Hard Problem" is hard if one takes the extended Aristotelian conception of "matter?" That's … surprising.
Yes. Mystery in the immediacy of the moment . . .sense of the supernatural . . .Being . . .God
And then, a mechanical kind of unconsciousness, immersed in utility . . .nature . . .not even being aware of God's apparent absence.
I love this kind of thinking, and I think that the loss of classical ontology,/epistemology/theology is a serious and largely unacknowledged loss for modern, postmodern, and now postpostmodern philosophy. BUT I'm acutely aware that no atheist will be convinced by this lecture. Indeed no one not already inculturated with Hart's premises, will be convinced or even microscopically nudged off their position by Hart's thinking. Indeed they will turn off the talk after a few minutes because they don't think in the same manner as Hart. The way of proceeding which hart takes for granted because of his classical education is not familiar to contemporary people. IOW he is preaching to the choir (he's only going to reach people who can understand a platonic or aristotelian style of argument, a very sparsely populated set), and therefore isn't doing a lot of good for his cause. He'll just give complacency to those already sympathetic to him ("he sure showed those scientific materialists, didn't he??"), but all he showed is, not that the scientific materialists are wrong, but only that they don't live up to his classical philosophical criteria for what constitutes a compelling argument.
Therefore, there's a problem of translation between someone like Hart and those "new atheists" and similar with whom he is intending to dialogue. We need to find a common vocabulary and a more substantial core of common premises and intellectual methodology, in order to make progress in talking to each other. In default of that, we just have the usual acrimonious debate between atheists and believers who both tend to assume bad faith and even stupidity on the part of their interlocutors.
For example, a traditionalist like Hart will find cogent an argument from the idea of (platonic) "participation", or equally, an Aristotelian-Thomistic argument that an infinite regress of causation is untenable, while an atheistic scientist of today will find those arguments unintelligible (not merely "false"). They will find those arguments unintelligible not because of bad faith but because of simple unfamiliarity, and because science doesn't use those kind of intellectual-intuitive arguments. Science moves rather by induction from "hard" observable facts, and by the interplay between theory and observation. Personally, I am friendly to both the classical and the empirical ways of thinking, and I suggest we need to be thus bi-friendly in order to make progress.
Again, I am in favor of arguing in these quasi-platonic ways; but I'm aware that they are invoking the faculty of Intuition, and not merely a scientific intellect. Classically, the intellect was considered not just what's measured by a high IQ, but also the intuitive faculty, and Hart's thinking is a good example of this (for example, in his speaking of the Infinite).
Personally, I would also want to explore further, beyond Hart's invocation of the Absolute, into the apophatic tradition as well, where it's recognized that at some point, the discursive intellect has to actually "shut up", and mystical apprehension can find its rightful place at the table. I love the level where one speaks of the Infinite, and I also love the level where one realizes on can't speak of the infinite at all, precisely because it is in- (not) finite, and therefore beyond words, since words are basically predications and determinations and therefore limitations.
As an Orthodox theologian, I'm sure he's familiar with apophaticism, pseudo-Dionysius, the neo-Platonists from which he drew his thinking, and the fact that all Christian mysticism flows from him, directly or indirectly.
It's interesting that the Platonic academy became Skeptical after the lifetime of Plato, and while that's not strictly synonymous with our current "skepticism," it's not unrelated either, in temper and method. Where I"m going with all of this is that, if classical sensibility can be fast-forwarded beyond Plato and Aristotle to the Neo-platonists and their apophatic sensibility, and to Skepticism both Academic and Pyrrhonian, THERE's where there's a more fruitful nexus for dialogue with contemporary science and naturalism could be located.
Dialogue is welcome!
11:25
"Absolute value?" Is that not an oxymoron? What you are aiming at is a theory of everything, but as such a thing is not known or knowable, you fill in the gap with the term god, not being able to locate nor to observe such a thing. You need to listen to parts 1 and 2 of Dr. John Hagelin's short talks on consciousness and the Unified Field. You are lacking a unified theory or explanation that connects the unmanifest with the manifest.
Re Ibn Arabi's ternary , it's actually , wujud, wijdan, and wajd – not "wajid", which doesn't mean anything.
5:10 produces a bottle of water ex nihilo.
Close your eyes and listen: DBH enunciates his words exactly like James Spader.
If Orson Welles and James Spader had a baby…DBH would be it. What an odd but wonderful combination.
BTW: None of the above was meant as an insult. I'm an avid student of DBH and a huge fan of Orson Welles and James Spader.
I hope you can rightly process the profundity of the above observations.
The more one reduces the subjective quality of experience to the world of objective physical events, the more one loses the sense of the data to be explained; namely, subjective experience. If one cannot find the explanation within the physical order, then one simply shifts their gaze to the immaterial.
I wonder why that shift is so difficult for some to make.
29:00
24:00
This man sounds like Ultron.
@2:50 … Hello Shiva !
The suchness of things is the I am ness of God.
17:41
That time stamp is just where he makes a “logical point” about how the physical is inexplicable solely in its own terms.
30:42
Within this symphony of Hart's sentience is the coalescence of hope in me for the renewal of the mind in him. Rarely do I part his company with such a sense of the inherence of Spirit in his immediate experience. There always seems to be a presence of cynicism that is the very antithesis of Hope in the Spirit. Such is the inspiration of faith that is the gift of the Spirit of God. It is the substance of the hope for Hart in the work of the Holy Spirit alone.
Soli Deo Gloria
"There cannot be a physical cause of existence." The debate shouldn't be about Nature vs. Supernature, but about whether there was a cause at all. As far as we know, there has never not been SOMETHING. (I'm not going to attempt to discuss the Big Bang.) A cause of existence presupposes that existence is not infinite in both directions in time. Explanations are needed only if we claim that there was a BEGINNING. Creation myths may be just that: myths. Obviously, we desire to know more and we desire divinity (perfect power, control and happiness). These are in short supply, however, they are available by living according to spiritual principles, which one could call Supernatural or purely natural. See Sam Harris on meditation, for instance.