tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041174.post109934094546279254..comments2019-05-06T03:59:20.748-04:00Comments on On-line Religion Discursus: We Kant Go On Like ThisC. Wingatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13335513246185768918noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041174.post-1099611407078043542004-11-04T18:36:00.000-05:002004-11-04T18:36:00.000-05:00There are problems with the word "perceive" in thi...There are problems with the word "perceive" in this anyway because it tends to bias us towards an active agent-- us theologians-- and a passive numinous. To that degree there <I>is</I> something of a paradigm difference, because traditionally Christianity has denied a passive deity. I'm going to chalk this up to the Enlightenment and reject the emphasis on perception as a mistake. Many slight choices in words open this up quite a bit, so that substituting "can be shown truth" for "can perceive truth" for instance largely nullifies the bias (admittedly, by tilting in favor of revelation).<br /><br />But that said, it still comes back to theories about the numinous per se. The bias against personal gods is interesting but yet can be talked about quite ordinarily in terms of God's nature. And it is not an innovation, but rather an ordinary feature of human consideration of the divine.<br /><br />At the same time, there's an obvious heresy-- if not blasphemy-- hidden it here. Let me call it "specimization": the reduction of the divine to a thing to be studied. It is all too easy for theologians to substitute talking <I>about</I> for talking <I>to</I> God.C. Wingatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335513246185768918noreply@blogger.com