tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post3071333149316421763..comments2023-11-03T07:07:55.456-05:00Comments on CoPhilosophy: Mathematics and ReligionPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-71726532896429884992016-06-23T06:46:44.389-05:002016-06-23T06:46:44.389-05:00"In a Spinozan fashion, that which is all-enc..."In a Spinozan fashion, that which is all-encompassing and unexplained must be some power greater than ourselves and must be god." Spinoza's God, and Einstein's, is an intriguing thing to contemplate... but it's not really a "thing," and most religionists historically have said it's not really God, eitehr. I wonder if it's really "greater than ourselves," or if it just IS ourselves regarded as natural beings inseparably connected with one another and embedded in a common natural matrix? <br /><br />"It seems that every great character that has contributed to some astounding discovery within the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition has had also a simultaneous study within religion." So it seems, so far, but the Enlightenment and then the 19th century are about to take a hard turn towards secular humanism. Some will still insist on calling IT religion, too, or faith, or spirituality. We'll see.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.com