Ship of Fools: 'Doubt radio 4 Richard Holloway

Thread: 'Doubt radio 4 Richard Holloway Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023110

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

It's probably a bit early to mention this, as there have only been three programmes so far, but I wonder whether people here are going to be following the twenty 15-minute talkss at 1:45 p.m. daily, with an omnibus edition friday evenings?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Thanks - I'll get it on 'Listen again'.

I'm enjoying his book 'Looking in the distance' at the moment.

[Smile]

Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :

Yes, very much looking forward to the omnibus as 1:45 not usually a time I can listen. I've just finished his autobiography 'Leaving Alexandria' and was very moved and thought provoked by it. His writing - perhaps paradoxically from some people's point of view - has given me hope and helped keep me from giving up on the church many times now.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

I got a lot out of 'Dancing on the Edge' some years ago, though I confess I can't remember much about it now. I must re-read it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Thanks for the heads up about this series. I've enjoyed reading Holloway's books over the years, although his later stuff is more puzzling. So it will be interesting to see if hearing his thoughts orally might give me more of an insight into his current thinking.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

'Doubt' is at the top of my to-do list, courtesy of iplayer. I hope I'll have time this weekend to catch up.

I found Holloway's Godless Morality quite entertaining - a much-needed broadside accurately aimed against those who say you can't have morality without God. But I'm afraid I found Looking in the Distance utterly depressing. A counsel of hopelessness.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I'm going to make sure I listen to the omnibus edition tomorrow evening - he is certainly so interesting to listen to.

I've only read 'Godless Morality' but will make a note of the other titles mentioned here; I hope they're on talking books.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have admired Richard for many years but i am finding this series boring and not very original apart from the bits by Karen Armstrong.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

I found Holloway's Godless Morality quite entertaining - a much-needed broadside accurately aimed against those who say you can't have morality without God. But I'm afraid I found Looking in the Distance utterly depressing. A counsel of hopelessness.

I thought that when I first started reading it, but then realised his argument was not as hopeless as it seemed.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I found Holloway's Godless Morality quite entertaining - a much-needed broadside accurately aimed against those who say you can't have morality without God.

Thanks for reminding me about this book. As a result I've just started reading it.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Of course you can be a moral person without having religious beliefs.

The question is can you be a Christian cleric and not have any.

I am not over enamoured with Holloway. He seems to be in a rather tepid "Dark Night of the Soul". Without the depth to come out of it like St John of the Cross.

He might, or might not, be a good diagnostician of some of the causes of the contemporary malaise in Anglicanism in particular and what purports to be Christianity in the contemporary religious marketplace.

He left feeling he could do no more. I wonder if he should have left earlier? To heal himself or be healed. I find him one of those boring contemporary "talking heads": it's all "up top" without any real depth of feeling or real insight.

Holloway was not "just anyone" like the rest of us but the former Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church: a church he presided over in a period of steady decline. A church probably near extinction. Is this a man to metaphorically light our lamps? I fear not.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I listened to the first "Honest Doubt" last evening, and I rather enjoyed it. It was very much an introduction to the series, and I expect the following episodes will be meatier. There was nothing in the first episode that would come as news to a thinking Christian. There were one or two things that might possibly ruffle the feathers of un-thinking Christians - a view of doubt as a positive force might be one of them, I suppose. And there were things that might be news to those non-Christians who are convinced that there's no such thing as a thinking Christian.

Holloway himself is an excellent presenter. He has a good voice that's easy on the ear, and he has a confident manner that demonstrates he's comfortable with his subject. I'll definitely be listening to more.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I would endorse most of that, Adeodatus. He does have a natural presentation manner which I do hope he continues to use as the series moves on.

It was very much introductory - I doubt if anyone who haunts purg. here will hear anything new, but I guess the introductory thing needs to be done. I'll try to catch up with number two later today.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The question is can you be a Christian cleric and not have any.

Yes, in that Anglican holy orders are indelible. (Or is this among the things that you doubt?)

Aside from that, he surrendered his mitre in the year 2000. What more do you want?

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I must admit to being a bit underwhelmed by the concept behind this programme. A position of doubt regarding traditional Christianity is hardly new or daring in the contemporary UK.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have admired Richard for many years but i am finding this series boring and not very original apart from the bits by Karen Armstrong.

I'm hearing the series online while it is still available. The BBC spoils you all rotten over there, if you have the luxury of finding it boring. We never get anything half as in-depth or elegant as this on U.S. radio anymore.

It doesn't seem to me that Holloway is trying to be original in this series, but to educate the audience as to ideas already out there. Why be creative in seeking reasons to doubt? Haven't there been enough already for a few thousand years? Leave originality to those like Dawkins and the votaries he had before he renounced them, who feel some inner need to propagate atheism.

My apology to Sir Pellimore, though; I was probably too hard on his post above. But doubt comes and goes. It's just that if every man of the cloth threw in the towel with the first whiff-- or even the first year-- of doubt, we'd be left with no one but the brain-dead and the rascals. When we reach the end of the series, I might agree with Sir P. that it lacks some depth. As a presumably grateful member of modern western civilization, Holloway should acknowledge eventually the unique role of the Christian faith in getting us where we are (and where most of the rest of the world aspires to go). The historical arena is the one taken by David Bentley Hart in Atheist Delusions. I find his argument quite compelling.

As to how long we can continue to enjoy the good life after happily allowing this source to dry up, the jury's still out. Has any society ever tried it before?

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

SusanDoris:

Hi. You're one of the few militant atheists I know, and I wonder if you might be led to reconsider whether or not the Holloway is seeing something worth looking at? I'm a fan.

I know the reply of Dawkins and probably yourself would be that atheists are just as sensitive to poetry and mystery, if not more so, than religious believers, and I have to say that I no longer know whether Holloway would say he believes in God.

But where he and I are, I think, on the other side from Dawkins and you, lies in what questions we think are worth pursuing. It was Richard Feynman who said, when somebody asked him as he was dying, about survival of bodily death, that the idea interested him, only until he satisfied himself that there was no scientifically valid way to arrive at an answer, whereupon he lost interest.

It's that losing interest in pursuing questions that have no scientific answer that I fail to understand. And I think I get that also from Holloway.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

For anyone who can make it - and get a ticket at this late stage - Richard Holloway is speaking at the Hay-on-Wye festival this Sunday at 1 pm.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The question is can you be a Christian cleric and not have any.
Yes, in that Anglican holy orders are indelible. (Or is this among the things that you doubt?)

Aside from that, he surrendered his mitre in the year 2000. What more do you want?

Having read your next post I must say, even with your mild recantation of the above position, I still find what you said here incredibly facile.

I made no mention of holy orders per se, nor when Holloway retired, but thank you for introducing those two red herrings as hooks to hang your
"judgement" on. BTW I do not see you as being a theological arbiter, but just another opinionated person, like the rest of us.

My beef with Holloway is that he seems to be making a nice little earner out of his time as a former bishop and the doubts that a long career in the church sowed in him. Those doubts and his supposedly new position are now hawked as something valuable because of that former career. I have doubts as to their real value to anyone else.

If he had not been a prominent cleric I doubt anyone would read his books or listen to him. Mr Holloway, a retired stationmaster and his thoughts on religion? Who'd bother?

You've not, in my opinion, been "hard" on me. I think your post self-destructed. What better result could I expect?
[Snigger]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I found Holloway's Godless Morality quite entertaining - a much-needed broadside accurately aimed against those who say you can't have morality without God. ...

It still surprises me how many people think this is so. I said to a friend recently that, as she knew I was a moral person, how did she think I managed this, and pointed out that what we call 'moral' behaviour has evolved from survival strategies etc, butshe insisted they came from the Bible.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have admired Richard for many years but i am finding this series boring and not very original apart from the bits by Karen Armstrong.

Well, I have to admit that, given a choice, I'd prefer a livelier speaker and I did just doze for a minute or two during yesterday's omnibus, but certainly don't intend to miss any of this series.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I listened to the first "Honest Doubt" last evening, and I rather enjoyed it. It was very much an introduction to the series, and I expect the following episodes will be meatier. There was nothing in the first episode that would come as news to a thinking Christian. There were one or two things that might possibly ruffle the feathers of un-thinking Christians - a view of doubt as a positive force might be one of them, I suppose. And there were things that might be news to those non-Christians who are convinced that there's no such thing as a thinking Christian.

Well, I do hope there are not too many of those last mentioned!

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I must admit to being a bit underwhelmed by the concept behind this programme. A position of doubt regarding traditional Christianity is hardly new or daring in the contemporary UK.

I agree, but such a series when I was young for instance would not have been considered I'm fairly certain.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It doesn't seem to me that Holloway is trying to be original in this series, but to educate the audience as to ideas already out there.

But which do need a wider audience in my non-believer's opinion! [Smile]

quote:
who feel some inner need to propagate atheism.

Hmm, I think it is more a case of atheists pointing out that there is plenty of evidence to explain much of life, the universe and everything, none of which needs a God and that by asking for evidence of God, which is not an idea from a human brain , they might hope religious believers might take a closer look at the propagation of the God idea.

Okay, I suppose that does look a bit like propagating atheism!! [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
SusanDoris:

Hi. You're one of the few militant ...

A discussion of the word 'militant' came up yesterday on another forum! It hasn't got far yet, but I wonder whether 'very positively' might serv better? But that's just a tangent really!

quote:
...atheists I know, and I wonder if you might be led to reconsider whether or not the Holloway is seeing something worth looking at? I'm a fan.

It is always so interesting to hear differing views and to see things through another's eyes. I hope I will always listen and learn, even though I am sure my atheist view could never revert to belief

quote:
I know the reply of Dawkins and probably yourself would be that atheists are just as sensitive to poetry and mystery, if not more so, than religious believers, ...

I think genetic make-up would probably account for one's sensitivity and appreciation of the Arts - for instance, I have never been deeply interested in poetry, although there are some that resonate, ( I've written a few fun ones)and I was interested to hear 'The Listener' (one I've always liked) quoted by Holloway, but the difference is that those without a religious belief find it quite unnecessary to bring God/god/s into this. Ideas of God/god/s are there of course, but they all originate in the human brain.

quote:
...and I have to say that I no longer know whether Holloway would say he believes in God.

I hope he becomes definite about this before the end of the series! but a reasonable observation might be this would be a decisive full stop to books on this subject, as
Sir Pellimore mentions!

quote:
But where he and I are, I think, on the other side from Dawkins and you, lies in what questions we think are worth pursuing.

Yes, I see your point here, but since there is zero evidence that a God/god actually is think that final conclusion of any line of questioning will never be the same. , and

quote:
It was Richard Feynman who said, when somebody asked him as he was dying, about survival of bodily death, that the idea interested him, only until he satisfied himself that there was no scientifically valid way to arrive at an answer, whereupon he lost interest.

Anything Richard Feynmann said is okay by me!

quote:
It's that losing interest in pursuing questions that have no scientific answer that I fail to understand. And I think I get that also from Holloway.

I completely agree that it would, indeed, be a terrible thing to lose interest in questions, whether they have scientific answers or not or whether one knows what one's end point will be. I'll think about that while listening to the series.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): My beef with Holloway is that he seems to be making a nice little earner out of his time as a former bishop and the doubts that a long career in the church sowed in him. Those doubts and his supposedly new position are now hawked as something valuable because of that former career. I have doubts as to their real value to anyone else.

I think you're probably right about the value to others, since it is unlikely that those who have not already thought about the subject will be listening to the series.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I regret to say I'm with Sir Pellinore. I've heard some of the programmes this week but probably won't bother to listen to any more unless they just happen to be on.

He does seem to be saying 'I'm so clever; I have doubts', which wasn't that novel even in 1952, and then wheeling out some suitable quotations.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Listened to no. 2 yesterday.

2. - on the roots of religious sensibility. Fair enough but this is theory and other theories are out there. Why choose one (even though it may be correct, others may add further understanding)? The mention of Job and the radical nature of that text was a good call I think, though I'm not sure what Don Cupitt added - I can think of more counter-examples to his thesis than examples.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore I made no mention of holy orders per se, nor when Holloway retired, but thank you for introducing those two red herrings as hooks to hang your
"judgement" on. BTW I do not see you as being a theological arbiter, but just another opinionated person, like the rest of us.

This is not a red herring-- except to a doubter-- in that the definition of "Christian cleric" firmly hangs upon it. This is my opinion, yes; but more to the point, it is the teaching of that part of the church in question. I'm not impressed by slurs on a person's reputation or sincerity which depend on imprecise terminology.

Doubt is a matter of degree, as is virtuousness. Holy orders and ex opere operato relieve us, at least individually, of the need to be mind readers. Thanks be to God.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The question is can you be a Christian cleric and not have any.
Yes, in that Anglican holy orders are indelible. (Or is this among the things that you doubt?)

Aside from that, he surrendered his mitre in the year 2000. What more do you want?
Having read your next post I must say, even with your mild recantation of the above position, I still find what you said here incredibly facile.

I made no mention of holy orders per se, nor when Holloway retired, but thank you for introducing those two red herrings as hooks to hang your
"judgement" on. BTW I do not see you as being a theological arbiter, but just another opinionated person, like the rest of us.

My beef with Holloway is that he seems to be making a nice little earner out of his time as a former bishop and the doubts that a long career in the church sowed in him. Those doubts and his supposedly new position are now hawked as something valuable because of that former career. I have doubts as to their real value to anyone else.

If he had not been a prominent cleric I doubt anyone would read his books or listen to him. Mr Holloway, a retired stationmaster and his thoughts on religion? Who'd bother?

You've not, in my opinion, been "hard" on me. I think your post self-destructed. What better result could I expect?

Making a nice little earner out of his former clerical position? What utter bollocks! Where have you been the last thirty years? He was interesting as a bishop and he is interesting as an ex-bishop, but his great gift is to be interested in others. He had a splendid way of interviewing people who lived unorthodox lives, and allowing them to be the stars, not himself. There is one other thing that, for me,
marks him out as worthy of atttention. He has never been afraid to challenge cant and cruelty, and even as a bishop he proclaimed to anyone who would listen that the Church, with all its gift, was more interested in power than anything else.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I hope you are happy with your self-justification, Alogon.

Quite frankly I don't care what you attempt to put on me, because, the more I bother reading you, the more you seem to be constructing a mental Guy Fawkes, which has absolutely no relevance to the real person, because you do not have the ability to really read what they say, nor the ability to genuinely see their viewpoint.

I find your "mental handbag swipes", dressed up with a little specious learning in terms of irrelevant theological quotes, including a bit of Latin, rather underwhelming.

pimple, please...enjoy. [Big Grin]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

OK, let me try a little harder to understand what you mean.

You mean that a certain person, such as Holloway, is forever deprived of the moral right to express certain ideas (which would be just fine for someone else to express) because of the occupation that he used to practice.

That better?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Not quite.

Holloway is now, like Spong, not just an ex-bishop, but a famous religious author, whose authority for saying what he does is his experience in his life in his former position.

My critique of his ideas is that he seems to have gone through a very long period of spiritual dryness - what some classic Western Christian mystics called "the dark night of the soul" - and taken it as necessarily being permanent.

It seems to me he is wearing this "wisdom" a bit like the title character in "The Emperor's New Clothes" was wearing his supposed new garments.

Sometimes, given someone's vast prestige, you have to "become as a little child" to "see" this.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

The "Emperor's New Clothes" is a two-edged sword. Holloway used it himself yesterday afternoon at Hay, and his description of a child saying "You're stark bollock naked, and it's not a pretty sight" brought the house down.

There are some things he is fairly certain about. He doen't want eternal life, thamk you very much. The way he expressed that didn't sound much to me like a man who had endured "the dark night of the soul". The dark night of the Church's oppression would be nearer, I think.

Yet he hasn't walked away, and was dismissive of his interlocutor A.C.Grayling's invitation to do so. Though he has problems with the metaphysical side of belief, he holds fast to his love of and respect for Jesus (he puts it far more stringly and convincingly than I can) - and even his enduring love of the the Church. "I miss my Mass" he said. Indeed, he is a far more effective champion of what good is left in the Church than Dawkins is of the supremacy of science.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Personal taste, maybe, but I prefer listening to - and reading - Karen Armstrong.

About the series itself, I'm inclined to agree that a lot of us regular Purg denizens aren't hearing anything new. But that's OK. I'm listening anyway, just in case I do! Curiosity is one of the reasons I get distracted from routine responsibilities, as Mrs B observed the other day - with a smile on her face. Immersed in a Ship's thread, I'd forgotten to do something important.

(Can't quite remember what .... [Help]

)

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

pimple
That sounds as if it was a very interesting talk - I'd love to have been there listening to him. Thank you for saying about it.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The "Emperor's New Clothes" is a two-edged sword. Holloway used it himself yesterday afternoon at Hay, and his description of a child saying "You're stark bollock naked, and it's not a pretty sight" brought the house down.

There are some things he is fairly certain about. He doen't want eternal life, thamk you very much. The way he expressed that didn't sound much to me like a man who had endured "the dark night of the soul". The dark night of the Church's oppression would be nearer, I think.

Yet he hasn't walked away, and was dismissive of his interlocutor A.C.Grayling's invitation to do so. Though he has problems with the metaphysical side of belief, he holds fast to his love of and respect for Jesus (he puts it far more stringly and convincingly than I can) - and even his enduring love of the the Church. "I miss my Mass" he said. Indeed, he is a far more effective champion of what good is left in the Church than Dawkins is of the supremacy of science.

It sounds as though he's now a non-realist Christian, like Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith crowd. I toy with non-realism myself, sometimes, and keep it in reserve as a fall-back position in case I find it impossible to believe in the objective reality of God (with which I do struggle).

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yet he hasn't walked away, and was dismissive of his interlocutor A.C.Grayling's invitation to do so. Though he has problems with the metaphysical side of belief, he holds fast to his love of and respect for Jesus (he puts it far more stringly and convincingly than I can) - and even his enduring love of the Church. "I miss my Mass" he said. Indeed, he is a far more effective champion of what good is left in the Church than Dawkins is of the supremacy of science.

Thank you. This confirms my impression (although not very well informed) that he isn't the narcissistic turncoat that Spong is. There is a big difference between scoffing at anything like faith in the traditional sense, and talking about doubts. I'm reminded me of a wonderful erstwhile acquaintance who taught Sunday school or confirmation class with extraordinary dedication in a Roman Catholic parish. I'm sure he was great with kids, but he was also extremely erudite in theology and other subjects, in fact the author of several highly regarded books. This is a rare combination. He mentioned to me his plans to hold, for the benefit of his class, a debate with an atheist friend about the existence of God. Some parents were apprehensive: what if his opponent wins the debate? He replied that the point is not to win or lose, but to acquaint his students with the issues. Furthermore, this would be an unusual debate in that the two participants would switch sides halfway through, each beginning to defend the other's position. "I bet I know a couple reasons not to believe that have never occurred to him!" he said with a wink.

The more doubts we can stare in the face when we say the creed, the stronger our faith becomes. So God chose, we know now, to steel no less a saint than Mother Teresa. Some see the doubts (or reasons to doubt) that she confided to her journal as a failing, but I think that they made her greater than ever. In this way, Bp. Holloway is doing us all a service.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

"The dark night of the Church's oppression" is a pretty all encompassing phrase, pimple. Dare I ask what you mean?

He sounds nostalgic, a non-believer with memories of spiritual Christmases Past etched in his memory.

The question which interests me is not where he's been but where he's going. I don't think he's "fixed" or "static" as I perceive Donald Cuppitt to have become.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you. This confirms my impression (although not very well informed) that he isn't the narcissistic turncoat that Spong is. There is a big difference between scoffing at anything like faith in the traditional sense, and talking about doubts. I'm reminded me of a wonderful erstwhile acquaintance who taught Sunday school or confirmation class with extraordinary dedication in a Roman Catholic parish. I'm sure he was great with kids, but he was also extremely erudite in theology and other subjects, in fact the author of several highly regarded books. This is a rare combination. He mentioned to me his plans to hold, for the benefit of his class, a debate with an atheist friend about the existence of God. Some parents were apprehensive: what if his opponent wins the debate? He replied that the point is not to win or lose, but to acquaint his students with the issues. Furthermore, this would be an unusual debate in that the two participants would switch sides halfway through, each beginning to defend the other's position. "I bet I know a couple reasons not to believe that have never occurred to him!" he said with a wink.

The more doubts we can stare in the face when we say the creed, the stronger our faith becomes. So God chose, we know now, to steel no less a saint than Mother Teresa. Some see the doubts (or reasons to doubt) that she confided to her journal as a failing, but I think that they made her greater than ever. In this way, Bp. Holloway is doing us all a service.

I pretty much agree with your take on handling and expressing doubts. Nothing of my experience of Holloway while I lived in Edinburgh (and would have been my Bishop if I was Episcopalian) made me think of him in that light though. You don't have to possess an American accent to sound like Spong.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Anyone listen to the poetry yesterday? I've always found Donne difficult and Gerard Manley Hopkins almost impossible (except for the nature poems), and Andrew Motion nice, but boring.

So pore ole Richard Holloway didn't have much chance to get his point across - to me. Mea bloody culpa [Frown]

[ 06. June 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
It sounds as though he's now a non-realist Christian, like Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith crowd. I toy with non-realism myself, sometimes, and keep it in reserve as a fall-back position in case I find it impossible to believe in the objective reality of God (with which I do struggle).

There are so many different labels for varying levels of belief and non--belief, aren't there?! [Smile]

If God was, in fact, an objective reality - and that of course implies the Abrahamic God - then there should be no struggle or ambiguity, should there?But that's my atheist view of course!

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is a rare combination. He mentioned to me his plans to hold, for the benefit of his class, a debate with an atheist friend about the existence of God. Some parents were apprehensive: what if his opponent wins the debate? He replied that the point is not to win or lose, but to acquaint his students with the issues. Furthermore, this would be an unusual debate in that the two participants would switch sides halfway through, each beginning to defend the other's position. "I bet I know a couple reasons not to believe that have never occurred to him!" he said with a wink.

Oh, that does sound extremely interesting. I'd love to hear it. Do you think you'll be able to write something about it later?

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
He sounds nostalgic, a non-believer with memories of spiritual Christmases Past etched in his memory.

Yes, I too can identify with that! But it is a very long time since I ascribed any of those 'spiritual' qualities of the occasion to a God.

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Anyone listen to the poetry yesterday? I've always found Donne difficult and Gerard Manley Hopkins almost impossible (except for the nature poems), and Andrew Motion nice, but boring.

Entirely agree!
I found yesterday's very interesting, but just as he was getting into the bit about Descartes, a friend called! I'll be listening again or catching it on Friday.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Me too. On two successive days now the thump of rain on the kitchen roof has sent me blissfully to sleep immediately after lunch, not to open my eyes until 2.30.... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Today I listened to the Wednesday programme (Descartes and Pascal), plus today's on Spinoza, Hobbes and freud, all of which makes me wish I had learnt more about their work and Philosophy in general when I was younger. Yesterday, Spinoza's ex-communication report- shocking.

I looked up Thomas Hobbes on wikipedia. Have many of you here studied Philosophy and Philosophers in depth? It's too late for me to do, especially as I cannot read, but what a wealth of knowledge there is available for the young, and anyone interested, now.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

SusanDoris:

quote:
If God was, in fact, an objective reality - and that of course implies the Abrahamic God - then there should be no struggle or ambiguity, should there?

First, why "the Abrahamic God"? Wouldn't it be better to go for the God as understood by mainstream christianity? Mind you that's a small point.

My main one is that you appear to believe that if anything is objective, then it must someone be easy and obvious. Which sounds really strange to me. It doesn't even apply to mathematics, let alone the humanities and religion.

Plus, many christians are uneasy about making God "objective". Again, are you saying that for anything to be a reality it must be purely objective? Again strange.

I'm not even sure that my dearly-beloved is objective in your sense. Something is objective that relates to her. But that something is not all that I know of her, so that her reality is somehow mixed between objective and subjective.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0