|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
Greg asked:
|
|
Is it possible to objectively prove religion, faith, and other subjective ideals?
|
|
============
|
|
The short answer, Greg, is no. Otherwise it should have been done. The reason it is not possible is
that the question is too biased and narrow for the phenomenon it questions. The question raises
religion in terms of the subject-object dichotomy. But semitic root religions (Judaism, Christianity,
Islam) cannot be understood in psychological terms of subject-object. They can be completely
misinterpreted by psychological (or Cartesian) frames of reference, and often are. Western religion is
based on neither the subjective nor the objective, but on the Other.The Other is a radical category
which transcends (even while altering) the subject-object split in human perception. God is Other,
neither subject nor object. The ideas of 'God in Search of Man', 'He Who Comes', 'Revelation' are all
enunciated in terms of what is categorically Other.
|
|
There is a stronger sense of proof than that posed by your question, which is that religion proves us.
However this idea is counter-psychological. But even on the level of the question you have posed, the
idea that 'proof' about anything can be 'objective' in the strongest sense, is questionable. Even 2+2=4
doesn't prove the fact — as Wittgenstein pointed out, only that for this fact there needs to exist certain
prior concepts of counting and numbers, without which the sum is unprovable. And where do these
concepts come from? Such a question is one addressed by religion.
|
|
Matthew Del Nevo
http://www.sicetnon.com
|
|