My approach to this issue has been totally wrong. Since my previous post that there must be transcendence upon which all we can represent depends but which depends upon nothing, I have been trying to answer the following questions. The starting question is \u201cHow can the transcendent be relevant to religious belief?\u201d This quickly became the misleading question \u201cHow can we say, let alone think, of that we cannot represent in any way?\u201d My struggle to avoid contradictions seemed like working on a mathematical problem of introducing new elements to avoid contradiction. However, the contradiction stands. We cannot say anything about that which about which we can say nothing. We cannot bridge the gap between the transcendent and the immanent. When proposed as a conceptual problem of how we can represent that which transcends what we can represent ,Wittgenstein\u2019s last line in his Tractatus is correct \u201cWhereof we cannot speak, we should remain silent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Perhaps silence is satisfying for mystics. But religious life is far more than mysticism. Details of daily life, and especially, details of religious practice and thoughts of religious creeds and codes matter religiously. <\/p>\n
\tSo, I should not be posing a conceptual problem of how we can think of what we cannot think. Our thinking must be confined to the immanent. <\/p>\n
Everything depends up the transcendent. The transcendent bridges the gap between the transcendent by virtue of the dependence of everything upon it. Whether there is anything immanent which manifests the transcendent in religiously significant ways depends upon the transcendent. We should be looking at the immanent to find out whether and how immanent features manifest transcendence in religiously significant ways.<\/p>\n
I am not proposing anything new. I am only expressing my realization of what has been done by religious philosophers through the centuries with proofs for God\u2019s existence and provision of evidence for religious beliefs and practice. They draw attention to immanent features \u2013 dependencies- which are best understood as manifesting best, but necessarily not, perfect characterization of the transcendent.<\/p>\n
In my next post, I will sketch out how some traditional arguments for God\u2019s existence can be appreciated from this perspective.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
My approach to this issue has been totally wrong. Since my previous post that there must be transcendence upon which all we can represent depends but which depends upon nothing, I have been trying to answer the following questions. The starting question is \u201cHow can the transcendent be relevant to religious belief?\u201d This quickly became … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span> Bridging the Gap Between Transcendent and Immanent<\/h4>\n