From: "jamie morgan" <zen34405-AT-zen.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: God
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:58:21 +0100


I'm currently writing something on this for Jon Josephs special ed of New
Formations - I'll send it you when I'm finished if you provide an address

jamie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Hockey" <limhockey-AT-onthenet.com.au>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: God


> Hi Jamie and all
>
> > what are good arguments for God(s)?
>
> I've been following this discussion and am interested to track down two
(or
> more) items:
> 1. Where can I access a copy of CAP referred to early in the piece?
> 2. Mervyn mentioned RB's reference to 'God' in one book, I presume this
> refers to "From Science to Emancipation" - especially the interlude on
> "Critical Realism, Transcendence and God". Could you (or anyone else)
> indicate where this particular text (or the debate which constitutes the
> interlude) has been engaged with critically, especially resulting in a
> printed paper?
>
> My current field of work and research relates to First Nations/Aboriginal
> metaphysical realism and social/political philosophy in sustaining
> self-emancipatory movements within Aboriginal communities. But I'm keen to
> read critiques of RB, or any other arguments for (or agin) God from any
> source!
>
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jamie morgan" <zen34405-AT-zen.co.uk>
> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: BHA: God
>
>
> > for the theist it is about the existence of God, for the rest of us its
> > about whether they are right or at least whetehr it is reasonable to
hold
> a
> > theistic position at any given time on the basis of argument
> >
> > what are good arguments for God(s)?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
> > To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: BHA: God
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Moodey, Richard W" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carrol,
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that atheism consists of a cluster of different
> > > > traditions, probably fewer than the many theistic traditions we
have.
> > >
> > > Yes. The historical question, then, is why there should be so few
> > > _different_ traditions in the cluster of atheism than in the cluster
of
> > > theism. I'm tempted to cite Tolstoi on happy and unhappy families.
> > > Theism(s) is (are) a response to an unhappiness incapable of taking
the
> > > world as it is, a terrain of struggle, and determined to ascribe to
that
> > > world the kind of purpose reflected in conscious human activity.
(Marx's
> > > bee & architect, etc.) And since that simply jars so much with human
> > > experience, there is no end to the variety of routes to it.
> > >
> > > For the theist, the world is an Act, rather than a scene or terrain of
> > > action. And ways of describing that act vary endlessly.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---