[b]My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheists appeared in the April 2012 Issue of American Atheist Magazine. The link is:
csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html
Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance,
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) [/b]
Congratulations on being published…
That’s a rather Abrahamic conception and one that is controversial. So it’s likely not going to be acknowledged by some or many in the near future. From an indigenous perspective, for example, this kind of split just allows colonialism to continue, here in the conceptual realm, scientists and Abrahamists - those willing to go along - working in tandem as the technocrats and Abrahamists worked together in earlier physical colonialization - which is still going on by the way.
The render unto science that which is science’s, render unto religion that which is science’s admonition has some truth in it.
I think some religious people would benefit from realizing that the best conceptions and interpretations of God’s word in the past about certain things, were culturally and psychologically determined/limited. But exactly what this set is is going to be controversial, even outside of fundamentalism.
Yes it is controversial. To me the reality of the split is undeniable. I do not know who was the first to recognize it, probably several thousand years ago.
L.K.
But it is not correct, since it contains a confused presentation of theist ideas in general. There are theists who believe in spirtual immanence or do not even have the split at all. So your program is prejudiced from the start and seems to be based on the transcendant conceptions of God and other spiritual entities of the Abrahamic religions. Your essay is AS IF these other traditions do not exist and need not be even addressed. Even within the ranks of the Abrahamics there are those with more immanence inclusive conceptions. And then there are traditions like the Hindu where immanence itself it brought into question and your resolution does not really apply. They will see you as splitting a monad.
Yes I was thinking about India and China. Reality of the split was probably recognized there, before the emergence of Abrahamic religions.
L.K.
The response ‘yes’ does not make sense in context.
That was an interesting letter or paper that you wrote. And glad to see you have a wikipedia entry. You have really made it!!!
Perhaps a different dividing line than theists/atheists could be useful? We might propose that within both the theist and atheist camps are sub-groups we might call, ideologues and truth seekers.
[size=200]Ideologues And Truth Seekers[/size]
Ideologues: The ideologue starts with a conclusion, and then invests all their energy in to promoting and defending that conclusion. The ideologue will use reason in a tactical manner, but fundamentally they aren’t interested in reason, given that reason involves surrender, which is the last thing they want to do.
It’s the atheist and theist ideologues who are filling net forums with their debates. Ironically, there are also annoying angry adamant agnostic ideologues, but we won’t mention any names in case one of them might be the screen name Typist. 
Ideologues have a limited interest in the actual subject, distracted as they are by their primary interest, fighting for the joy of fighting. Ideologues are really one group posing as two or three, so trying to bring them together in agreement etc is most likely pointless, given that maintaining the fantasy of division is essential to their art.
Truth Seekers: The truth seeker, whether scientist or theologian, is less concerned with ego-centric social competition, and more concerned with exploring reality. Perhaps the scientist is more focused on finding facts about reality, whereas the religious person is more focused on experiences of reality.
This group shares a bottom line goal, and differs only in their methodology, and thus there is an opportunity to heal any division between them. The original poster referenced this opportunity in their opening post.
The key to this joint project is to embrace the art of observation, and (in regards to this topic) discard analysis, claims and conclusions.
[size=200]Investigation Paradigms[/size]
In the standard investigation paradigm, observation is used as a means to another end, theories and conclusions. The focus here is on the creation of symbols, conceptual entities. God=Yes, or God=No etc.
In an alternative investigation paradigm, observation is not a means to some other end, but is pursued for it’s own value. The energy previously invested in doing symbol calculations is redirected in to mastering the art of observing reality.
This investigation paradigm shift can be explained most simply as a shift of focus from the conceptual world to the real world. Move the game, out of our heads, in to the real world.
[size=200]Why Shift Paradigms?[/size]
Two arguments for this investigation paradigm shift.
The standard investigation paradigm doesn’t work at resolving any of these questions. It simply doesn’t. We have thousands of years of evidence accumulated here, and as intelligent people of reason we should stop doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, which is the definition of stupidity.
The standard investigation paradigm attempts to create a “something”, one or more conceptual entities, theories and conclusions etc. The fundamental (and rarely examined) assumption of this paradigm is that the investigation process should result in a “something”. We love “somethings”!! The problem here is…
The overwhelming vast majority of reality is actually nothing. Or relative nothing if you prefer. This is a huge clue, staring us right in the face.
[size=200]Conclusion[/size]
If we want our investigation to be reality based, as truth seekers do, the challenge facing us is to become experts on nothingness. A well conducted observation results in a psychological state of conceptual nothingness, and translates our inquiry in to the same language reality itself is using.
I agree; theists vs. atheist is not the only topic worth debating.
L.K.