1

Objectivism rejects transcendence as it is not part of the objective world that exists and which we can explore. But what if we put time in this equation?

As we see through the years, many phenomena like miracles were found to possibly have non-transcendental origins. When we see this trend, we can make the assumption that all miracles will have a non-transcendental origin. This theory is not rejected by Catholic theologians.

If we assume that, then we can say that God is not transcendent to the objective world, just to our cognitive abilities at this point in the history of man. Is it true that in this case objectivism and faith in God can coexist, or is my way of thinking flawed?

  • 2
    Hi, welcome to Philosophy SE. It is "transcendent" rather than "transcendal", and it is not entirely clear what you refer to as "objectivism", perhaps naturalism. The idea that God is/will be not transcendent to the natural world, time included, or that miracles will find naturalistic explanations, is rejected by most Christians, including most Catholics. This world is God's creation, with time and everything, the Kingdom of God is not of this world. It would diminish God to subjugate himself to his creation, now or ever. – Conifold Jul 20 at 9:44
  • Apart from the problems associated with placing limits on God after being defined as omnipotent. We can consider that by that same definition God can be multiple things simultaneously, in other words whatever your view is also simultaneously compatible with any other person's view. – christo183 Jul 20 at 12:21
  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome. – Frank Hubeny Jul 20 at 12:26
  • You may find this conversation between Richard Dawkins and Satish Kumar useful. It shows that contrary to a westocentric assumption, naturalism and religiosity (or spirituality) can be quite compatible. Or think Harry Potter: miraculous (ok magical) without transcendentality😇 – Rusi-packing-up Jul 20 at 12:40
  • 2
    Do you mean the Objectivism developed by Ayn Rand, or are you using the term as a loose reference to objective materialism? – Ted Wrigley Jul 20 at 13:28
2

Coming up with a non-transcendent, naturalistic explanation that no longer needs the transcendent miraculous explanation does not mean that the non-transcendent explanation is correct. All it represents is a change of faith. The miraculous explanation requires dependency on God. The naturalistic explanation tempts us to think we can get by on our own.

One could read the events reported in the JudeoChristian Old Testament as a flipping between reliance on God and a reliance on man followed by punishment and renewed faith. That our technology today is better than theirs simply means we may be more tempted than they were to think we can get by on our own.

Objectivism and faith coexisting may be what C. S. Lewis called "pantheism": (pages 131)

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions.

We should keep in mind that ignoring the miraculous may represent a delusional belief in our own self-sufficiency. Those who only accept the naturalistic explanation will, of course, consider the miraculous a delusion. So which side is right? If we are not committed one way or the other, we could mix the two in some kind of pantheism that Lewis characterized as "primitive". Or we could take a step back from our technological achievements and realize we can't do all things on our own and take the transcendent, miraculous explanation seriously again.


Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles; a preliminary study.

  • Thank you for your answer. I agree that posibility of naturalistic explenation doesn't mean they are correct. Naturalistic explenation can require dependency on god, because miracles are in certain point of time transcendant, and that make them miracles, and they existance is caused by creator of the universe by the act of creation. I didn't read lewis book about miracles, but for sure i will try it in the future. – Kacper Jul 20 at 17:36
2

When you put time into the equation, you are moving away from Plato, and toward Aristotle and ultimately to Hegel, and to a certain branch off of Hegel, to Marx; though Hegel really is the more modern foundational source. It can all be done with Hegel.

A short note: for the most part in the last century, a Catholic thinker, theologian, philosopher, etc. had to be on written record against Hegel. This was also the way to clearly draw the line against Spinoza. It was like a litany you had to write against Hegel in order to join the club. Now what these thinkers believed privately was a different matter. Also, drawing Hegel and Spinoza within pantheism was probably also unfair to their philosophies as written.

I am aware of one book that truly addresses your question and within the parameters of your question as asked, and that is "Marx and the Bible" by Jose P Miranda.

The title to this book is rather misleading. Miranda ( this is by memory and memory can be faulty) was a priest, and a philosopher, had gotten further education at one of the prestigious "Church affiliated schools" in Rome, he studied in Germany too, he had a very good education in German philosophers and theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (and he discusses Bultmann in the book too).

You have to get to the last one or two chapters of this book to get to your question. Here he brings in Ernst Bloch to stand for Hegel. Not Hegel exactly as written (which was more associated with internal development) but Hegel's philosophy itself developed through time. Further development after Hegel's death.

Man is the first to reach consciousness and self-consciousness out of the material based world. It is still an open question scientifically and philosophically how this occurs. Man "has philosophy" in the large Hegelian sense of the word.

Now once man has consciousness and self- consciouness (a sort of miracle from this earth, probably) then the sky is the limit even as to man's own mortality. "Miracles" can occur left and right, but not without hard work and thinking.

We can think of sand to silicon chips to computers to AI (if one believes in such a thing as AI) as a kind of miracle.

Now once man plays this part , man himself can become the enemy to himself, and this must be considered, and we could probably say that such apparently different thinkers as Adorno and Heidegger converged on this point. So we have to continue to reflect with deep thinking about also the dangers of technology (not just the benefits) and so on.

A more official biography of Jose Porfirio Miranda, in Spanish, but maybe the computer can translate this. http://cefmiranda.org/esp/biografia/

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.