feelimg of utter depmdence freedom from need to prove

[Metacrock]

the feelimng frees us fronneed toprove God exists,

read article, comment on blog discuss here

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/05/s ... -from.html

[Metacrock]

In my recent discussion of Schleiermacher's feeling of utter dependence[1] I refereed to the concept as a "decision making paradigm." I feel, however, that I wasn't the least bit open about what that means. That discussion feel flat because I wasn't forth coming. I didn't have the energy to go o the trouble. I will take another crack at it now,.

What is commonly translated "feeling"is not an emotional sense but a sensation or an intuitive sense. It is common to find even theologians defining it as an emotional or sentimental experience but this is something William S. Babcock warned us about at Perkins when I was in seminary. I think the phrase might be more explanatory, maybe more accurate, if we called it "radical sense of contingency," it is a sense of unity in the life world and the dependence of the life world upon the source of the unity. Robert Williams in his book Schleiermacher the Theologian, agrees that the feeling is not sentiment or emotion.

[met]

... how similar is that to the romantic poets -- Wordsworth & Coleridge et al?

[Jim B.]

What is commonly translated "feeling"is not an emotional sense but a sensation or an intuitive sense. It is common to find even theologians defining it as an emotional or sentimental experience but this is something William S. Babcock warned us about at Perkins when I was in seminary. I think the phrase might be more explanatory, maybe more accurate, if we called it "radical sense of contingency," it is a sense of unity in the life world and the dependence of the life world upon the source of the unity. Robert Williams in his book Schleiermacher the Theologian, agrees that the feeling is not sentiment or emotion.

Erik asked you this too. How do you get from this intuitive sense to justified belief that this is how things are independent from any intuitive sense? Without this link, it is pretty much the same as what met asked about, a Romantic poetic declaration which isn't exactly the same as theology or philosophy. I realize that this sense is not meant as a 'proof' but more a way to illuminate what it means to believe in God, but is there a way to get from here to there?

[Metacrock]

... how similar is that to the romantic poets -- Wordsworth & Coleridge et al?

Schleiermacher is called "Romantic religion: there were other theologian romantics,
such as Shadowbrande. It was a direct response to romanticism.

[Metacrock]

What is commonly translated "feeling"is not an emotional sense but a sensation or an intuitive sense. It is common to find even theologians defining it as an emotional or sentimental experience but this is something William S. Babcock warned us about at Perkins when I was in seminary. I think the phrase might be more explanatory, maybe more accurate, if we called it "radical sense of contingency," it is a sense of unity in the life world and the dependence of the life world upon the source of the unity. Robert Williams in his book Schleiermacher the Theologian, agrees that the feeling is not sentiment or emotion.

Erik asked you this too. How do you get from this intuitive sense to justified belief that this is how things are independent from any intuitive sense? Without this link, it is pretty much the same as what met asked about, a Romantic poetic declaration which isn't exactly the same as theology or philosophy. I realize that this sense is not meant as a 'proof' but more a way to illuminate what it means to believe in God, but is there a way to get from here to there?

what makes it un theological? I think I answered Eric pretty well. where did the things I said on tye faiol to answer this? I think that kind of criticism can only think interns of proof, you are saying this is not proof it is not proof it;s freedom from the need to prove,

The object is to offer an object of theological discourse to be honest this sounds like a meaningless cacophony of preaches, "Erik asked you this too. How do you get from this intuitive sense to justified belief that this is how things are independent from any intuitive sense" what does tahtean?

We experience a s se of unity in the life world that gives us a notion of a higher unity that;s pretty straight forward, like seeing red gives us the idea we see red, can you ask that of one claiming to see red?

[Jim B.]

We experience a s se of unity in the life world that gives us a notion of a higher unity that;s pretty straight forward, like seeing red gives us the idea we see red, can you ask that of one claiming to see red?

But the point of belief in God isn't merely phenomenological; it's ontological or metaphysical as well. The phenomenology is supposed to be a reliable indicator of ontology. If I see red, that doesn't mean that there's something independent of my brain and nervous system that's causing this sensation.

I realize that Schleiermacher isn't about the need to prove. I was just asking if, incidentally, there was a way to make an argument for God using the feeling of utter dependence. Sometimes it's nice to have things even if you don't need them ; )

[Metacrock]

We experience a s se of unity in the life world that gives us a notion of a higher unity that;s pretty straight forward, like seeing red gives us the idea we see red, can you ask that of one claiming to see red?

But the point of belief in God isn't merely phenomenological; it's ontological or metaphysical as well. The phenomenology is supposed to be a reliable indicator of ontology. If I see red, that doesn't mean that there's something independent of my brain and nervous system that's causing this sensation.

Yes it does. That;s the whole point of the senses the assumption that i;ts enabling navigation in the world,

I realize that Schleiermacher isn't about the need to prove. I was just asking if, incidentally, there was a way to make an argument for God using the feeling of utter dependence. Sometimes it's nice to have things even if you don't need them ; )

I tried to do that back at Perkins. I did it on my original web site Doxa it was part of the 42 arguments. no, 11

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/utterdep.html