OK. But I interpreted "useless" to mean having no function or value. And "solace or salvation" seems to be the ultimate value for believers. So, the function of Faith is to get us to where our treasure is laid-up*1.

However, if this world of moth & rust & thieves is all we have to look forward to, then investing in "pie-in-the-sky" heaven would be a "white elephant" of no practical value. :smile: — Gnomon

You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace.

All that said, it comes down to what one believes. If one truly believes there is a divinity but that the divinity is unknowable, then it would seem to follow logically that one would not expect salvation and feel solace. (In a way it is a performative contradiction even to believe in an unknowable divinity because there could be nothing to determine such a belief except perhaps wishful thinking. But then why wish for an unknowable divinity who can be of no help to us?).

If one believes in the Abrahamic God one cannot say one believes in an unknowable divinity, because the bible is purportedly a work of revelation, and a God who reveals himself cannot count as an unknowable divinity.

The series I mentioned was a set of 52 lectures by Canadian professor of cognitive science, John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer

A big commitment that 52 hours of lectures, I will look for a summary but thanks

Surely is. I discovered Vervaeke's material in 2022 (whilst visiting the US as it happened) and have worked my way through a fair amount - often on the treadmill at the gym. He's also published the book version in the last couple of months.

If one believes in the Abrahamic God one cannot say one believes in an unknowable divinity, bec an unknowable divinity. — Janus

I am not sure supernatural intervention, divine revelation and the authority of sacred scripture is really a more sophisticated or philosophical conception of the divine even if a common one. :smile:

What reason would we have to believe in a deity if not believing in revelation? Sure, first cause and all that but that doesn't necessarily entail divinity let alone personal divinity.

Anyway this is somewhat tangential to the point I had been making which had more to do with motivation than justification.

If 'divinity' is real, why believe in it (e.g. mother, gravity & numbers are real)?

Or if (we) believe in it, why also need 'divinity' to (seem) real?

What reason would we have to believe in a deity if not believing in revelation? Sure, first cause and all that but that doesn't necessarily entail divinity let alone personal divinity.

Anyway this is somewhat tangential to the point I had been making which had more to do with motivation than justification. — Janus

For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance.

The motivation for religion and many other human activities would seem to the search for meaning (Victor Frankel) for some larger purpose or significance. Religion is not the only solution but culturally and historically it seems to be an important significant one. Religion does not have to consist of supernatural intervention, special revelation sacred scripture or the personification of good and evil although it often does.

The opening post requested more sophisticated and philosophical conceptions of God. The term "God" is strongly associated with the big O's, with personification of deity, which sacred scripture, miracles and supernatural interventions, with an afterlife and final judgement (the triumph of good over evil and divine justice and judgement). These do not seem the most sophisticated or philosophical views about the divine, the sacred, the holy the numinous.

If 'divinity' is real, why believe in it (e.g. mother, gravity & numbers are real)?

Or if (we) believe in it, why also need 'divinity' to (seem) real? — 180 Proof

Which seems to raise the question what is "real".
We seem to believe in a lot of things which are not empirically demonstrable (love, truth, beauty, goodness). It is in such beliefs (or faith) that we find meaning?

You are difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to keep turning it into battles you think you’re having with people, instead of actually reading what I’m saying. None of the points you raise apply to my position. — Tom Storm

Again, I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. I'm just trying to understand what you mean, behind what you say : the implications. 180proof does indeed make philosophical dialog into a "battle" between opposing worldviews. {see PS below} But, I'm actually interested in your perspective on the God question. That's why I ask "why" questions. If you don't like to label your personal philosophy with conventional terms, a longer, detailed post might suffice to present a "philosophical defense"*1 of a specific position. So far, I haven't been able to get a fix on your "position".

However, if you don't like to get litigious on historically contentious topics, it would be better to not issue a challenge to converse in Metaphysical terms*2. Perhaps following the example of legalistic Judaism, the medieval Catholic Scholastics used "sophisticated" metaphysical arguments --- some of them polemical & pugnacious*3. The problem with Metaphysics on this forum is that, for many posters, scientifically validated physical evidence is much more persuasive. That's why my worldview includes both, but like Whitehead's Process Philosophy, focuses mainly on making the rational First Cause (God postulate) acceptable to modern thinkers in a science dominated world.

Historically, the "God" question has both pro & con Metaphysical arguments*4. Do you find any of them convincing? :smile:

PS___ I suspect that the "battles" you find in my posts, are actually my indirect responses to 180proof's parallel posts. These physical/metaphysical*5 skirmishes have been going on for years. Yet, because he seldom engages in philosophical arguments, but polemical attacks instead, I long ago ceased replying directly to him. So I must beg your pardon for using your thread to make my counterpoints.


*1. A philosophical defense, similar to a legal defense, presents an argument without necessarily making a positive case for a particular conclusion. Instead, it aims to address criticisms or objections raised against a philosophical position, providing justification and clarification.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+defense

*2. "In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones." ___Tom Storm, original post

*3. Scholastic Disputes :
There was no single Scholastic doctrine; each of the Scholastics developed a distinct philosophy, which was often in disagreement with the systems of fellow teachers. . . . .
Masters also held disputations in which the affirmative and negative sides of a question were thoroughly argued by students and teacher before the latter resolved the problem.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism/Enduring-features

*4.Metaphysical arguments against God often explore philosophical inconsistencies or logical paradoxes inherent in the concept of God, challenging the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent being. These arguments focus on the properties attributed to God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness, and how these seemingly contradict the existence of evil, suffering, and apparent divine hiddenness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+arguments+against+god

*5. metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note --- 180proof's worldview is based on Spinoza's notion of an Immanent God. Hence, no essential Being, no First Cause, and nothing that does not Change. And no need for Metaphysical arguments. Do you find Spinoza's common-sense approach to metaphysical topics acceptable?

It is in such beliefs (or faith) that we find meaning? — prothero

Just as toddlers "find meaning" in (naming, talking to) stuffed animals – magical thinking.

I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. — Gnomon

Your questions don't "upset" anyone, sir, they are often just vacuous questions or even ludicrously uninformed, and yet condescending (i.e. defensive). You're just not a serious and conspicuously lack intellectual integrity. I challenge you (like this) when I'm bored, Gnomon, knowing you're too insecure to respond directly to challenge me in kind, and so I can keep attention on your woo-of-the-gaps clowning (e.g. hiding behing poor old Whitehead's skirts). You don't "upset" anyone here on TPF (get over yourself!), I suspect many of us on here are even mildly amused by your uninformed bloviating. :smirk:

Historically, the "God" question has both pro & con  Metaphysical  arguments*4. Do you find any of them convincing?

Fwiw (not that you'll intelligibly respond), I'm quite partial to both Epicurean and Spinozist "metaphysical arguments" FOR "God". I'm also "convinced" by arguments AGAINST "God" by such contemporary philosophers as Rebecca Goldstein, Victor Stenger, André Comte-Sponville, Theodore Drange, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen & J.L. Schellenberg to name a few.

ust as toddlers "find meaning" in (naming, talking to) stuffed animals – magical thinking. — 180 Proof

I understand that you might think a lot of religion is "magical thinking". I wondered if you felt the same about concepts like truth, justice, beauty, etc)? I hope not.

I understand that you might think a lot of religion is "magical thinking". I wondered if you felt the same about concepts like truth, justice, beauty, etc)? I hope not. — prothero

Well, of course, that depends on the contexts in which, or how, (any) concepts are used.

You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace. — Janus

Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace.

In my experience, I have found the primary Revelation (Bible)*2 of Christianity to be a record of Imperial Rome's need to create a unifying alternative to its divisive babble of multicultural polytheistic religions, and the watered-down official religion of the Pantheon. Obviously, placing the burden on Faith instead of Works (and Reason) has worked beyond the dreams of "visionary" Constantine*3, the Trump of his day, to Make Rome Great Again. I hope you will pardon my unofficial notion of "knowable". :wink:

PS___ In my personal worldview, the direct revelation of G*D is the self-organizing world itself. Unfortunately, the only solace offered is something like Stoic Eudaimonia.


*1. While it's true that Christianity encompasses a vast number of denominations and sects, estimating a precise number is difficult. Estimates range from 200 in the U.S. to a staggering 45,000 or more globally. These numbers highlight the diverse range of beliefs and practices within the Christian faith
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thousands+of+christian+religions
Note --- One revelation, thousands of interpretations & implementations.

*2. The official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church is the Vulgate, which was affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Note --- There was no "official" revelation until the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Even 1500 years later, scholars were still re-interpreting the "revelation".

*3. The first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity was Constantine the Great. After a vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, he declared his support for Christianity in 312 CE and gradually transitioned the religion from a persecuted minority to a favored religion within the Roman Empire. This led to the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious tolerance and allowed Christians to practice their faith openly. Constantine's conversion and subsequent policies marked a significant turning point for Christianity and its eventual establishment as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=roman+emperor+christianity

For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero

That is exactly the kind of natural Revelation that turned me away from Atheism toward Deism. The "self organizing processes" of Nature are what led A.N. Whitehead to write his magnum opus of Process and Reality. I was somewhat surprised to learn that someone of his intellectual stature had reached the same conclusion as had, not from religious revelations but from pragmatic godless scientific exploration of natural processes. How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? That "striving against entropy" is what Schrodinger called "Negentropy" (free energy) and what I call "Enformy"*1 (causal en-form-action). :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

... reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature ... The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero

I.e. yinyang of the eternal Dao

How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? — Gnomon

Is that what really happened, sir? How do you (we) scientifically know this?

If 'divinity' is real, why believe in it (e.g. mother, gravity & numbers are real)?

Or if (we) believe in it, why also need 'divinity' to (seem) real? — 180 Proof

First (not wanting to sound pedantic) 'divinity' comes from the Indic root 'deva', God or gods or divine beings. I think divinity can be distinguished from 'the holy' insofar as (for example) the Buddhist idea of the holy is not based on or derived from Devas (although Devas are part of the Buddhist religious imagination, they play only an ancillary role.) The same could also be said of other non-theistic spiritualities (dare I say, including Spinoza's? In Ethics V, Spinoza describes the kind of intuitive knowledge or insight as bringing about the mind’s “intellectual love of God” (amor Dei intellectualis), which could be compared, in a very general way, with the fruit of gnosis or jñāna, in that it is not propositional belief but direct realization.)

That aside, the key point about specifically religious knowledge or insight (gnosis, jñāna, etc) is that the attainment of insight requires a certain mental maturity and ethical stability. That is why there is such emphasis on morality, discipline, renunciation, and so on, in religious orders. The theory is, because the mind is ordinarily attached to and distracted by so many wants (and wounds) then it is impossible for it to become aware of any reality outside itself. Hence the customary requirement for self-abnegation which is common to both theistic faiths and to non-theistic religious disciplines. Hence also the need for concentration, not in the sense of a momentary focus of attention, but an atunement of the mind with the object of insight through disciplined meditation, liturgy and practice.

So belief or faith is required for the aspirant, because in the absence of the insight which is the actual fruition of that discipline, one only has the faith that it is, in fact, a real possibility. In this Buddhist sutta, the disciple Sariputta says that 'Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction' that nibbana ('gaining a footing in the deathless') is real - whereas those (such as himself) who have 'seen, known, penetrated' etc, would not have to take it on conviction, rather, they would know it directly.

//ps realised after I’d written this that it sidesteps the topic posed in the OP, which is specifically theistic, but I hope the more general point stands//

So belief or faith is required for the aspirant, because in the absence of the insight which is the actual fruition of that discipline, one only has the faith that it is, in fact, a real possibility. In this Buddhist sutta, the disciple Sariputta says that 'Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction' that nibbana ('gaining a footing in the deathless') is real - whereas those (such as himself) who have 'seen, known, penetrated' etc, would not have to take it on conviction, rather, they would know it directly.

Quite, and a good way of seeing this is that there is no difference between the aspirant before realisation and after realisation.
Or the sum of knowledge before and after the realisation is the same.
There is nothing different between she who knows and she who doesn’t. Because the new knowledge that the knower now knows is the identical knowledge as before. But seen in a different light.

Don’t know if I agree with that. There are levels and kinds of knowing. In Greek philosophy, for example, there’s the ‘analogy of the divided line’ in the Republic, which differentiates between belief, opinion, mathematical and noetic insight. And if there were no difference between the aspirant and those who realise the goal of aspiration, then would there be anything to which to aspire?

I know it sounds counter intuitive. It was a way of seeing it, that I was describing. The reality would be more nuanced. This is something I have been working on for some time. That nothing in this world changes, but in the new light, it is seen for what it really is. So the person before the realisation is working with the same stuff, is in the same place in the world, and the person after the realisation is still working with the same stuff in the same place in the world. But something very subtle has changed, but from the viewpoint of the new person, a lot has changed. However if that new person where to try to explain what had changed to themselves before the change, it would be impossible, because everything that they described would be things that he already knew intellectually and from being in the world. None of that would have changed, there would be no new knowledge. Just a subtle change, which could be a new light, or a certain orientation. After all isn’t this what realisation means, a light bulb moment.

I can see what you’re getting at - but in response to the particular question I was trying to address, why the need for faith?, I don’t know if it is a useful perspective.

The early Buddhist texts differentiate levels of understanding - ‘stream-winners’ from ‘non-returners’ and from the putajjhana (uneducated persons.) Mahāyāna makes it even more elaborate with the Ten Bhumis. None of which actually negates the point you’re making. ‘First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain.’ That koan is also about stages of the understanding. From the ultimate point of view, there’s ‘nothing to attain’ but that is a very difficult understanding to attain.

We are human, faith is important in how we got to this point and even beyond this point, it is still important because one is still reliant on the natural world provided for us, even if one can see it in a better light.
The way I see it sometimes is that we need faith up until the point we merge with what it is that provided the natural world(sorry for the garbled language, I’m trying not to use words with baggage). Beyond which we offer faith back in the other direction to the brave people following on behind us.
There’s something of a communion about it.

:100:

I have an amusing anecdote. Way back in my undergraduate days I was looking for books in the uni library. I noticed one particular volume seem to have slipped behind all the others and fished it out. To my surprise, it had no borrowing slip on it (usually pasted in to the front to be stamped with the return-by date). I took it to the front desk to borrow it. It wasn’t even on the register! The librarian quickly amended the records and made an entry for it, and also pasted the borrowing slip into it and I took it home.

The name of that book: ‘The Unknowable’, Simon Frank (a Russian Orthodox philosopher.) But I loved the irony of having found it, completely unknown even to the library I found it in (although I admit, I never made a lot of headway with it, as it is a very arcane text. )

But the aphorism on the dedication page always stayed with me: ‘The Unattainable is Attained through Non-Attainment’ (I think from Nicholas of Cusa).

lol, reminds me of an occasion in my teenage years. I could be found squirrelling away in dusty old secondhand book shops. I happened to be in one in a quieter part of Oxford and found a raggedy little book called The Way of Life by Laotsu. I had no idea who he was, or what the book was about. But I liked the circumstances in which it came to me, so I bought it. It made a lot of sense.

Also known as The Way of Tao, I believe. A perennial.

John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer

I haven't read anything by Vervaeke, but I Googled and found this summary of his worldview*1. His notion to "untangle the sacred from the supernatural" makes sense to me. Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural, I don't see any reason to worship such an abstract concept. My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura with accomodations for 21st century cosmology and 5th century BC philosophy.

The definition of his Essentialism*2 in terms of an eternal essence seems to be an update of Plato's Ideal Forms. This also is amenable to my worldview, which prefers to avoid referring to the Primal Essence as "God", due to the term's historical religious contamination by association with human tyrants. But Metaphysical Essentialism --- if it implies a transcendent source of Qualia --- might also clash with the OP's wish for a return to a "classical metaphysical" Theism --- if "classical" refers to Catholic Scholasticism, which definitely "entangled" sacred taboos with supernatural sovereignty. :smile:




*1. Vervaeke uses the terms “metaphysical essentialism” to refer to this attitude. He argues that if we want to solve our meaning crisis, we must untangle the sacred from the supernatural. We have to come up with a way of re-articulating our worldview in which we can get back that sense of deep connectedness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+John+Vervaeke

*2. Metaphysical essentialism is a philosophical concept that proposes that things possess an inherent, unchanging essence that defines their identity and determines their properties. This essence is considered necessary and sufficient for an entity to be what it is. In essence, metaphysical essentialism argues that things have a fundamental nature that remains constant, regardless of their accidental properties or changes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+essentialism%E2%80%9D

Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural — Gnomon

Okay, but then you contradict your "Transcendent" claim with this Anti-Transcendent (i.e. pure immanence) claim:

My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura ...

Actually reading Spinoza's work itself rather than just skimming a wiki article might help you to stop repeating more nonsense like this, sir.

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't? — Gnomon
I’m trying to read this charitably. Is condescension something you tend to fall back on when challenged? What exactly were you trying to express here? — Tom Storm

"What do you find intriguing" is a serious question to determine where you are coming from. "To provide a larger context" is just one possible response. The "doggy ideal" of food in the bowl is an example of basic Physicalism, unencumbered by abstract ideas. "What does he know" is just a repeat of a question in your OP.

The questions quoted were intended to be sincere philosophical inquiries to elicit a better understanding of your worldview. Which is still opaque to me. The OP seems to imply a wish to return to a "classical theism", but leaves it open for interpretation of what that refers to*1. You denied being a Materialist, and offered that you are intrigued by Idealism. But to what extent? Idealism can be critiqued as wishful thinking, inappropriate for living in the Real world. Or applauded as an example of going beyond the obvious to a more subtle understanding of mundane reality.

Sophisticated language can sometimes use esoteric words, and "tendentious distinctions" that obscure their meaning for us simple-minded folk. For example, you referenced Hart's "ultimate reality", but that's just as abstract & obscure as "ground of being". Then you asked "what does it mean?" Amen! I have used that enigmatic term myself, but followed up with more functional descriptions of the role of God in the real world.

As you said, "Such accounts seem to head towards the mystical and the murky realm of ineffability". That's why I am trying to discover what kind of "account" you would find more convincing to modern philosophers. A viable answer to that query is important to me. And was one motivation for my creating a down-to-earth god-model that is more descriptive & meaningful than "ground of being". My philosophical god-concept serves not as the transcendent over-lord for our devolved Garden of Eden, but as the essence of Matter & Energy, and the immanent cause of every event in physical evolution.

You said that Hart's "account of God comes from a vast tradition". How would you describe that tradition : Orthodox Christianity?*1. If so, that would help me to grasp what you mean by "more sophisticated philosophical accounts". Does that tradition seem radical compared to "more contemporary theological personalism"? If so, I misinterpreted the thread title, and will have little to offer on the topic.

My questions are not intended to be disrespectful, but to be probing. I suppose I'm poking around in spots that are sore from past experience on this forum. :smile:


*1. David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher, writer, and cultural commentator.
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interviews/what-we-think-we-know-about-god

I believe my answers to these are in my OP. If this is inadequate, I'm sorry.

Clearly, what I’m asking for is a survey of different, more philosophical accounts of theism to contrast with the literalist versions put forward by many apologists.

Why am I interested? Who knows? I’m curious about what people believe and why.

How would you describe that tradition : Orthodox Christianity? — Gnomon

Read him. I was taken by the accounts of God provided by the patristics - esp Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, particularly on the logos and the earlier redemption tradition. Not to mention the universalist position. My early reading was influenced by mystical traditions, figures like Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Which was tempered somewhat by the mystical pragmatist J Krishnamurti. Hart seems to be is disliked by many (conservative) Christians because of his alignment with progressive politics and his interpretations of Christianity which support less authoritarian accounts of theism. He can certainly be an arrogant shit, but he's smart as a whip and from what I can gather, a Neoplatonist.

I take you to be saying that if things are real we observe them, we don't merely believe in them. If things we believe in are such that we can't know whether they are real or not, why would we need to believe they are real in order to believe in them? I think that is a very good question. It seems to me that the need to believe that metaphysical posits are real is a failure of the imagination, and a failure to give enough value to the creative imagination, and a category error consisting in projecting, overplaying, an empirical understanding of reality.

For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero

Right―seeing nature itself as divine―a purely immanent divinity. It is divine on account of its magnificence and its overwhelmingly complex beauty―that I can certainly relate to. I wonder must there be thought to be a telos, in order to satisfy the sense of the sublime, though? Or is an imagined telos merely an anthropomorphic, indeed anthropocentric, projection?

You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace.
— Janus
Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace. — Gnomon

I'm not saying that revelation is a viable means of knowing God, I was merely pointing out that if it is believed to be a viable means of knowing God, then it follows that God cannot consistently be said to be unknowable.

[Is] an imagined telos merely an anthropomorphic, indeed anthropocentric, projection? — Janus

I've always thought so: intentional agents make goals and the only intentional agents known to us are ourselves, mere humans. Am I missing something?

@Gnomon