Christianity´s Legends and Myths, Scientism, Philosophy, and Whitehead´s Process Philosophy

In response to "Christianity´s legends and myths...." MRM The post´s assertion is untenable. It´s basic fallacy that some accounts or aspects of accounts, like Adam and Eve, have mythical aspects doesn´t equate to all events being "legends and myths," but is a demonstration of indulgence in scientism, the misapplication of scientific materialism. Psychosomatic healing alone debunks anti-psychological views, and a combination of kinds of cases establishes links between the healing power of love, and Transpersonal, transcendental referents. The deconstruction of "science" to reveal its true nature as philosophical, a form of philosophy, then demystifies the illusion that scientific philosophy makes things "impossible." Knowing how the brain and nervous system works doesn´t make "mind" impossible. "Mind," as philosopher D Chalmers recently revived, involves an experiential and introspective perception like "I feel happy or sad." That is an emergent phenomenon domain, and domains in psychology, etc, accompanied by an emergent knowledge domain, and domains, of psychology, etc. Each subdiscipline involves that kind of distinction, like cognitive and emotional research, psychotherapy, etc. Physicist Fritjof Capra has done significant fairly popular work to illustrate his search following The Tao of Physics. Biologist turned philosopher M Pigliucci went from anti-theist to the limits of science, for another. An Chri Mark Rego Monteiro, just right. Mark Rego Monteiro An Chris I´m just looking at mathematician -philosopher AN Whitehead more closely and building clearer understanding around a few angles. Whitehead perceived how physical phenomena relate to evil, which emerges in relation to psychocultural qualities that seek to resolve the problems of evil, and I would cite especially Moses´ top Ten Commandments for God, and Jesus´ 2 Commandments for Moses and God, etc. Goodness and love exist in one way or another, here and there in the natural world, but Jesus represented a highly focused, God-related phenomenon. Whitehead drew on William James, who assessed a range of some progressive Christian testimonies about being loved by God, a few atheist anti-theist testimonies, and "mind-cure" testimonies that correlated cures to spiritual-religious accounts. As part of that, Whitehead defines God as having both an eternal atemporal nature, and a temporal one that reflects his relationship to the Creation. Charles Harteshorne was a UU who advanced Whitehead´s Process Philosophy into Process Theology. JB Cobb advanced it further with ideas like Ecological Civilization, and observing the widespread rejection of spiritual practice in Protestant Christianity. Karen King, for her part, talks about women in early Christianity, among other important viewpoints. I´m also noting that Einstein was in touch with Gandhi, no less. Ma Per Mark Rego Monteiro David Chalmers is struggling to define a non-problem, thus he has made no progress on his alleged "hard problem". · Mark Rego Monteiro Ma Per You are referring to the fact that Chalmers asked a question "Why a (symbolically elaborated) feeling exists that corresponds to physical sensation?" which he has called the 'hard problem of consciousness.'" In my case, my college degree is in lib arts Bio Anthropology, so I don´t follow classical philosophy or Chalmers all that closely. Instead, I relate the useful angle he raised to the more secure framework that I´m getting from Capra, which he has been developing in his Systems Theory of Life. Emergence is a key phenomenon that needs to be accounted for. Introspective methodology, rich in its discussion attributed to Husserl, that I know of back to Descartes and Spinoza, and Freud, and many more recent developments like the biologist Varela that Capra talks about. The basic empirical issue is that introspective methodology exists because we can use our symbolic capacity for social communication about our internal states and cognition. It is full of interesting elements, and is a phenomena with various angles in philosophy and psychology, clearly, at the very least. You refer to Chalmers act of wrongly calling it a "problem," apparently a part of his philosophical mindset. You don´t make clear where you stand, but I might agree that I don´t see it as a problem. That would be part of his philosophical orientation. Introspection, along with other anti-positivist views, are, however, kinds of phenomena, and involve Levels of Explanation, and emergent phenomena, all issues that need to be raised to clarify the philosophical nature of scientific philosophy as a limited perspective despite the grandeur of its material. University-based knowledge, its interrelatedness, differentiations, its metaphysical/religious bases, and the subordination/supplementation of scientific philosophy ("science") to its proper limits and roles. Christianity, and spirituality-religion in general, then can more widely be appreciated and modernized with integrity and attention to the meaning of transcendental phenomena. UUism has the profound foundations for that, I submit, being a Christian who appropriates UUism in my identity as an interfaith UU Christian.