07/17/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XF

[A good example is found in my work:

Comments on Wayne Proudfoot’s Book (1986) Religious Experience

Dr. Proudfoot (writing in the 1980s) eagerly takes Schleiermacher (writing in the 1800s) to task. In order to demonstrate cause and effect in the religious experience, Proudfoot inadvertently selects a few elements out of a three-level interscope. He neglects all other elements.

Of course, if I selected any two elements in the nine-element matrix, I could declare that one element caused the other (provided that the seven other elements remained constant). This is not false. However, this would be deceptive. My selection would neglect all the other elements in the interscope.

Dr. Proudfoot was awarded a book award from the American Academy for Religion for his efforts.]

03/7/19

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 TP

Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84

[I compare the intersecting forms of the thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ and the message underlying the word “religion”.

I find that something that I may choose1V parallels consciencespecified1V.

I feel that I should label this parallel: Free will.

Perhaps the word “parallels” is insufficient.

How about complements or resonates with?]