Reply #38: Who's arguing that "science and transcedence (aren't) compatible"? [View All]

If you're going to inveigh against a viewpoint you don't like, it would help to know where that viewpoint has been expressed.

I have no problem with a general concept of "transcendence", only with the baggage people try to tie to that idea.

It seems like you're in the contradictory position of considering transcendence to be a very different thing from religion, yet at the same time considering Dawkins argument against religion an attack upon, or dismissal of, transcendence.

Dare I ask you to define "transcendence", or will that only lead to hand-waving and claims that trying to define it misses the point of it, how you can't be told about, how you just have to experience it, etc., etc.?

I can live with the idea that some concepts are a little difficult to pin down, but when you're so vague that you can come to contradictory conclusions through shifting, floating definitions, I'm afraid that smells too much of plain old BS.