Thanks for your piece.

Eric

That does raise the interesting question of how ideal “Forms” play into material reality. In the Platonic sense however, wouldn’t the realization of such a god necessarily be a crude approximation of the actual Form, as instances of an archetype never meet the full Platonic ideal? Just a thought–it’s certainly evocative of an ideal, subjective realm interacting with an external reality.

Of course, in another sense the personal God with whom we interact regularly is a sort of crude approximation we utilize–the shadow, if you will–of the fully-realized (or should I just say REALized) divinity.

Thanks for bringing up the analogy. Plato’s ripe for comparisons here.

Thanks for those thoughts. Your suggestions as to the role of doubt (hence reason) in expanding faith are well-grounded, and I particularly applaud your statements in the last paragraph that “doubt of assumptions’ correctness permit us to go beyond faith.” An elegant answer to a thorny problem, and worth consideration, as the interplay of faith and reason is often antagonistic as the claims (subjective and existential, political, dogmatic, etc.) that each arrogates to itself collide.

As I look back on my thoughts on the subject, I realize that two things have revised my approach recently. The first is my continuing reading of Kant, which reminds me that reason has a fixed orbit, beyond which it cannot pass, but within it reigns supreme (if we will allow it). The second is the lesson from the Joseph Smith manual last Sunday in Gospel Doctrine. As I read over the material there, I was struck by the occasional seeming paradox in which two apparently sincere seekers of truth can pray and receive contradictory answers, with no reason to assume that either of them is obstinately resisting the Spirit. How much do our own desires, conscious or unconscious, necessarily shape our worldview? A great deal, certainly; the truth we see is often at the mercy of the truth we know.

In any case, I believe that the value is more in continuing to search for truth, rather than in finding it. That seems more consistent with what we know of the universe and the gospel; consider Abraham’s quest to “be a follower of greater righteousness” (Abr. 1:2).

First on the reality observed by each of us and its relationship to Truth. You say yourself that the trick is to be both sincere and correct and I agree but neither you nor I have, beyond the metaphysical, the criteria to judge the existence of either one. Who decides that you are sincere? Only yourself (or God?). Who decides whether something is Correct?
The existence of one True/Correct/Right way is more plausible in the material, reasonable, world in which we can define the exact mass of a Kg. or “true” north even if it is not as useful as the one measurement we might use (north pole, pound). When it comes to matters that have a direct connection with faith as in your example, the Atonement, I wonder why we don’t just assume the act and use your own suggestion tool ask about the causes and washback.
While I have not read Kierkegaard’s thoughts directly, I wonder if the contribution of doubt is perhaps in the questioning of Correctness, or Sincerity. That is, contributions to our understanding are either one are fostered and even harbored precisely because we can doubt that either exists. An intellectual pursuit of their existence is still worth it even if neither existed, at least reason would say so. Faith, on the other hand, would not contribute such an exercise but would preclude it by its presence. Thus, we can say that doubt of assumptions’ correctness permit us to go beyond faith.
Sancho’s persistent questioning eventually yields to the faithful constructions that el Quixote had already assumed were true but this acquiescence makes him no less correct. No?