Thanks for the summary of Saint Augustine. I have always wondered how Saint Augustine handled Christian millennialism. I assume that many of the Christian sects at his time were ?fundamentalist? in the modern sense of the word; focused on the second coming end days; adamant that their symbolic universe absolutely, perfectly mapped reality; believing that they had a direct, personal relationship to God like the Anabaptists.
Did he try to defocus the emphasis on the second coming? And religious over- enthusiasm?
Does he ever mention the word fanaticism --- those pagan cults that ?believed too intensely?

So, I'm writing about St Augustine. After ignoring him for years and years as a professional philosopher, I found myself stuck with him. I found him to be intelligent- gads, who'd have guessed? Terribly sexist, of course, and like all Christians he hates sex- how I generalize away here! And he actually believed in that Trinity stuff, which I find completely foolish. Um, he even wrote a book about that, De Trinitate. No, I haven't read it- don't I get broadmindedness points for deigning to read him at all? But I mean to say, I'm a good contemporary intellectual type, despise what every bien pensant assumes Christianity to be, and so on, and I'm sure that Augustine's being African must be somehow related to celebrating diversity; but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to take him _seriously_.

Augustine?s mission, together with the other early religious ?pioneers,? appears to boil down to mainly establishing a distinction between religion and superstition. The question seems relatively settled these days. In today?s much-discussed ?influence of religion in (U.S.) politics?, there?s probably little worry about political influences arising from generally agreed superstition. But what if one should look at the question again in the modern age. Religion and superstition both appear to share identical commonalities, from a basis in the preternatural to a certain amount of ?faith? in their respective essentials. Religionists continue to argue that there is a special or remarkable history that supports their religious tenets. Claims of ?miraculous? occurrences are still often cited, as compared to what?s declared as bogus quackery proffered by the superstitious. For example, there is the ?miracle of life?, which judging from the vehemence exhibited by the creationist movement, seems to be the principal if not exclusive modern apology for certain religions. It?s also maintained that religion is ?more logical? than superstition; albeit in the absence of a well-established set of theoretical postulates now considered absolutely mandatory in mathematics or physics (although some solid practical ones could be of value, e.g., a most persuasive premise in the minds of world leaders in arms race deliberations is mutually assured destruction. However, most religions have always tended to see issues first in terms of doctrinal principles, to which empirical data is accommodated only when considered necessary). In short, the maintained distinction between religion and superstition continues to come down to claims arising from their ancestral stories, and arguments based largely on idiomatic beliefs like ?inerrancy of immutable writings?, or a most curious proposition heard recently on talk-radio: ?less slaughter in religious wars than in secular wars? (before weapons of mass destruction that is!!). This also happens to be the kind of thinking used for establishing primacy among the legion of competing or alternative religions that have materialized since Augustine.
In view of the above it?s ?tempting? to substitute the word ?superstition? for ?religion? and see what happens. I say do it in all cases where religion influences or exercises power. When humans go about their irresistible impulse to quash and dominate one another, there could at least be an attempt to base this on some sort of logical rationale instead of ?inspired? mandates coming from spirits (egad). But, speaking of logical premises, to the extent the golden-rule is promulgated by a religion ? you?d better believe it!!
In all this, I must admit to being entirely amazed and mystified by the human ability for conscious intervention in nature that is quite apart from the operation of impersonal physics, something well out of Augustine?s ken. Among the manifold examples is the incidental capability to do acts of kindness or to wage torture and killing. Note well that however one might prefer things to be, physics (including the biophysics of natural selection) allows no alternative to the rules of the game of life. In contrast to anything Augustine could have remotely imagined, the universe is seen to follow fixed and often surprising laws. As a consequence, in addition to being inescapably stuck with the reality of the natural system, including its unwelcome ramifications, we discover that our very existence itself depends on the universe being precisely what it is. And so it happens that even in the quantum world, I too, like Augustine in his world, can only imagine a preternatural ?big picture? as at least default alternative to equally as mysterious Karma in order to somehow render correct all the absurdities in the game of life. Which says that the post Augustinian enlightenment can be summarized pretty much now as then: No choice but to do what you can and hope for the best!

When will you post this episode for download? I only caught the last 20 minutes on a replay recently and I'm very eager to hear the whole show! Great topic!

Without an understanding of the theory of evolution, an explanation of mankind's evil nature and tendencies towards tribal warfare and all of it's bad consequences was answerable by Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin and redemption by grace. In today's world we rail against human social evil which takes the forms of sexism, bigotry, racism and class suppression which very much reflects a need for some redemption.
Likewise without Einstein's theory of how matter emerges from energy and some unknown; Augustine's Trinity Doctrine of an invisible God becoming a human being still united with his invisible self has incredible parallels.
All of the time modern theists and atheists are arguing in abstract terms about the existence and/or non-existence of a GOD, the thing they all actually share is an argument about the origin of their own minds.
Or may we say that, "the joke's on us".

There are other conceptions of deity than the
old man in the sky--or the Old Testament's jealous
and often vindictive entity.
There is God identified with pure being, as with
Brahman in Yoga, or similarly in the sermons of the German Medieval Catholic priest, Meister Eckhardt. Eckhardt said that one must "completely leave creatures(the material)" in order to experience God and that in the highest experience we are as one with God.
To unchanging Being, some add Love, Peace, and an absolute completeness from which nothing is missing. Indeed Ramana Maharshi, the Indian sage, said that the reason that satisfaction of desires is pleasurable is that the goading desire ceases and the true peace of pure Being is given a chance to shine--until another desire shows up to obscure it.

In Christianity we can say that St Paul, St Augustine, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and Peter are the "Buddhas" who connect the human mind with the divine essence through the Gospels and New Testament Books. Jesus is essentially the human who is "other than" or he is the person who conflicts with the Human "I" or self which is our subconscious where we hold our belief states and cultural rules etc. WE can say our subconscious is the "darker part" of our consciousness or the consciousness which is ruled by the "Prince of Darkness".

Looks like many of their minds have been programmed for a third and fourth world war.
Population is driven towards equilibrium.
Nature creates a balance between various races and species.
We are the same yet differnt.

(This is not the right forum, but...) It's a little disappointing that one must pay to play here (here being the podcasts--I can't tune in). How that limits your audience! Preventing a person from stumbling upon your great show! It's proven time and again that popular radio shows do better to make their podcasts available for free (e.g. This American Life), increasing their popularity and ultimately financial backing. How badly is public radio hurting in your neck of the woods?
Sorry to interrupt the conversation on Augustine, an interesting one.

So, I'm writing about St Augustine. After ignoring him for years and years as a professional philosopher, I found myself stuck with him. I found him to be intelligent- gads, who'd have guessed?

I've lost my admiration for the man. Augustine is sooverrated. He is derivative, having written his entire City of God over the transcript of Cicero's Republic. Thanks to him, that very important document was lost until the 19th century. To this day, we don't have the full version, not having been able to recover it all. If you ask me, Cicero is the underrated philosopher here.

Is it just me, or does O'Donnell sound just like the Simpsons' Rev. Timothy Lovejoy at times? Just sayin'.

I've lost my admiration for the man. Augustine is sooverrated. He is derivative, having written his entire City of God over the transcript of Cicero's Republic. Thanks to him, that very important document was lost until the 19th century. To this day, we don't have the full version, not having been able to recover it all. If you ask me, Cicero is the underrated philosopher here.