The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

Yes, many people begin twisting the word around like that. You know why? Because it makes their notion unfalsifiable. It eliminates confrontation. What brilliance! God is reality! Perfect! Let us make whatever we want to exist, reality, so that it will exist by definition! I want Humpty Dumpty to exist, so I will state that Humpty Dumpty is reality. Well, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me, how about you?

It's such a convenient argument, too. I think they hand this stuff out in Spirituality 101. This new age nonsense is really getting out of hand.

Well science has a long ways to go before it gives us a materialist or mechanistic explanation of human mind and human experience.

Is all religious or spiritual sentiment irrational or in conflict with reason or science? No

Is there any scientific proof that there is not rational intelligence (logos) behind the universe?

You see I do not mind, atheism, agnosticism, or materialism what I mind is the notion and the arrogance that those positions are rational and scientific and all forms of theism are not.

I am only defending the rather ancient and persistent notion (even among many scientists) that there is something more at work in the universe than accident, chance and purposeless indifference.

Is not agnosticism or indifference or just "I do not know" more rational?

Well science has a long ways to go before it gives us a materialist or mechanistic explanation of human mind and human experience.

In fact there is an element of "faith" in any comprehensive worldview.

Is there really any rational reason to prefer
Blind, pitiless indifference
to
Experiential, perceptive and striving?
Are not they both assumptions beyond science and beyond proof and beyond reason?

I hope someone has mentioned Spinoza by now; if not: Spinoza.

Got to love Spinoza. Hegel is basically Spinoza edited to survive Kant's critique of Spinoza, roughly, in Kojeve's view.

I guess I would say I think there is reason to claim that the universe is rationally intelligible and mathematically expressible. I would also claim that the notion (or speculation) that this may indicate a rational intelligence within or behind the universe is not irrational (Einstein expressed this sentiment).

Materialism is a comprehensive worldview. Scientism is a comprehensive worldview. Plenty of religious philosophers and theists hold their views in humility. I guess if one is opposed to all comprehensive worldviews that is at least intellectually consistent, although I think most people strive to create a at least somewhat integrated and comprehensive worldview and I do not think many limit their speculations to what can be scientifically confirmed (what about values, aesthetics, ethics)? Neutral there?.
One can construct a rational conception of god which does not ignore the information of science or the rules of reason. Yes it involves more than we can "know" or what can be "certain" but so does any other system adequate to the world of human experience.

When Dawkins preaches the blind pitiless indifference of the universe you criticize him in the same manner as the theist who claims the universe is perceptive and striving?

Faith, by definition, is belief without justification. That is in conflict with reason.

But I think that the definition of faith that you have provided is pernicious and inaccurate and furthermore you use it as an axiom for virtually any discussion which you judge to have religious content.

But that is also a matter of faith.

And, unlike scientific axioms, these convictions are generally anchored both in a living tradition and also in an explanation of the cosmic order.

It is in almost any dictionary you can imagine,

We can have good reason to believe what we believe, and this is not faith

people flaunt having faith, as if it were some sort of positive characteristic to behold.

But again, this is based on a very specific meaning of the word 'faith', and it being defined exactly as 'believing without evidence'. I believe this is very specific to a particular reading of Christianity. I suppose, thinking about it, it goes back to Jesus saying 'unless you see signs and miracles, you won't believe'. In other words, believing without having an external reason to believe, is held up as a virtue. This was emphasized by Martin Luther in particular. So I do understand why faith is depicted in this light. But it has broader meanings also. The point of the OP is not to promote faith in that sense at all but to argue for a rational conviction about an intelligent principle which can be inferred on the basis of the rational order of the universe. It is more Platonist, and philosophical, in conception. But because our society has been conditioned by a particularly protestant conception of faith (which incidentally is also quite hostile to any kind of Platonist view), then, ironically, this view is identified with the 'believing without evidence' view.

So all in all, I reject the idea that the atheist position is defeated by the criticisms it uses against the theist position. Not making a claim about a subject is different than making one, and there is a clear error in arguing that in not making a claim atheists are making a claim about not making a claim, and therefore arguing against themselves. It is clearly a specific kind of claim that they are against. It is no different from not believing in astrology. People who don't believe in astrology aren't promoting an alternative system of predicting how our lives will turn out, and aren't claiming indisputable proof that it is false. No doubt science cannot provide an "adequate prediction" of how our lives will turn out, and non-believers of astrology bumble along making guesses. But that is not an argument for astrology.

But is seems to me you are making a claim
for :
There is either some rational intelliegence behind the order and mathematical expressiblity of the universe or there is not.

Theist claim there is; and others are responding not only that there is not; but that the very notion is irrational. This is in effect a claim that there is not any rational intelligence inherent in nature.

The only position that would not be making a claim is the agnostic position that we just do not know.

In effect metaphysics is specualtive philosophy about the ultimate nature of reality and other such questions. An effort to build a coherent and logical system of thought which incorporates the realm of human experience. Speculative metaphysics involves not only science but also mind, subjective experience, values, ethics and aesthetics. My very limited claim is that there are notions of "god" which are rational and coherent and applicable and adequate to the realm of human experience. Others are saying there is no conception of "god" or religion that is rational. Who is making the larger claim? What kind of worldview allows you to even make the claim that there is no conception of the divine which is rational?

But is seems to me you are making a claim
for :
There is either some rational intelliegence behind the order and mathematical expressiblity of the universe or there is not.

I want to ask you, do you believe Captain Crunch is real?

I question that definitions, actually. I think that is a very specific definition of faith, which originates in a particular religious outlook, which this is the denial of.

Perhaps you might elucidate for us the formative role that belief in Captain Crunch had in the formation of the notion of the individual in the late middle ages. It might also be interesting to consider the differing Jewish, Muslim and Christian perspectives of Captain Crunch, and the consequences of these differences in the subsequent formation of secular philosophy. It would also be interesting to recall the role of the worshippers of Captain Crunch in the formation of the European University system, the hospital system, the creation of formal logic, and the definition of such philosophical concepts as ontology and causation.

I suppose an outline of any one of those topics would suffice, really. Because I, for one, was shamefully unaware of the significance of the deities you mentioned, including the Spaghetti one, in the formation of European civilization.

That sounds about right.

Jacobi is an interesting character; I'd like to know more about him. He rejected both Spinoza and Kant. I'm not sure who reads Jacobi these days but he represents another path and I still consider his to be a legitimate "philosophical conception of god".

We're talking about justification for believing God exists. And my point is, there is none.