From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Oct 20 2004 - 03:19:27 BST
Jim,
> >>>[Scott:] It has been resolved for over a hundred years in liberal
> >Protestant theology. The Catholics took longer, but they have no problem
either,
> >since Vatican II.
> >>jl in polite astonishment:
> >>Really????????
> >So now I have to guess what conflict you had in mind.
> jl:
> No, not really Scott. I just dispute the whole basis of the statement.
> The basic religions have been tacking onto science so that they don't
> have to to a major volta face at any stage in the face of evidence.
That's a strange way to put it. They have become epistemological
pluralists, like Pirsig. So why do you think there is still conflict?
> I do not feel that Christianity in any organised form has ever got over
> the idea that the world might not be created by an overseeing power.
No, but that claim is taken on faith. Such an idea is not provable (or
disprovable) by science. The two venues are acknowledged by them to be
separate. It seems to be you that wishes to claim a totalizing epistemology.
If
> you want to refer to Pirsig, this is the flipside of the idea that
> science had to make a truce with religion for it's survival. Well, now
> religion is able to make a truce with science because science hasn't got
> a clue about how to talk about morals, therefore doesn't understand that
> anything is missing, so religion is able to make a last gasp.
So where is there a conflict?
> My basic point is that there is practically zero correspondence between
> the way that religion wishes to pervert science and science itself.
But contemporary (non-fundamentalist, more or less liberal) religion has no
desire to "pervert science". It doesn't claim any authority over the areas
in which science has authority. Again, I'm asking for an example to justify
your point.
> Religion always wants to try to prove that its dogma is valid. Science
> is wrong to the extent that it falls into the same trap.
No. They gave up on attempts to prove their dogma long ago. There are still
cranks who may try, but mainstream theologians consider the attempt to be
foolish. I have to wonder if you have ever read any modern theology, like
Tillich or Tracy, because your ideas on what modern theology is about are a
century or two out of date (less than that for Catholicism).
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 04:10:45 BST