From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 22:51:25 BST
Hi Rick,
Like you, there are lots of things to respond to! But I'll restrict it to
two, for the time being (I thought there was a big disagreement between us,
it has now emerged. Hey ho!)
The first is brief, the second is the more philosophically interesting.
1. You seem to be under the impression that I think "all Christian thought
is metaphorical". I think all language about God is metaphorical, that's not
quite the same thing.
2. The much more interesting thing is to do with objectivity, where you say
"knowledge rooted in objectivity is superior to (ie. better than) knowledge
rooted in
faith, though I don't believe objectivity to be a truly 'neutral' viewpoint
(as I understand your use of the term). It isn't a neutral source of truth,
it's just a better source of truth. The results that have been produced by
'objectivity' I think are just too stupendous to be ignored. No religion
that I know of can lay claim to
anything even approaching the phenomenal power of the descriptions of
reality produced by science."
I think we need to pay a little attention to what 'objectivity' actually
is - it's the attempt to make our judgements less dependent on personal
preference. For example, Pons and Fleischmann, about ten years back,
announced to the world that they had discovered 'cold fusion'. Their
experiments were not able to be replicated by anyone else - it appears that
their desires to make the intellectual breakthrough distorted their
perceptions of what their experiments proved. (If there's anyone on the list
who can give details of this I'd be interested in their view).
So the core of scientific method is an emotional distancing from the subject
being studied; an emotional distancing which is geared around getting a
clearer view of the matter at hand.
As such, this intellectual discipline is one part of a wider intellectual
discipline which, historically, had a very happy home in Christian theology
where it was called the cultivation of 'apatheia'. The central element in
Christian spiritual growth is 'not my will but Thine' - in other words, the
development of the ability to put our own 'wills' and our own 'preferences'
to one side - again, an emotional distancing. Of course, in the Christian
process, this distancing is one movement in a sequence that, through prayer,
results in the transformation of the will so that it becomes transparent to
God. It is a process of dismantling all our idols - all the things that we
value other than God. In MoQ terms, it is the renunciation of all static
patterns in order to cultivate the openness towards DQ.
So when you wish to defend the scientific method, and say that it is a good
thing, I would agree - it is, both as a matter of historical fact and in
philosophical terms an outgrowth of Christian theology.
However, the great Modernist mistake, carried forward by Dawkins etc, and -
I really should emphasise - totally disembowelled by Pirsig, amongst others,
is to think that gaining emotional distance from a subject is a way to find
out the 'final truth' on a matter. The main problem is that the process of
emotional distancing is a process of delaying value judgements (for emotions
are essentially judgements of value). When it comes to questions of
metaphysics - which determine how all the 'objectively' produced data are
interpreted - we are plunged straight back into questions of decision, which
(as a matter of logical and empirical fact) depend upon emotional engagement
with the issue at hand. Much more interestingly, as soon as we get away from
questions of 'physics', and into all the areas that we find humanly
interesting, like 'how should I live', then science has nothing to say.
My view is that the objective stance is simply a tool - a useful instrument
for use in particular cases, and something which can enable us to develop
better sources of information - but to discern the answers to our most
fundamental and most interesting questions we need to re-engage our
emotions, ie our discernment of value. As is built into the very groundwork
of the MoQ.
By the way, I think your assessment of religion is drawing on a Modernist
mistake. Faith is not a matter of knowledge (ie faith and science are not
two species of the same kind). It's essentiallly about judgement.
By the way 2, if Dawkins didn't assume materialism then how do you explain
his vehement disagreements with Gould? They don't disagree about the
'facts'. If Dawkins was able to be objective about his own prejudices he
would be a much more compelling figure.
Very happy to pursue this in more detail if you want.
Cheers
Sam
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 Apr 02 2003 - 22:48:27 BST