From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:05:23 BST
Hi Rick,
Some detailed responses.
> RICK
> I'm sure you've probably explained the difference before in a post I
missed
> (or don't remember) so could you explain it one more time for me? Also,
is
> this distinction meant to indicate that you do take Christian doctrine
(ie.
> the Bible) literally?
I'm quite conservative on doctrinal questions, ie I see myself as operating
comfortably within the classical and medieval (and contemporary) mainstream
with regard to doctrine. That does *not* imply an emphasis on 'literal'
interpretations - your tacit expectation that it does is one of the things I
want to most disagree with.
> RICK
> I understand what objectivity is.
:o) didn't mean to be patronising!
> Like you said: "...it's the attempt to
> make our judgments less dependent on personal preference." LESS dependent,
> not INdependent. More neutral (or less biased), not totally neutral.
Agreed. The idea of 'total neutrality' is a blind alley.
> RICK
> I think you're blurring the margins again. You seem to be implying that
> because the Christian discipline of 'apatheia' involves emotional
distancing
> and because science involves emotional distancing then science must be
> compatible with Christianity (or vice versa). But the logic doesn't flow.
> It's saying that because two things share one common feature they must
agree
> with each other completely.
I think the difference is to do with the 'intended object', ie what is
studied. Science is simply the discipline of apatheia applied to a
particular form of knowledge - which is ultimately trivial, IMHO. I would
argue that apatheia *includes* science, and that therefore, theology is the
more fundamental or far-reaching intellectual framework. BTW by 'blurring
the margins' I would rather say 'wanting to encourage self-awareness'!
> But I ask you: If science and objectivity have
> such a happy home in Christianity, then why are school boards across the
> nation under siege from Creationists who think that evolution and the
Bible
> stand on equally 'scientific' footings? Why did it take until 1995 for
the
> Pope to pardon Galileo?
I don't see it as any part of my brief to defend fundamentalism - quite the
opposite. As for the medieval papacy, I view it as, by and large, a corrupt
(and un-Christian) institution. Galileo's problems had much more to do with
intrigues in the papal court than any division between 'science' and
'religion' - whatever the consequences might have been for that dispute.
> RICK
> But science studies static patterns. Do you think renouncing all static
> patterns in order to cultivate the openness towards DQ is really that
> similar to renouncing social patterns in order to cultivate an openness to
> the perception of other static patterns? And moreover, is this to say
that
> you believe 'god' is just a metaphor for DQ?
DQ is just a metaphor for an aspect of God, I would say. I don't think that
all static patterns should be renounced, I just think that their provisional
nature should be recognised (and affirmed).
> RICK
> Even if that's true (which I'm not prepared to say it is) then I would
> suggest that the outgrowth has outgrown its source.
As a matter of principle, I have no disagreement that such a thing is
possible. As a matter of fact, I don't think that it has happened.
>Alchemists paved the
> way for real chemists (it is often forgotten that Isaac Newton was a very
> serious alchemist),
A good case could be made that Newton was the first fundamentalist.
> but that doesn't mean that any of the value of chemistry
> rubs off onto alchemy... does it? Apatheia may have paved the way for
> objectivity, but that doesn't mean that any of the value of science rubs
off
> onto religion... does it?
All depends what you mean by the terms. As I say, I think science is
included within religion.
> RICK
> I agree that emotions are judgments of value. But that's not the same
kind
> of value that is being judged in the science. Those value judgments have
no
> place science and science is right to do everything it can to insulate
> itself from those emotional judgments. That's where it's power comes
from.
Science is tremendously powerful in certain restricted areas. In other
areas, it is worse than useless. What I find interesting is the difference
between the areas.
> RICK
> The problem comes when a particular pre-existing metaphysical (or
religious
> view) comes to clash with the data that has been objectively gathered.
I'll
> use the creationists as my example again. By reintroducing their emotions
> into the metaphysical decisions, they wind up ignoring and skewing all the
> objective data to force it to fit with their views about god creating the
> world in 6 days (Scott uses some of these skewed arguments in his recent
> post to me in this thread).
I disagree about Scott's use of those arguments - I think you're misreading
him. Moreover, why are your arguments dependent on fundamentalists, not
mainstream Christians? It would be just as legitimate to take 'Creation
scientists' as representative of science (given their methodology) as of
religion.
> RICK
> I know. Religion has plenty to say about how we should live. It just
> has no way to back up those claims. It draws them as if from the air and
> backs them up with faith alone.
It's the ideology that says such things *need* to be 'backed up' that is in
question. And what sort of thing faith is.
> Science and logic may have nothing to say how we should live, but they
> are indispensable in weighing the value of *shoulds* offered by those who
do
> claim to know how we should live. Just think how much better a place the
> world would be if just one suicide bomber asked someone to show him some
> evidence that there are 10 virgins waiting for him in heaven after the
bomb
> goes off.
Science has nothing to say about 'shoulds'. Do you really think a suicide
bomber would be put off by a training in science? Why then were most of the
9/11 leaders people with scientific degrees? Doesn't that correspondence
make your antennae twitch that there is something quite important being
missed by science?
> SAM
> > 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 -
>
> RICK
> That is my view as well.
Wonderful - that, plus the agreement on what emotions are makes me think
that there is huge scope for agreement, once we've thrashed things through.
> SAM
> ...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.
>
> RICK
> Why do social-level emotions need to included in questions of metaphysics?
> Where do you read that in the MoQ?
Where did 'social-level' come from?
> RICK
> Could you unpack this a bit for me? How does the statement "God exists"
> differ when taken as 'faith' rather than taken as 'knowledge'?
A few disparate comments. 'scientia' is not 'sapientia', ie knowledge is not
wisdom. Faith is a virtue, like courage, not a belief system or a set of
propositions. Our fundamental intellectual stance is not a matter of
rational enquiry.
I think there will be a few more of these posts....
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
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 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:48:15 BST