From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:39:55 BST
Hi again Rick,
> RICK
> The way you tell it, apatheia evolved into objectivity which evolved into
> science. So if religion has evolved overtime into science and
objectivity,
> why insist upon maintaining a belief in the pre-evolved version? I think
> this is what Campbell was alluding to when he wrote: "In fact, the famous
> conflict of science and religion has actually nothing to do with religion,
> but is simply of two sciences: that of 4000 B.C. and that of A.D. 2000."
The status of 4000BC science is much less important to Christianity than the
status of AD2000 science is to present SOM materialist modernism. I don't
insist on accepting a pre-evolved version of apatheia; I do insist on not
mistaking the part for the whole.
> SAM
> (The things which a particular religion has to hold to, in
> > order to maintain recognisable continuity of identity, we can debate
> about).
>
> RICK
> I'd sincerely love to hear you talk about this.
Once this flurry of e-mails has died down, I think that is the interesting
topic for conversation. Let's return to it.
> SAM
> > I don't believe in a 'god of the gaps' - in fact, that's rejected by
most
> > theologians as a confused reaction to Modernism.
>
> RICK
> I don't know Sam... Sometimes it sounds to me very much like you do
> believe in a god of the gaps. First, I see you creating the gaps in
> statements like..."Science is tremendously powerful in certain restricted
> areas. In other areas, it is worse than useless"... "Science has nothing
to
> say about 'shoulds'"..."...as soon as we get away from questions of
> 'physics', and into all the areas that we find humanly interesting... then
> science has nothing to say". Those are the gaps where your god lives.
Those are not the gaps referred to by the phrase 'god of the gaps'. The
phrase means those things which science can't explain, but which are still
appropriate subjects for scientific investigation, ie size or nature of the
universe. A good example is the 'anthropomorphic principle' in cosmology -
the universe is astonishingly fine-tuned to create human life, therefore
someone must have done the fine-tuning. The way to recognise 'god of the
gaps' thinking is historically - it's the thinking that is repeatedly
discredited by scientific advance. I'm contesting the presuppositions of
science, not its application.
> RICK
> That's a good place to start. After all, that is the same ground you
> indicted Pons and Fleischmann on when you wrote: "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." This is identical to the way in which the
Christian's
> desire to believe that Christ was resurrected distorts their perceptions
of
> what the bible proves...
Pons and Fleischmann operated within certain publicly accepted canons of
acceptability and rationality. Their work failed according to those
criteria; that is not analogous to what goes on in theology. I agree with
your last sentence above.
> Oh yeah, does this mean you do think Christ was literally resurrected from
> the dead? Or are you just defending the literal fundamentalist reading
that
> you asked me not to force you to defend?
See my discussion with Platt on this. I think the resurrection is a mystery
(a term of art theologically - call it pure DQ in MoQ terms).
> RICK
> Well, that's fine so long as one is willing to believe that Jesus was the
> son of God (or even that there even is a 'God' for that matter). I admit
I
> can't prove that there is no god or that Jesus was not his son, but I also
> can't disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, batman, or the
> tooth-fairy. Homer's Odyssey and Iliad contain countless fantastic
> elements I can't disprove (ie. that a cyclops existed who was killed by
> Ulysses). Should I believe that the Odyssey also really happened for this
> reason?
I don't think belief in the resurrection can be conceptually separated from
the belief in Jesus' divinity - they are two sides of the same coin. If you
believe one, you believe the other. And I think whether you believe it or
not depends on, using the very helpful Campbell language that DMB brought
in, whether it is a myth you can live by, whether it is affectively
effective. If you find it so, you're a Christian. If not, not. I don't think
the 'proof game' has any purchase here.
> RICK
> Campbell is saying the mistake is to be defending the myths as if they
were
> literal. From my perspective, this is precisely what you appear to be
doing
> when you question the evidence against a man rising from the dead.
Don't bother going too far down that road - I'm just responding to comments
there, and wanting to raise awareness of presuppositions, that's all.
> You
> insist that your god doesn't live in the gaps of science, you insist,
"It's
> the ideology that says such things *need* to be 'backed up' that is in
> question." Yet, you don't hesitate to defend the literal possibility that
> there was a man named Jesus who was resurrected from the dead by virtue of
> his relationship to a divine being. What am I to make of this?
Maybe I just don't fit into the bed Mr Procrustes?
> RICK
> If you are putting your theological beliefs in with the myths and poems
that
> Campbell is talking about then I have no quarrel with you. That's exactly
> how I see religion, as mythology; As metaphorical stories that a culture
> makes up about itself for its own good. Perhaps in the same way Pirsig
> talks of science inventing a myth of independence from the social world
for
> its own good, religion has invented a myth of compatibility with science
for
> its own benefit.
I think I'm closer to DMB on this, than to you. I (i) don't think it's
possible to think without an underlying mythology (meta-narrative, final
vocabulary, whatever) (ii) think that science operates within a mythology
which is largely unacknowledged (iii) think that the Christian mythology,
for all its faults, is superior to the scientific one (more precisely, it is
superior to Modernism). I think DMB would agree with me on (i), (ii) and
part of (iii), but I'd be interested to know for sure. I'd also be
interested to know what are the myths which he (and you) live by.
Still having fun :o)
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 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 12:36:15 BST