From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:09:55 BST
Hi folks
There is an aspect of the non-realist
approach I find very puzzling. That is the notion that at some point
we discovered that religious language cannot be
taken as literally true and has there after to be understood
as having no relationship to truth, leaving truth as something
that is exclusive to the realm of science. This seems to both misunderstand
the nature of truth and science. In science truth has to progress via
theory creation, usually in a quantifiable form but nonetheless
metaphorical
in nature. The truth is established by an element of correspondence between
a theory/model and empirical data. But a mathematical model of how
particles
interact is not the particles themselves interacting. There is a
correspondence between the model and the experienced aspects of the world
but also
differences, properties belonging to the model that the particles do not
have and properties belonging to the particles not belonging to the model.
A model about snooker balls hitting each other and exchanging energy does
not need to refer to the colour of the balls or the computer software of
the
model. The connection between the numbers in the model and the properties
of the
balls is metaphorical. Numbers are a very abstract and very general and
powerful
form of metaphor. Science depends on the abstract numbers (weightless and
without
extension) and their metaphorical relationship to real quantities (with
extension and
weight). So what in our post-modern world is literal truth other than a
metaphor
grown familiar. And on the other hand, there is a great deal of language
full of
truth-potential that does not use the metaphor link of number-quantity. So
we might say that
god is the light. This is a metaphor. It is not god=light. But does it
have an element of
truth? Well clearly god is not light or vice versa. But does it say
something about
god? Does god have a power of revealing that light also possesses? Quite a
simple
metaphor really. Also does a=p+c=h+d well if a=animals and p=2 pigs and
c=2 cows
and h=2 hens and d=2 ducks then p+c=4=h+d=4 animals. But do 2 cows and pigs
really equal 2 hens and ducks? No they don't and the very uselful
abstaction of
mathematics is always a simplification you know. That's why it works so
well, complex
stuff is too hard/hot to handle.
My approach to religion is that I cannot approach religion without a full
acceptance of the best knowledge in science and history etc. This means to
me that we have to
understand our old metaphors in newer and deeper ways and look deeper to
see what truth they
may possess. EG god is above. Is god in the sky? For a modern certainly
not. Is there
another sense that god is above? There are many possible answers in
response to this metaphor
given a bit of thought. Don Cupitt has such a rethink in his Heidegger
books that I find very appealing.
regards
David Morey
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 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:58:55 BST