Hi George,
At 10:34 AM 3/14/00 -0500, George Andrews wrote:
>>> Please know that I use the word naive in the technical, philosophical
sense in your usage of the notion of truth. Such technicality is required
for demarcation between philosophical positions; e.g. to differentiate
between a critical realist and one who subscribes to a naive realism. (As
another example of how I mean it, the term is also used in distinguishing
between naive concepts of infinity in others illicited in the theory of
cardinal numbers. ) I applied it to your usage of "truth" and "Truth"
because you use it in a way that does not allow for more abstract
understandings of truth to enter in (e.g. the broken-heart-duct-tape
analogy to which George M. referred), i.e. truth in/as metaphor,
antithesis, objectiveity, correspondence, etc. I mean it as is a
distinguishing term not a condescending insult. Forgive me if you did take
it as such. <<
Do you have a reference for this usage in the literature? My philosophy
grad work was over 25 years ago so much may have changed. It sounds like
the person who coined the terms didn't like the position to which he named
'naive'. It sounds like something I might try to do. :-)
It is true that I am a realist, although I still don't think the term
'naive' fits anywhere in it. Real things have observational facts which
back them up. That is the power of science--real events in history leave
real evidence behind. Christians in science use observational evidence to
confirm and reject certain scenarios that science constructs (all of which
are could-have-been theorys in George M.'s terminology). We have absolutely
no compunctions about blasting a hypothesis that fails the observational
test. What bothers me is the fact that the Bible has certain events for
which it has been difficult to find observational support. So, what do we
christians in science do, when we fail to find observational support for
the Scripture? We change the rules of the game. Suddenly, we fix it so that
we don't have to have observational support. We go and claim that there are
easily other types of truth. But we would never allow someone to say that
other types of truth to infect our science.
To me, this all smacks of either slight hypocrisy on our part, or a
heads-I-win, Tails-you lose scenario. We insulate the Scripture from
falsification. By doing that, I would say that we move from a reasoned
belief into fideism.
If this is naive realism, then I am proud to be one. I won't play a rigged
game where there is no way to lose. And that is exactly what we are
doing--rigging the game in our favor.
George wrote:
>>The reality (I am a critical realist in my science and theology not a
naive one :-) ) is that the Biblical authors do exhibit instances of
undeniable inconsistencies in regards to events and their settings in
historic time. Thus, to hold the Genesis record of creation - which
occurred in prehistoric or deep time, and which literally includes solid
spheres holding cosmic oceans at bay, sea monsters and the like - to
standards of consistency required of modern science is not only
unreasonable to the unregenerate mind but is also foolhardy and deserves no
further consideration. >>>
Unless a scenario can be found that matches both the data of science and
the data of scripture. Then it is not unreasonable or foolhardy. To me the
foolhardy part of theology is the isolation of it from any and all
observational failings. To isolate theology so that it can never be wrong,
means that one can never be sure that it is correct. Doing this is not
really trusting God. If the Scripture is really God's word, then we
shouldn't have to save it from itself.
>>>Since the Bible does contain inconsistencies in its recording of
historical events we must be realistic and honest in our presentations of
it. However, to put it mildly, it has much to say to and about humanity in
terms of its theology, morality, poetry and the sacred history of Israel
and the fledgling Church; we do not have to reject it in total because of
the inconsistencies. >>>
INconsistencies which are within the normal human level of eye-witness
accuracy, should not lead to a rejection of the Scripture. However,
stories made up whole cloth for which there is not the slightest bit of
evidence, should give us as much pause as does the lack of archeological
support for the book of Mormon. At somepoint, one must be able to see if
the story is even true or not. Protect the Scripture as you are doing and
you remove the ability to even know if the story is true. You can believe
it to be true, but you can have no knowledge.
>>>>Many do not embrace the faith when the faith is presented to them as
placed in a book. We both know that it is the present belief in the living
God as revealed to us in Christ (now!) that constitutes salvation and the
good news; not the accuracy of the Biblical history of our religion's
origin. How then can we trust the revelation if not by applying modern
scientific presuppositions? Well, the answer is a bit mystical I admit for
"The Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the sons of God".
This is subjective and completely God dependent by definition - but
subjectivity only disallows proof to others who don't share the
experience; it does not negate the reality of the experience for those who
do. May God have mercy on us all. <<<<
Exactly it is subjective--read that fideistic--and that is what bothers me
in yours and George M.'s approach. I know lots of other people from other
religions who believe their 'revelations' with all of their observational
problems. THey also say 'just believe it'. Since these religions are
mutually exclusive and contradictory, some of these religious adherents
are deceiving themselves. We can't simply claim that we are immune to
self-deception. They think they are also. So what you have, as far as I am
concerned IS subjective fideism.
That being said, maybe that is what God really wants. But I have a lot of
troubling with that concept. It would be unfair to send people to hell
because they have a misplaced fideism.
George A. wrote:
>>>Well, as I see it, the real contradictions have been mentioned in my
previous post; the belief in the resurrection of the dead vs. belief in
talking snakes is just that: a matter of belief; i.e., the adherence to one
does not necessitate the negation of the other. Again, as you state, you
want a consistency within your religion that parallels that required in
modern scientific views of reality; but it just is not there.[snip] >>>
Maybe it isn't there. If it isn't, then God is not the God of this reality
in my opinion.
I asked:
> Do you believe in miracles at all?
George A. replied:
>>>Miracles are very problematic and belief in them is - thankfully - not
required; additionally, their occurrence has little value as evidence;
Jesus taught this.<<<<
I would beg to differ. One miracle is most certainly required. The concept
that God raised one man, dead 3 days, is certainly a miracle. If one
doesn't believe that, then what is the point of being a Christian.
>>I answer with a question; do you believe humans will eventually (if
Christ tarries) be able to create life? What about present machines that
exhibit intelligence on par with living creatures? If we succeed in these
endeavors, are these successes to be considered miraculous? A related
question is the following: if we can explain an event such as the
resurrection in terms of information theory and energy storage, have we
denigrated it as a miracle? <<<
I do believe that mankind will create life. Genesis 11:6 says that we
humans can just about do what ever we purpose to do. It says:
6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained
from them, which they have imagined to do.
Of the errancy list George A. wrote:
>> Great idea, thanks. Can you give an address; perhaps others would like
to too. <<
I can't quite recall how I joined, but I think it was via a message to
majordomo@infidels.org with subscribe errancy as the message. If that
doesn't work, try jftill@midwest.net. That was Farrell Till's email
address. Copy me so that I can join when you do.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 18:49:26 EST