Re: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

On 10/15/04 4:43 PM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

> I have been away at a conference which is why it has taken me so long to
> respond.

Yes, I assumed that your silence was not avoidance. Thanks for the report of
your meetings and conversations re oil. You have made me aware of things I
had neglected before.

>> Glenn replied:
>>
>>> When applied to philosophical systems, and to theological systems, I do
>>> beleive that. It is because there is no objective mechanism to tell which
>>> one is better other than internal self-contradiction. Assuming
>>> both systems are internally consistent, then I do beleive that one can't be
>>> any better than the other.
>>
>> I disagree. I think it's a lot like the situation in scientific theory
>> evaluation.
>
> Excuse me, but I wasn't speaking of scientific theory evalutation. I was
> specifically speaking of determining which of two theological or
> philosophical theories were better. Since observational data seems not to
> be able to distinguish between two philosophies or theologies, I stand on my
> statement.
>
> The rest of your reply to this issue is non-responsive to the issue. since I
> wasn't speaking of science or scientific theories, it matters not what
> affects their truth content.

Glenn, please read my posts more carefully. Your specific point was that if
two theological or philosophical theories were both internally consistent,
then there was no other way to rank them in value. My response was to say, I
disagree. I think the situation for theology or philosophy IS SIMILAR (not
necessarily identical) to the situation in scientific theory evaluation.
Internal consistency, whether in science, theology, or philosophy, is NOT
the only available basis for comparison of theories.

The question that needs to be addressed, then, is what criteria have a good
track record of being helpful in the arena of theology.
 
>> On another issue:
>
>> The question that I [Howard] asked [Glenn] was this: Are you claiming that
>> your portrait of God is not a humanly crafted product?

Glenn now replies:
 
> I would hope that God was able to communicate something true about His
> nature. If he was unable to successfully communicate any information about
> Himself to me, then yes my portrait is nothing but a human product. If he
> has been able to communicate, then it isn't. What is so difficult for you
> to understand about that position?

I think I understand your position very well, thank you. What I am trying to
do is to get YOU to take ownership of it as a _human choice_. Nothing wrong
with that. No need to deny it. You willingly do it in the arena of oil
exploration and you persuade people to spend $15 million to drill a well on
the basis of your human judgment.

You now say, "I would hope .... " OK, but hope is not certain knowledge, is
it?

You then offer two "If ..." options, based on your idea of how and what God
would communicate to you if God were both able or desirous of doing so --
"information about Himself" (male God) to you personally, by which I assume
you mean something specific and concrete rather that a general sense of
God's presence and goodness.

You still have not answered my question about what YOU think.

Glenn, I'm not merely trying to pester you personally. These are important
issues for religion and theology, and they lie at the root of deep
disagreements about what the biblical text is able to contribute to the
religion/science discussion.

Howard
Received on Sat Oct 16 10:49:41 2004