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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
>Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:03 PM

>Yes, you have presented two mutually exclusive statements. That's not
>difficult to find among religions, not even within any one of them.
>"Observational data" is not really a very useful term here. Human
>experience
>and human judgment is closer to what is needed. Is it infallible? No, but
>it's the best we have. What I'm asking for is simply that we admit it and
>then do the best we can, with respect for others who are doing the same.

We agree then, and that is, and has been precisely my point throughout many
of these discussions on the roll of science in Christianity. That is why
some form of observational data is absolutely essential to establishing the
truth or falsity of a given religion. Even if you can't verify the central
claim (e.g. the two examples I used in my last post in this thread), you can
verify parts of the story which do leave chicken-tracks in history. The
flood is one of those things which should have left chicken tracks. The
divinity or lack there of for Jesus, will not leave a chicken-track.

>
>The choice I'm talking about is the choice of how to craft one's
>portrait of
>God. If I understand you correctly, you have made the choice to craft your
>portrait of God from selected portions of the Judeo-Christian
>Bible (assumed
>to be a special revelation from God), employing some particular
>hermeneutical tradition, and doing all of this in the context of your own
>culture and personal history.

But, once again, the choice MUST be informed by observational data. The
religious stories which are capable of leaving objective evidence must be
examined for veracity. Religion should not be merely my selection of a
political or philosophical position. Religion is supposed to say something
real about the world, its relation to a supernatural being (or lack there of
in the case of atheism).

If one merely chooses a religion which is pleasing to the ears and eyes,
then such a method leaves us no reason to believe that there is anything
transcendental in the religion at all. If I choose to believe that trees
have intelligent spirits who refuse to speak with us such short-lived
creatures. Are you going to argue that such a 'choice' has as much chance
of being transcendental and real as the Christian choice or the Islamic
choice?

>
>Some persons simply accept the portrait of God that they inherited from
>parents and their local community. Whether a person is a Christian
>or Muslim
>then depends a lot on history and locality -- genealogical and geographical
>accidents. I would prefer to get more self-consciously involved in the
>process.

I agree that some people never examine what they inherit. But that doesn't
mean that that makes it ok, or that all people do that, or that religion
itself is nothing but a choice of how to construct a god in one's image or
out of one's image.

>
>> Agreed, but if we merely say it is irrelevant, or that our religion is a
>> human construct. Why bother with it.
>
>It's the human condition. We do the best we can and rejoice in all that we
>are privileged to think and do.

I find the suggestion that we should be happy that we can construct images
of God regardless of the truth of falsity of the God-concept to be rather
sad. What is the difference between that and the YECs who fashion their
physical world according to their own concepts regardless of the truth or
falsity of their concepts? To me, the actions are the same. The only
difference I see is that in the case of the YECs one can show observational
data against their position. But that doesn't make the actual form of the
action different when we construct our theological world according to what
we wish it to be. If Islam is true, then I should accept it. If
Christianity is true then I should accept it. If tree-spirits are real, then
I should worship them. One should try to ascertain the truth rather than
give up.

>
>> Tell me how to differentiate between
>> the two theological statements, above (This is my son" and "far
>be It from
>> His glory that He should have a son" How do I tell which is
>true? If the
>> only way is to make a blind leap of faith, then maybe one should become a
>> muslim. It seems that they are going to win the world for their
>position and
>> christianity is going to lose. They are far more dedicated than the
>> Christians. They actually believe their Scripture.
>
>Is that an advantage? Does loyalty to a text necessarily lead to
>truth? Does
>loyalty to a text lead people to live better lives?

>From a practical point of view, it does give them an advantage. They are
more willing to die to advance their cause.

And for what it is worth, why do you think the goal of religion is to make
people live a better life? Where did you get that idea? Maybe that concept
is just your choice, your personal portrait of what a religion should be.
But if it is a false concept, why should we pay attention to it? Maybe
religion's purpose is to teach us suffering not good living or teach us to
reject our desires (Buddhism). As to living a better life, I would suggest
that that is the role of capitalism, not religion. :-)

>I know that some terrorists appeal publicly to their sacred text
>for support
>of what they do for other reasons. I'm not at all convinced that such
>appeals are honest expressions of actual belief. My suspicion is that it is
>a mere rhetorical game, transparently hypocritical.

Then you don't understand the people with that theology at all.

>
>You can have the last word. I don't think this exchange is doing
>any one any
>good.

I will take that last word. It is important that we don't go off into the
realm of solipsism, where any picture of God is as good epistemologically as
any other.
Received on Sat Oct 16 16:39:06 2004