Reflectorites
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:09:42 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
>>BW>Metaphysical knowing is based of faith and/or belief, the words being
>>>approx equivalent.
>SJ>This is just playing with words. Faith and belief are synonyms:
BW>Yes, agreed
OK. Then one cannot have a belief based on faith. That was my point in
response to Cliff (Hamrick).
>SJ>The question we are discussing is not whether or not faith is "a
>>metaphysical form of knowing" but whether it is based on "evidence". The
>>above verse says it is based on "evidence".
BW>Yes, but metaphysical evidence, not physical evidence - dreams, visions,
>musings, philosophical diccussions. going back to the beginning
We were talking of *Cliff's* belief in a "some supernatural deity"
(presumably the Christian God). I don't know whether Cliff would agree
that the above are his sole basis for believing in God. But as for me, I came
to believe in God just by looking up at the night sky. I came from a
completely non-Christian background and did not become a Christian until
1-2 years later.
No doubt that "dreams, visions, musings, philosophical discussions" are all
part of the evidence for God. But that does not preclude "physical
evidence" as well.
The Christian faith might be unique among all religions in that it is based
(at least in part) on "physical evidence". That is why Bible-based Christians
have such a battle with naturalistic science over things like creation and the
Flood. If Christianity was 100% mystical like Eastern religions, then there
would be no problems.
The Apostles in their letters and preaching recorded in the book of Acts,
constantly pointed to the 'physical evidence" that Jesus had risen from the
dead, namely the empty tomb and the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw
Him.
The Apostle Paul even said in 1Cor 15:12-19 that if Christ has not actually
been physically raised from the dead, then the Christian *faith*, is false:
"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if
there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if
Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because
we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised
not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then
is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain;
ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we
are of all men most miserable."
>>>SJ>It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith".
>>>If Cliff has a "belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
BW>belief is based on metaphysical evidence (evidence not subject to
>scientific investigation)
Disagree that this is *totally* the case.
BW>As St Paul taught we won't need faith/belief in
>the next world for in the next world we will have knowledge. (now we see
>through a glass darkly)
This is a misunderstanding of Paul. What he is contrasting in 1Cor 13:9-12
is our *partial* knowledge now with our full knowledge "in the next
world":
"For we *know in part* and we prophesy in part, but when
perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I
talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see
but a poor reflection as in a mirror ["For now we see through a
glass, darkly" KJV]; then we shall see face to face. Now *I know in
part*; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
That is, what we know now is *true* but not *comprehensively* true.
BW>In the next world we will have hard exidence,
>clear sight.
No. Paul in the 1Cor 15:12-19 passage above refers to "hard evidence".
BW>So St Paul differentiates between physical knowing and
>metaphysical knowing.
No. "St Paul differentiates between" *partially* "knowing and"
*fully* "knowing".
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was, together with
his laissez-faire political creed, the bedrock of his thinking. It was this
belief, more than anything else, that led him to reject Christianity, long
before the great conflict of the eighteensixties Moreover, it was his belief in
natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice
versa." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social
Theory," [1966], Cambridge University Press: London, 1968, reprint,
pp.180-181)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most obvious contrasts between the darwinian view of the patterns
and the rates of evolution, and the evidence that has since been
documented by the fossil record.... Darwin used the only illustration in the
first edition of The Origin of Species to explain his hypothesis that the
patterns of evolution over hundreds of millions of generations were the
same as those at the level of populations and species. In fact, they are
clearly distinct in all taxonomic groups. Evolution at the level of
populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous
change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available
morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, largescale
evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the
taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking
features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of
lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which
basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the
many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual
divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct
adaptive types." (Carroll R.L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,"
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 26 2000 - 18:33:38 EDT