RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: J Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 11:19:37 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Was the Incarnation necessary?"

    Glenn muttered, as he set off to work on July 4th: "It is this wide range of
    claims in philosophy which made me decide that philosophy wasn't for me.
    There is no grounding of truth, just assumptions
    followed by logical consistency. Now, you are correct that science has the
    advantage of having a judge for the divergent claims--observation and no
    such mechanism applies to theology. And that is in large part my point. The
    only way we have to judge the theological claims which come into our mind,
    or come to us in a vision is by the means of science."

    I find this a strange claim. I read, for instance, the words Pascal wrote
    about his epiphany -- no "science" can possibly apply. The same applies to
    those epiphainies of mine -- not anywhere as vivid as Pascal's, but to deny
    them I must deny my history. And "science" has 0 to say about them.

    Glenn continues:"Look at all the divergent, mutually exclusive religious
    claims today. All claim to be the word of some god. How does one go about
    the job of determining which theology is the true theology? We simply can't
    decide that the religous claims of our parents are correct because all the
    adherents of the other religions have parents who told them that their
    religion was the correct
    one. Simply put, without some attachment to scientific observation, the
    veracity of religious claims are as adrift from verification as are the
    claims of Locke Berkely, Spinoza, Ficte, etc. And that turns theology into
    a game of what claims do I like the best rather than what claims are true!"

    The process of discovery which the preceding demands is one which has
    occupied this person for about 40 years now. I do not think it will stop
    until I draw my last breath. But "scientific observations" simply appear to
    be irrelevant to the quest, except to keep me from some of the sillier
    theologies such as that of ICR and Ken Ham.

    Three things I'm fairly sure of by now in my own quest:

    1. "God" is not God's name. It is just the collection of marks and noise
    that we use to describe, inadaquately, to the mystery that lies without --
    and also within.

    2. My eternal destiny will be determined to a large degree by the amount of
    compassion and solidarity I have displayed during my stay here on earth with
    the oppressed. In the end, I will be judged in terms of love. This is NOT a
    "salvation statement," and in no way is meant to denigrate the grace of God.

    3. I have been greatly blessed by at least two epiphanies, one abrupt, one
    over a period of time. The second is on my web site. I have never written
    down the first, yet it is vivid and compelling to my mind even as I type.

    Glenn concludes by writing: "In short, if God did what you say, he left us
    with no way to determine the truth."

    If by this you mean "scientifically," or "by measurements," I agree. But
    there are other ways of approaching (better -- apprehending) Him.

    Hoss (aka Burgy)

    http://www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 13:03:57 EDT