--- Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com> wrote:
(SNIP)
> But, the point which I have often gained much
> opprobrium for daring to
> suggest that there must be at least some grain of
> truth rather than being
> made up out of whole cloth. And in order to do
> that, one must have some
> historical scenario, which works, to go along with
> the concept.
I know we don't disagree here, as far as you have
stated it. I think there is a slight disagreement as
to 1) the degree to which this must be the case in the
sense that (a) not all parts of a document have to be
literally true -- although if there is evidence that
they may be so much the better; and (b) valid faith is
not predicated on someone's view or interpretation of
of that historicity being accepted.
>
> >(SNIP)
> But even martyrdom doesn't prove much as we are
> witnessing today people in
> the Middle East give their lives for what they
> believe to be a just and holy
> cause. We seriously disagree that they are involved
> in a holy cause, but
> our belief is just that as is teres.
Yes, but martyrdom is not equal. As I said before, in
part (there are lots of other reasons), I believe in
Christ because he showed a way that is in some
important ways, in my opinion, counter to the way that
we are naturally inclined to look at the world.
Particularly, the radicalness of his other centered
love, even unto death on the Cross.
The lives of the apostles in the Church, are not
stories of conquest and triumphal fighting to conquer
pagans and heathens. Like their Lord, there example
is love unto death and a refusal to be alloyed to the
institutions of power to compel and coerce belief.
(This of course changed, many would argue for the
worse and to the detriment of Western christendom,
upon Constantine's conversion). This is the opposite
of recent martyrdom examples which are about a
conquering God smiting infidels. That is not Jesus'
message and I find the message of Jesus more
compelling because of it. So, you have to
differentiate between types of martyrdom. Neither is
the example of the apostles a flamboyant
self-abnegation, such as someone immolating
themselves. Indeed, the early Church went to great
pains that that sort of suicide -- forcing the
authorities to martyr you, was not martyrdom.
Thus, even here, you can see -- only within the
tradition -- the fruit of the Holy Spirit working
within the Church in a way that helps transform and
conform at least some of its adherents to the example
of their Lord.
(SNIP)
> Even if one doesn't have a prescription for
> the truth of ALL
> statements, one does have a prescription for
> empirically false statements. A
> statement directly contradicted by observational
> data is false.
I agree. However, we both have to realize the number
of statements that can be tested empirically are
comparatively small to the statements and beliefs we
hold about our normal daily lives.
Also, I would qualify that empiricism also only has
such success not only because of its narrow focus and
limits but also because there is a practical outcome
that is not present in most important questions. It
doesn't matter if Newton's laws of physics are not the
true laws of physics, if they are close enough for our
purposes.
> Because of this, I don't see empiricism as being so
> much on thin ice as you
> paint it.
Within the ambit of what is empirically testable,
sure. But I question how many things that are
personally important are empirically testable.
Likewise, the only way that empiricism succeeds is
through the belief that once we ascertain that grass
isn't fire engine red, that will always hold true.
Inductive logic has limits and it is only be not
realizing that can you rule out "miracles" or say that
because we know something about how the laws of
physics work that that means God has nothing to do in
the world.
> So what if I can't prove every true
> statement? Goedel proved that
> was impossible with axiomatic systems. The inability
> to do that doesn't give
> us free rein to travel in any direction ignoring the
> parts of empiricism
> which do work.
I have never suggested this. Empiricism works within
its ambit. What it does not do is give you a reason
to believe that empiricism alone is the only way of
knowing. Indeed, empiricism gone amok leads to
contradictory statements by folks like Russell,
Dawkins and Wegner that there is no such thing as
freewill, it is illusory. If we are nothing more than
biochemistry, we have no reason to believe that our
empiricism is getting at reality. Folks from CS Lewis
on the philosophical side to JBS Haldane on the side
of (apparently non-theistic) biological science have
pointed this out. I can be an empiricist in science,
because I am a Christian theist, and have an
ontological and epistemological view of the world that
explains not only my scientific results, but my
ability to correctly get to those results by examining
an objective reality. Empiricism alone can't show
that we are getting at reality nor that reality exists
objectively.
> >
> >How is whether Genesis is historically accurate any
> >help vis-a-vis the resurrection and Christian
> faith?
>
> As I have said before, If God isn't the creator,
> then he isn't the saviour.
> Only the creator has the power to save us.
The historical truth of Genesis as it may be
determined or checked by us, however, is not the only
evidence that God is the creator. Nor would the
falsity of Genesis prove that God, even the God of
which the Hebrews spoke of in Genesis.
(SNIP)
> Agreed, but surely you are aware of the large number
> of people who have left
> the faith because of the perceived lack of
> historicity. I would contend we
> must do something to address that issue.
I agree. By the same token and I dont think there is
disagreement here, Jan pointed out that lots of people
are in a crisis of faith because one particular
interpretation of Genesis is foisted upon them by
people in the Church.
As often is the case, the balance lies in between.
There are several ways to deal with that issue.
Hume's journey is, I think, the journey that most
people of faith have to pursue. We have a problem in
several regards with that. We never really know how
good the state of our knowledge is. Hume could come
to all sorts of erroneous conclusions based on the
understanding of the time. Many philosophs of the
Englightenment were firm believers in spontaneous
generation of life which was taken as evidence of no
need for God. They were wrong about spontaneous
generation. Our knowledge is always uncertain. I
agree about the concern of seeing what we want to see,
but even as Hume said, you cannot continue to be a
skeptic in your every day life.
I don't believe empiricism alone can recommend one
religion over another. It can only give us greater or
lesser reasons to be skeptical of its claims.
I think you give the draw of love less credit than
perhaps it is due. Tentatively, I will assert that
the proof of religion, such as it is, is the degree to
which it transforms its adherents.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 12:23:16 EDT