Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Hi Greg -- no, I didn't mean to cabin my epistemology with naturalism. What
I meant there was, what do the respective belief systems say about what God
is like, how does that square with the rest of the belief system, how does
it square with a rational conception of what God is like (vis-a-vis
something like Anselm's ontological argument), and how does it square with
what human intuition tells us God is like.

So, for example, Islam, at least most versions of it with which I'm
familiar, seems to present God as something of an arbitrary figure who lacks
the attributes of grace or mercy in any real measure. IMHO, the Christian
understanding of God as infinitely possessing grace and mercy as well as
holiness and justice is a more reasonable and "true" picture on the whole
than this Islamic view. Obviously, this doesn't "prove" Christianity or
"disprove" Islam, but to me, it's one piece in the puzzle of evaluating
differing worldviews.

On 5/29/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Please excuse this slight detour, but I just wanted to stay in touch and
> to contribute to a thread with such a wonderful title about Yak butter.
>
> David, I wonder when your language sometimes verges upon (or reverts to)
> naturalism, even while your beliefs express something beyond the purely
> natural realm?
>
> You wrote:
> "the coherency of each belief system and *the nature of* each belief
> system's view of man and God." (italics mine)
>
> Isn't this a naturalistic view? Why isn't 'the nature of' *anything*banished from a theist's POV? It just seems to me that we are sometimes
> putting God in a box with our language, more than with our heart's desire.
>
> It appears to me, David, that you are, as a legal scientist, much less
> prone to naturalistic thinking than most natural scientists. The natural law
> versus positive law tradition, however, might have its own contribution to
> make to the issue of what constitutes non-natural (parts of) knowledge. Laws
> may come from God, from societies, or from (universal) logic (et al.) -
> can't they?
>
> Please clarify if this isn't ('the nature of') what you meant.
>
> Thanks,
>
> G. Arago
>
> p.s. already I listened to Glenn's interview from the ASA 2005 meeting,
> and appreciated his honesty and frankness. It seems there are questions of
> linguistics, hermeneutics, and reflexivity that are prominent even in the
> lives of scientists (e.g. geo-physicists) who make their living striving
> towards 'objectivity.' There seems to be ample, fruitful conversational
> ground between natural scientists, social scientists, humanitarians and
> theologians after all the arguing about myths, facts and values finally
> subsides into professional and personal responsibility to truth.
>
> ------------------------------
> Share your photos with the people who matter at *Yahoo! Canada Photos*<http://photos.yahoo.ca/>
>
>
Received on Mon May 29 18:09:09 2006