Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

I see several problems with the Great Green Slug hypo.

First, the hypo seems to bear no relationship to any real-world situation.
I doubt it's possible to claim that *any* religion has "no support
whatsoever scientifically or observationally." Certainly all the major
world religions say some things about life and human nature that in some
ways ring true. And Christianity in particular in many ways is grounded in
good history (at least from the time of the later history of Israel on) and
resonates with human experience. The more realistic hypo would pose that *some
*aspects of the student's inherited religion lack scientific or
observational support. That in itself doesn't seem terribly problematic,
since no broad area of theory -- religious, philosophical, scientific, or
otherwise -- is 100% consonant with every observation or every other
plausible scientific theory. Unless (and even if) you want to resort to
Descartes' solipsism, there will always be ambiguities and inconsistencies
to deal with, no matter what you believe.

Second, the hypo provides no context about the Slug religion. We don't know
precisely what aspects of the religion are in conflict with the
observational and scientific data the student is learning at Harvard or how
important those aspects of the religion are to the coherence of Slug
theology as a whole. For example, we don't know precisely why the notion
that the Slug created the universe conflicts with any scientific or
observational data -- it may be that the Slug is an eternal spiritual being
who established the laws that guided evolution, removing any apparent
conflict.

Even more importantly, we don't know what sort of theology of inspiration
and interpretation the Slug religion possesses, or what historic
interpretive traditions exist concerning the Slug creation story. If we're
going to pronounce on the "legitimacy" of the student's harmonization of his
traditional faith with his Harvard education, we need to know what his faith
teaches about such efforts at harmonization. Is there a theology of general
revelation? Are the Slug scriptures considered "inerrant?" If so, what
does "inerrant" mean in the context of Slug theology? Do all Slug
theologians agree with the concept and definition of "inerrancy?" When was
the Slug scripture inscripturated and in from what sort of culture did the
Slug scriptures arise? Did the Slug purportedly reveal itself through human
beings, and if so, how does the Slug theology of inspiration and
interpretation account for phenomological language, cultural idioms, and
such? The Slug hypo as stated begs all these crucial questions.

Finally, the hypo begs critical questions about epistemology. What does it
mean for a religious claim to lack, or have, "support" "scientifically" or
"observationally?" What is the proper foundation for a knowledge claim, and
is a "foundation" for a knowledge claim even a proper metaphor? Why are the
student's religious views properly subject to and tested by "science" or
"observation?" If "science" or "observation" are proper ways to test some
kinds of religious claims, and some of a religion's claims fail such tests,
is the only "legitimate" conclusion that the entire religion is "false" and
must therefore be rejected in toto? Or are some religious claims properly
considered foundational, or at least co-equal with some empirical claims,
such that conflicts between the different types of claims "legitimately" can
be considered "apparent" and subject to future resolution by advances in the
scientific or observational data or advances in understanding of the
religious claims?

In short, it seems to me that the Slug hypo is a very weak criticism of
religious truth claims unless one assumes an artificially constricted view
of religion and a positivist epistemology. This is not surprising, as the
Slug hypo is the sort of rhetorical device positivist atheists like Bertrand
Russell and Richard Dawkins have often used.

On 5/31/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> Michael, I don't think you entirely understand my point. But that aside.
> I would appreciate it if you would answer the question:
>
> If a believer in a primitive religion, who believed that the Great Green
> Slug created the world, grew up, went to Harvard and found out that his
> religion had no support whatsoever scientifically and observationally, and
> he then decided that God was accommodating his message for the sake of his
> primitive ancestors and thus, his theology was true, even if the
> observational part wasn't, could this guy validly do that?
>
> Why can you do it and not him? Please answer the question this time. I
> think I have asked this of you about 100 times but the last time you
> responded, you said the question was nonsense. I don't think it is, and I
> don't think others here think it is nonsense. It may be uncomfortable for
> you to face up to your epistemology, but it is also uncomfortable for the
> YEC to face his.
>
>
> *On Wed May 31 20:09 , "Michael Roberts" sent:
>
> *
>
> As yak butter sounds yukky I haven't yet responded.
>
> My one comment is to support Randy. I cannot see any real difference
> between
> your view of Genesis with the Flood so long ago than the awful
> anti-scriptural idea of ACCOMMODATION.
>
> Glenn, I now formally welcome you into the Accommodationalists'
> (metaphorical) camp on condition you do not eat my dog Holly
>
> Micahel.
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 31 21:16:56 2006