Re: [asa] spong wrong

Murray,
Don't claim too much. Truth may be an absolute standard, as is knowledge,
but what humans grasp involves fallibility. There is a wise saying: It
ain't the things we don't know that gives us the most trouble, but the
things we know for sure that ain't so.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:38:14 +1000 Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
writes:
> Hi George,
>
> A bit enigmatic is Spong - as you point out sometimes he says
> something
> worthwhile, but then again...
>
> Personally, I put him in the category of people who ask the right
> questions, but give the wrong answers!
>
> On the posted quotation, I would have said it falls for the typical
>
> subjectivist nonsense of claiming all truths are relative except, of
>
> course, for the truth that all truths are relative. In particular,
> it
> seemed to me to be rather absolute in intent, despite its decrial of
>
> absolute statements. That said, I'm not sure HOW one is to assert
> anything if one holds to absolute relativity in respects of
> propositional claims - but that's really Spong's problem rather than
> mine.
>
> But such trite observations aside, whatever gave Spong the idea that
> the
> contingency of the physical universe implies anything about human
> knowing? This is, isn't it, precisely the claim being made? One sees
>
> this a very great deal; "space-time is relative, therefore all human
>
> predication is relative". Apart from the rather slender grasp of
> relativity shown in the predicate, the conclusion hardly seems to
> follow
> by weight of logical necessity!
>
> The problem to me is that relativists of Spong's sort WANT to allow
> room
> for the obvious fact that very often propositional claims prove to
> be
> wrong. Problem is they do so by denying that propositional claims
> may
> sometimes be right, and that some propositional claims can be more
> right
> than others (e.g. "George W. Bush is from New Mexico" vs "George W
> Bush
> is from Greenland") OR that propositional claims need not be
> absolute in
> any case (e.g. "George W. Bush is pretty powerful"). By failing to
> allow
> that the truth content of propositions isn't binary (i.e. either
> 100%
> "right" or 100% "wrong") Spong et al simply land themselves in a
> philosophical muddle. A bit paradoxically, I think it's because
> Spong
> actually DOESN'T respect limitations in human knowing that he ends
> up
> saying such silly things.
>
> As for Spong in faith-science dialogue? Never mind that he
> misunderstands the theories of science, from the quotation cited
> (and
> from what I know of him from elsewhere) I should have thought that
> he
> has scant grasp of the attitude and method of the sciences. In
> particular, he seems to regard scientific theories to be pretty
> absolute
> - otherwise why appeal to them as a basis for the sort of claims he
>
> wishes to make? Like many theologians, Spong takes scientific truth
>
> claims a whole lot more seriously than scientists themselves do!
>
> Incidentally, sorry I never got back to you on your very good
> remarks
> about Barth. I would have liked to have engaged on that particular
> subject but, unfortunately, I haven't read much of him. Just last
> week,
> however, I picked up the full set of the Church Dogmatics, so it
> looks
> like I'm going to remedy my ignorance (or perhaps compound it
> <smile>).
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>
>
> George Murphy wrote:
> > Many on this list will have heard of former Episcopal bishop John
> Spong
> > but perhaps have never read anything of his. (I say "former"
> because
> > although he is still in traditional Anglican understanding a
> bishop, he
> > has not only retired but has said - if I understand him correctly
> - that
> > he will no longer function as a bishop.) I get his email
> newsletter,
> > which occasionally has something to worthwhile to offer & more
> often
> > doesn't, but in any case is a window on ultra-liberal religious
> > thought. Spong thinks he knows something about science & I'm told
> at
> > one time hoped to head the Episcopal science-theology effort. The
>
> > following is from his most recent newsletter.
> >
> > "Since human beings are creatures of both time and space, and
> since we
> > know from the work of Albert Einstein that time and space are
> relative
> > categories that expand and contract in relation to each other,
> then we
> > must conclude that any statement made by anyone, who is bound by
> time
> > and space, will never be absolute. There are no propositional
> > statements, secular or religious, that are exempt from this
> principle."
> >
> > To which one need only reply, "The speed of light in vacuum is the
> same
> > in all inertial frames."
> >
> > What Spong has done is to fall for the oldest relativity fallacy
> there
> > is, "Everything is relative."
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find old friends, lovers or family.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oCe4aACJYdQ75A7NmLqryK3R1w7jJ2XlagIncEjw6nSaH7v/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 6 23:17:03 2008