{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4572",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 4572,
    "subject": "\"Observants\"",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2006-04-19T20:30:27+00:00",
    "last": "2006-04-19T20:39:47+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<1f7617370604191330l7d4b4f1s5261b68283d0898a@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "danldo at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2006-04-19T20:30:27+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) \"Observants\"",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "James,\n\nIt seems to me that your use of the term \"observants\" is ... well,\na little narrow. It is possible both to be an observant Christian and\nto subscribe to the findings of modern evolutionary biology (including\nits psychological implications).\n\nI consider myself an observant Christian. (Sp: an adult convert to\nthe Church of Rome.) But I have no argument with any of the\n_scientific_ observations of Richard Dawkins, et al.; in fact, I read\nenough in the subject that I feel well-enough informed to \"take\nsides\" (preferring Dawkins' interpretations, in general, to those of\nthe late Stephen Jay Gould).\n\nThe Catholic church, a while back, declared that -- though it is not\nheretical to believe in literal 7-day creation -- it _is_ heretical to\n_insist_ upon it, because it attempts to put limitations on God's\noptions in _how_ He chose to create the universe."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Yes, Faith is one place to start from...but I said: to observants all such\nsources of first principles are matters of Faith of one sect or another."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "For any position, your first principles are taken on faith. Ultimately,\nyou come down to unprovable assumptions, if they are only things\nlike \"I exist\" and \"the data my senses feed me are reliable within\ncertain limits.\""
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "My point is that observants (as I'll persist in calling them although I\nrealize many secular-minded people attend church regularly and many\nwho do not attend still believe in revealed Truth) believe Faith and Reason\nwill *validate*, not merely complement, each other...that they both exist\nequally in the *objective* world, as do \"means and motive\" to\ncriminal investigator. Their Faith IS a continuous intellectual\nendeavor."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "We part company here.\n\nSeven-day creationists do _not_ value faith and reason equally; they\ninsist that reason must be the handmaid of faith, and that all\nObservable Facts must be interpreted to align with (their version of)\nRevealed Truth.\n\nThis is why I describe your use of the word \"observants\" as \"narrow.\"\nIt seems to me that by \"observant\" you mean only those who treat\nfaith and reason in this manner.\n\nThere is an alternative approach: I believe in Revealed Truth.\n\nI also believe in Observable Facts.\n\nWhen they seem to be in conflict, it means that I have\nmisunderstood one or both of them; and this is where Reason\ncomplements Faith. Faith will not allow me to discard a Revealed\nTruth because it is inconvenient or incompatible with Observable\nFact; Reason will not allow me to discard an Observable Fact\nbecause it is inconvenient or incompatible with Revealed Truth.\n\nTo maintain integrity, I have to understand both in such a way that\nI reject neither, and yet resolve _apparent_ contradictions.\n\nIt isn't always easy. In fact, I suspect that the difficulties it\npresents are one reason why so many people _do_ take refuge\nin Fundamentalism, Literalism, etc."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Heh, heh, heh. I've heard many secular scientists *remind* us that\nscience does not ascribe absolute truth to its theories...but only when\ncomparing it favorably to religion. As a voracious reader of popular\nscientific literature, I am pretty certain that that caveat is not\nmentioned otherwise."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'd start by having a look at Feynman's lovely little book QED. Feynman\ndescribes _exactly_ the evidence that makes QED the best-supported\ntheory (at that time) in the history of science ... and goes on to add that\nthe next decimal place of observational detail _could_ derail it.\n\nNot bad for a guy who won a Nobel for that particular theory.\n\nThis isn't to say that many scientists aren't arrogant (I've certainly\npicked over that ground before, esp. as regards the Dawkinsite\n\"bright\" business). But \"science\" -- as opposed to _scientists_,\nwho are as human as you, me, and Chris -- in its proper form\n_always_ doubts its theories.\n\nThat's what experiments are _for_: trying to find conditions for\nwhich the current best theory is insufficient."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I've yet to read an article by a scientist (I might have missed it) in which\nany consideration is given to the fact that scientists themselves (the\nfields they study, the conclusions they draw, and the overall scientific\nconsensus at any given time) are as subject to environmental pressures\nand natural selection as the colors on a butterflies wings."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "As such: nor do I. But what I do see a fair amount is \"more experiments\nwill be needed to establish this.\" This is very much an appeal to the\necosystem (fund more experiments!) -- but also an acknowledgement\nthat the study _is_ limited in scope by, yes, the conditions of the\nscientific ecosystem: if only the finite capacity of a given niche's\ninhabitant to \"complete\" a study of a subject."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "[B]oth name Neitzche as the one who irretreivably stripped human\nunderstanding of its pretenses. Schaeffer said he \"crossed the line of\ndespair\"."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'm also something of a Nietszche fan.\n\nNietszche was very much \"of his time.\" He was hugely influenced by\nthe arrogance of the Victorian scientific establishment, and particularly\ntheir tendency to think they'd done away with God.\n\nNietszche _wanted_ there to be a God. But -- in the light of the work\nof Darwin and Kelvin and many others -- he _couldn't_ believe, at least\nnot in the Christian sense.\n\nHe spent his later active years raging against God for the sin of not\nexisting.\n\n(Read the passage in _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ -- slightly modified,\nit was also the end of _The Gay Science_ -- in which Nietzsche\nannounced the \"Death of God.\" It's fascinating, because the part\nnobody quotes very much is that \"we ourselves have committed this\nmonstrous crime.\" This puts a whole different spin on it--)\n\n--Dan'l"
        },
        {
          "kind": "sig",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n                        -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<20060419203947.1555.qmail@web54406.mail.yahoo.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Nathan Spears",
        "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com"
      },
      "date": "2006-04-19T20:39:47+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth)  The Torturer's Apprentice",
      "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604191330l7d4b4f1s5261b68283d0898a@mail.gmail.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060007451/sr=8-1/qid=1145478824/ref=sr_1_1/102-7129126-3506518?%5Fencoding=UTF8\n\nI saw this in a bookstore today but didn't have time to read all of it.  Has anyone\nelse read this story?  It was set in a historical context, between the Inquisition\nand the witch hunts, and seemed to touch very quickly and obviously (though not\npoorly) on themes that permeated Shadow of the Torturer.  At least in the five or\nsix pages I read.\n\nNate"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:\nJames,\n\nIt seems to me that your use of the term \"observants\" is ... well,\na little narrow. It is possible both to be an observant Christian and\nto subscribe to the findings of modern evolutionary biology (including\nits psychological implications).\n\nI consider myself an observant Christian. (Sp: an adult convert to\nthe Church of Rome.) But I have no argument with any of the\n_scientific_ observations of Richard Dawkins, et al.; in fact, I read\nenough in the subject that I feel well-enough informed to \"take\nsides\" (preferring Dawkins' interpretations, in general, to those of\nthe late Stephen Jay Gould).\n\nThe Catholic church, a while back, declared that -- though it is not\nheretical to believe in literal 7-day creation -- it _is_ heretical to\n_insist_ upon it, because it attempts to put limitations on God's\noptions in _how_ He chose to create the universe."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Yes, Faith is one place to start from...but I said: to observants all such\nsources of first principles are matters of Faith of one sect or another."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "For any position, your first principles are taken on faith. Ultimately,\nyou come down to unprovable assumptions, if they are only things\nlike \"I exist\" and \"the data my senses feed me are reliable within\ncertain limits.\""
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "My point is that observants (as I'll persist in calling them although I\nrealize many secular-minded people attend church regularly and many\nwho do not attend still believe in revealed Truth) believe Faith and Reason\nwill *validate*, not merely complement, each other...that they both exist\nequally in the *objective* world, as do \"means and motive\" to\ncriminal investigator. Their Faith IS a continuous intellectual\nendeavor."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "We part company here.\n\nSeven-day creationists do _not_ value faith and reason equally; they\ninsist that reason must be the handmaid of faith, and that all\nObservable Facts must be interpreted to align with (their version of)\nRevealed Truth.\n\nThis is why I describe your use of the word \"observants\" as \"narrow.\"\nIt seems to me that by \"observant\" you mean only those who treat\nfaith and reason in this manner.\n\nThere is an alternative approach: I believe in Revealed Truth.\n\nI also believe in Observable Facts.\n\nWhen they seem to be in conflict, it means that I have\nmisunderstood one or both of them; and this is where Reason\ncomplements Faith. Faith will not allow me to discard a Revealed\nTruth because it is inconvenient or incompatible with Observable\nFact; Reason will not allow me to discard an Observable Fact\nbecause it is inconvenient or incompatible with Revealed Truth.\n\nTo maintain integrity, I have to understand both in such a way that\nI reject neither, and yet resolve _apparent_ contradictions.\n\nIt isn't always easy. In fact, I suspect that the difficulties it\npresents are one reason why so many people _do_ take refuge\nin Fundamentalism, Literalism, etc."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Heh, heh, heh. I've heard many secular scientists *remind* us that\nscience does not ascribe absolute truth to its theories...but only when\ncomparing it favorably to religion. As a voracious reader of popular\nscientific literature, I am pretty certain that that caveat is not\nmentioned otherwise."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I'd start by having a look at Feynman's lovely little book QED. Feynman\ndescribes _exactly_ the evidence that makes QED the best-supported\ntheory (at that time) in the history of science ... and goes on to add that\nthe next decimal place of observational detail _could_ derail it.\n\nNot bad for a guy who won a Nobel for that particular theory.\n\nThis isn't to say that many scientists aren't arrogant (I've certainly\npicked over that ground before, esp. as regards the Dawkinsite\n\"bright\" business). But \"science\" -- as opposed to _scientists_,\nwho are as human as you, me, and Chris -- in its proper form\n_always_ doubts its theories.\n\nThat's what experiments are _for_: trying to find conditions for\nwhich the current best theory is insufficient."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "I've yet to read an article by a scientist (I might have missed it) in which\nany consideration is given to the fact that scientists themselves (the\nfields they study, the conclusions they draw, and the overall scientific\nconsensus at any given time) are as subject to environmental pressures\nand natural selection as the colors on a butterflies wings."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "As such: nor do I. But what I do see a fair amount is \"more experiments\nwill be needed to establish this.\" This is very much an appeal to the\necosystem (fund more experiments!) -- but also an acknowledgement\nthat the study _is_ limited in scope by, yes, the conditions of the\nscientific ecosystem: if only the finite capacity of a given niche's\ninhabitant to \"complete\" a study of a subject."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "[B]oth name Neitzche as the one who irretreivably stripped human\nunderstanding of its pretenses. Schaeffer said he \"crossed the line of\ndespair\"."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I'm also something of a Nietszche fan.\n\nNietszche was very much \"of his time.\" He was hugely influenced by\nthe arrogance of the Victorian scientific establishment, and particularly\ntheir tendency to think they'd done away with God.\n\nNietszche _wanted_ there to be a God. But -- in the light of the work\nof Darwin and Kelvin and many others -- he _couldn't_ believe, at least\nnot in the Christian sense.\n\nHe spent his later active years raging against God for the sin of not\nexisting.\n\n(Read the passage in _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ -- slightly modified,\nit was also the end of _The Gay Science_ -- in which Nietzsche\nannounced the \"Death of God.\" It's fascinating, because the part\nnobody quotes very much is that \"we ourselves have committed this\nmonstrous crime.\" This puts a whole different spin on it--)\n\n--Dan'l\n\n--\nI do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n                        -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n_______________________________________________"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}