"Observants" OT

James Wynn · 20 Apr 2006, 17:15 · from 2006-April.txt.gz
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: thewynns at earthlink.net (James Wynn)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:15:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: (urth) "Observants" OT
Message-ID: <4023691.1145553344164.JavaMail.root at elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Dan'l said:
>There is an alternative approach: I believe in Revealed Truth.
>I also believe in Observable Facts.
>When they seem to be in conflict, it means that I have
>misunderstood one or both of them; and this is where Reason
>complements Faith. Faith will not allow me to discard a Revealed
>Truth because it is inconvenient or incompatible with Observable
>Fact; Reason will not allow me to discard an Observable Fact
>because it is inconvenient or incompatible with Revealed Truth.

I think you have described here the "observant" position on Reason
and Faith very well here. My point is that "seculars" would not be at all
be surprised to find Revealed Truth and Observable Facts in conflict.
In fact, for them "Faith" does not truly begin until they *are* in conflict.

>To maintain integrity, I have to understand both in such a way that
>I reject neither, and yet resolve _apparent_ contradictions.
>It isn't always easy. In fact, I suspect that the difficulties it
>presents are one reason why so many people _do_ take refuge
>in Fundamentalism, Literalism, etc.

And I am asserting that the fundamentalists, the literalists, do the
same thing you are doing. They have merely set a more difficult
task for themselves.

>Seven-day creationists do _not_ value faith and reason equally; they
>insist that reason must be the handmaid of faith, and that all
>Observable Facts must be interpreted to align with (their version of)
>Revealed Truth.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree with you about this and remind 
you that they have an important model in this in the letters of Paul:
"Let God be true and every man a liar." Romans 3:4
However, in my agreement I will stipulate that in my experience
they do not believe little handmaid Observable Facts will ever go
her own way. They affirm that she will always continue to
hold the hand of her mistress. If she is undeniably not there, they
contend, then neither is Revealed Truth. You are looking at
something besides Revealed Truth. 

Practically, your position and theirs are indistinguishable.

>It seems to me that your use of the term "observants" is ... well,
>a little narrow. 

It is intended to be narrow. I'm using the term technically,
not conventionally. I'll accept a better term if you have one.
The term "seculars" is equally narrow.

My point is to stipulate the division between
people who believe that Faith is "real" (in the ordinary sense)
and can be articulated and those who see it as free-floating metaphor.

>It is possible both to be an observant Christian and
>to subscribe to the findings of modern evolutionary biology (including
>its psychological implications).

I don't deny that it is possible...easy really...to be an observant (as
I am using the term in this thread), and to believe in evolution.
Looking back on it, after the fact, I chose seven-day Creationists as an
archetype for at least two reasons. 

1) I figured that seven-day Creationists would be the *least*
represented on this list, and therefore I could eliminate as many voices
as possible saying that I had mischaracterized their beliefs.

2) I figured that that position was the *most* based on Faith while
simultaneously *least* based on Reason (as Chris providing the 
conventional definition: "a combination of reason with certain everyday
empirical assumptions/premises that we need to get by in our
everyday lives"). Just as pure secular materialists (ala Richard Dawkins)
would represent the other extreme. I never intended to rob from you
the honest appellation of "observant Christian". There are lots of ways
"observe" one's Faith and lots ways to think about it while one observes it.

Yet, I suspect a your justification for being a believing Christian
while subscribing to the psychological implications of evolutionary biology
would make interesting reading.

Once again, the dividing line is whether one believes matters of Faith
are "real" or metaphors. And whether they can or ought to be
critically examined at all.

>The Catholic church, a while back, declared that -- though it is not
>heretical to believe in literal 7-day creation -- it _is_ heretical to
>_insist_ upon it, because it attempts to put limitations on God's
>options in _how_ He chose to create the universe.

I've heard this before, and while I'm not familiar with the details
of this encyclical, it seems to me that Seven-day Creationists have
a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. After 1900 years of teaching
Seven-day Creationism, it is now suggesting that there is something
a devilish about believing it strongly or arguing for it with vigor.
This, despite the extensive and famously contentious list of things
taught in encyclicals and the Catechism that a Christian *must* or
*ought to* strongly believe and affirm.

>But "science" -- as opposed to _scientists_,
>who are as human as you, me, and Chris -- in its proper form
>_always_ doubts its theories.

Yes, and "true religion" is always humble and turns the other cheek.
This is why I'm uncomfortable with speaking as though "science" is
the sole, exclusive tool of seculars and reason while "religion" is the
domain of observants and faith, as some tend to do.

As for your Feyman example, I'm afraid he is beside the point. I'm sure
I could find plenty of similar qualifications by evangelists interpreting
the book of Revelation. But in matters of both Science and Religion,
there are inevitably underlying unverifiable presumptions which the
individual practitioners find they cannot relinquish.  

>I'm also something of a Nietszche fan...He was hugely influenced by
>the arrogance of the Victorian scientific establishment,
>and particularly their tendency to think they'd done away with God.

I'm hardly a *fan*, but I allowed Friedrich his best shot on my world-view.

Today, I think the issue is not whether we have killed God so much as
whether we have rendered Him unable to say anything meaningful nor
to lay any solid claim on our existance.
We've not excised him from our bodies, we've only rendered him a
benign logical appendix.

In this way, the Victorian sentiment is hardly out-moded, Hubble's Big
Bang theory suddenly and surprisingly put God back in center stage,
and it has ever since made secular theoritical physicists extremely
uncomfortable as Stephen Hawkings noted in his famous book.
Hawkings was not the first or last to devise theories with the
deliberate purpose of removing "In The Beginning" as an
implication of Hubble's theories.

J
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net