From: Mark Steven Heyman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 03:21:48 GMT
I'm still wrestling with Witt, but thought I might get back to you on
some other points.
On 29 Oct 2004 at 11:14, Sam Norton wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between 'empirical assessment' and
'scientific assessment' I think. A firefighter is presumably acting
on the basis of their training and so on - they're not taking a
'scientific' attitude. So it seems to me. Any views on that?
I thought we were talking about empirical assessment. If so, I can
think of counter examples from my own life. A few years ago I was
walking in a "bad" neighborhood well after dark. I passed an alley
entrance and heard someone moaning, then a barely audible whisper for
help. I could see what appeared to be a person collapsed in the
alley. Now, if Witt is right, I would have run to offer assistance,
no empirical assessment required. Instead, I looked and listened for
other activity around me and in the alley. I called out to the
figure to see If I could get a response and thus more information.
Only after I convinced myself that no one else was around, and that
the person who appeared to be in need of help was what he appeared to
be, did I enter the alley.
But even if you want to say scientific assessment, I think the
Emergency Medical Techs in an ambulance, and certainly the doctors
and nurses in the emergency room, rely heavily on scientific
assessment before drawing conclusions about a patient's condition.
So I'm not sure I agree that we regular make "faithful" leaps to
certainty, about anything.
> msh asked:
> So how do miracles differ from myths?
As episode to story? I think there is a clear overlap between them.
The trouble comes when 'myth' is taken to mean 'not factually true'
as I think there is an irreducible factual claim at the heart of
Christianity, ie that certain things did happen, most importantly the
resurrection, however we are to understand that (this is where DMB
and I differ most I think. I think he would say that Christianity
doesn't necessarily involve such a factual claim).
I think that myths may or may not be historically or, as you say,
factually true, but that the factual "truth" is not important anyway.
If it turned out that the historical Jesus Christ was not, in fact,
resurrected, if you could go back in time and see for yourself that
the tomb was not empty, and the body was starting to stink, would
this undermine your faith as a Christian? Would you be unable to
continue your work as a priest? I'd be surprised if you answered yes
to either question.
> msh said:
> It's quite clear that religion, as it is taught in the trenches, is
far, far removed from the lofty thoughts of Hauerwas or Brueggemann.
So it's easy to understand why people who want to think about
religion are driven away at an early age. Why would the brass up at
the holy end of the bureaucracy permit such a state of affairs,
unless they really do want to discourage thinking?
When you talk about how religion is 'taught in the trenches', what
specifically are you referring to?
The only thing I can refer to with any authority is my own experience
being raised a catholic, in the 60's, in southeast Los Angeles, USA.
Mass every Sunday, Catechism every Saturday. I became interested in
science, especially earth science, at an early age, so it was pretty
clear to me by the age of 8 that the earth was billions of years old,
and that we humans were nearly invisibly insignificant in its
history. This was in direct conflict with what I was being taught on
Saturdays. My obvious questions could have been answered with "Well,
of course the earth is billions of years old; of course human beings
arrived on the scene only a few relative seconds ago. The stories we
study here are myths pointing to a larger truth." The answer I got
was "Science is wrong, so stop making trouble."
This happened not only to me, but to three cousins on my mom's side
who were a year or three older. All of us went on to become
geologists, though they stuck with it after college while I turned my
attention to other things. So you have four boys, all of above
average intelligence, who were in no uncertain terms invited to do
their critical thinking elsewhere. So the question remains: "Why
would the brass up at the holy end of the bureaucracy permit such a
state of affairs, unless they really do want to discourage thinking?"
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 03:35:59 GMT