RE: MD On Faith

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 01:42:52 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Hi Chuck, All:

    > Platt:
    > "As Scott as pointed out several times, orthodox theology has evolved over
    > the years in light of new knowledge. But, it's faith in a spiritual
    > presence hasn't changed from the beginning. Similarly, science has evolved
    > in the light of new knowledge. But it's faith in naturalism hasn't changed
    > from the beginning. It will not allow an unmeasurable creative power, like
    > DQ, into it's explanations."
    > Chuck responds:
    > Platt, I know you're fond of dictionary definitions:
    > orĚthoĚdox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (˘rth-dks)
    > adj.
    > 1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith,
    > especially in religion.
    > 2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian
    > ecumenical creeds.
    > Orthodox
    > 3. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox
    > Church.
    > 4. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
    > 5. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an
    > orthodox view of world affairs.
    > n.
    > Is it possible for "orthodox theology" to evolve beyond being "orthodox?"
    > I mean, if it evolves, correct me if I'm wrong, it's no longer "orthodox,"
    > right?

    Yes, you're quite right. "Traditonal and established faith" as in
    definition 1. doesn't evolve in religion nor in science. I was taking a
    broader view and should have avoided using "orthodox." Thanks for
    correcting my error.

     The whole point of being orthodox is that it does not evolve! Once
    > it evolves, it becomes something else! That's why those people hang
    > together, they don't want to evolve. They want nothing to do with the
    > Dynamic!

    By "those people" I assume you are referring to orthodox (fundamentalist)
    religious sects. As you know, there are many believers in a spiritual
    being who don't belong in that category. It's a mistake to paint all such
    believers as crazy kooks as it is to paint all scientists as mad.
    > That is my problem with them! They are intrinsically in-group/out-group!
    > They shun science! They're all Indian ink wells and quills and no pencils!
    > Given the opportunity, they would bite the erasers off of science's
    > pencils!!!
    > Is it me?

    Your talking about a relatively few nuts among believers. I feel the same
    way as you about a few nuts among nonbelievers who would like to bring
    about a Utopian world based on their idea of what's good for everybody,
    and trying to make it happen at the point of a gun. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
    and Kim Chong-il come to mind.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 12 2004 - 02:00:14 BST